How Ron Paul Wins the Nomination: A break-down of delegates and a brokered convention

Thanks for keeping this post going and helping get the information in my article to more people.

For those responding to you...don't. I appreciate your participation in this thread as well, but none of this has to do with the topic of the thread.

Delegates, a brokered convention, activism...

Is the assessment that Paul is actually doing far better (maybe even second) in delegate legit?

Is a "brokered" convention a possibility? If so, is the strategy I laid out an effective one? Can we convince other delegates that Ron Paul has the best chance of beating Obama? Is my assessment that he is the best candidate valid? I tried to back it all up with numbers and facts.

Lastly, are my activism fundamentals sound? Can you (if you are a supporter) start doing that? If every supporter called their friends and family, did leg work to go door-to-door, attended political meetings and events, made phone calls, etc. Would we actually be able to just win the Nomination out right? There are obviously enough delegates left for Ron Paul to win, what are the chances of that?

Would a win in Washington this Saturday be enough to legitimize his campaign to people that only have "he'll never win, just face it" to say? Would he need to turn a WA win into multiple wins on Super Tuesday?

 

the only "inaction" was by the status quo republicans in congress who refused to act on bills that Paul introduced, and who refused to stop the growth of government.

yes, that is unforgivable, just like your support of big government corporatist whores.

 

I simply cannot comprehend a Conservative being anti-Ron Paul. Paul is the ONLY REAL CONSERVATIVE running. The others - Obama, Romney, and Santorum - are, at best, neoconservatives who work for the Council On Foreign Relations (learn more about the CFR at http://jbs.org).

Neocons are not REAL CONSERVATIVES, and NEVER have been. They're only "conservative" when it comes to two issues: 1) "Defense", i.e. USING the American military to take over every country that has something they want, and 2) "Free Enterprise", i.e. conning us into allowing them to take over every sector of the American economy they want to control.

And what's this red states bullsh-t? Red is the color of the dragon, otherwise known as the devil. It's the color of the "jewish" Rothschild family - the trashbags behind most of the world's economic, political, and societal problems (http://100777.com/protocols). Their name means Red Shield. And of course the color of communism. In short, the color of the Edomites. THE ESAU THAT GOD HATES!

Don't any of you read the Bible? God changed Esau's name to Edom (red) after Esau foolishly sold his birthright to his brother Jacob (later to become Israel) for a bowl of red stew.

90% of "jewry" today is descended from the Khazars, relatives of the Turks. I.E. DESCENDANTS OF EDOM! They converted to "judaism" simply because their king considered it the best option compared to Christianity or Islam. They were driven into Poland and Eastern Europe when Genghis Khan overran Eurasia.

You judeo-communists simply cannot resist giving yourselves away, can you?

 

I would have fired Paul for complete failure to produce 25 years ago, OR SOONER. Talk not only isn't cheap, its very expensive. And that is the total of Paul's career, TALK! And I agree with most of what he says. But I cannot agree with ZERO results of accurate talk. It just becomes NOISE when it produces NO result.

The brokered convention with Paul emerging is a pipe dream that not only will NOT happen, if it did it would insure an obama reelection.

You don't need to PLAY with numbers. In HIS party, Paul has steadily LOST support. Those are the true and accurate numbers. Not pipe dreams and wishful thinking. The reality is that Paul started with meager support and has gone downhill.

I'm not against Paul. I'm against obama. If there was ANY reasonable logical, intelligent way Paul had a chance, I'd back him. But there is not.

I have consistently said that if by some miracle Paul WAS the Republican Nominee, I would definitely vote for him. Without a second thought. Because I would expect great things from Paul?? NO, I would expect just more lack of accomplishment from Paul. I'd vote for him because he is not obama. And if that miracle happens and Paul is the Republican Nominee and I do vote for Paul,,,,,,,,,,,,obama is a lock for reelection.

No dreams, no hopes, no pie in the sky. Paul would lose. Why? Paul has the EASIEST record for liberals to attack. Paul has NOT been attacked in the primaries. obama's attacks on Paul would be new, fresh information. obama's attacks on all the other candidates, whichever one emerges, will be old, stale, junk, not news. It makes a difference. Everyone else is airing their dirty laundry in public now. Paul is being ignored. BECAUSE he is NOT a factor. In this election or any other presidential election.

Now you may HATE the way things ARE and wish they were different. Me too. But how things ARE is reality and it is reality that we must deal with when awake. Save the dreams for sleep.

 

Things Obama could attack Paul on...

1. Paul didn't vote for wasteless spending!!
2. Paul didn't vote to increase the debt ceiling!!
3. Paul thinks the addition of U.S. citizens into the detainee portion of the NDAA bill is outrageous!!

Shall I go on?? I think the point is there is very FEW things Obama could try to get Paul on and PLENTY of ammunition for Paul towards Obama...

 

You're trying to assign Paul pluses to obama. NONE will be considered or mentioned.

Don't forget to add that obama can TRUTHFULLY say that Paul spent 3 decades in Congress without accomplishing one single thing. How will that play with the politically ignorant that believe every word obama says?
obama can say, Paul never passed a good bill, never blocked a bad bill, in 3 decades of taking up space in Congress. Is that true?? Don't be silly. It true enough for obama with the collusion of the leftist media to get away with it. RIGHT? NO,,,,,,,,,,Reality, YES!

Can Paul attack obama's record? Well DUH! an earthworm could attack obama's record. But who would be the ARTICULATE one doing the attacking? NOT Paul. Should IMAGE be a major factor in a presidential election? HELL NO! But again reality bites you in the ass. Image IS important. obama is photogenic, articulate, young and energetic. Paul,,,,,,,isn't. Is Paul twice the American that obama is? No, Paul is 200 times the American that obama is. But he DOES NOT project it.
Paul has won elections in his slightly undersized Congressional district. Mostly against weak opponents. EVERY OTHER election process he has tried, he got trounced. Senator, trounced. President trounced and sent home. President again, trounced and sent home. President again, and being trounced in the polls and in the primaries.

Reality, deal with it. Paul is a good man that has no chance.

 

Are you aware you just called yourself politically ignorant?

 

I'm well aware of what I said and did not say. And now I'm also aware that your reading skills aren't.

 

You're another neo-conservative that doesn't understand what conservatism is. Ron Paul is the only candidate that could defeat PrezBO. Paul is the only candidate that is consistent in his beliefs... which are consistent with the beliefs of many of the US founders (you know, the guys that wrote and signed the DOI and Constitution). All the other candidates (and certainly the current President) show no signs of constitutional adherence.
You, like many neo-conservatives, seem to think military might and Christian dogma is what makes the US exceptional. You're wrong.

 

The issue is not what conservatism is or is not. Because I see the reality that Paul is a complete and total NON-FACTOR, I'm accused of being a bad person and a neo-con. I know what conservatism is and I doubt there is anyone on this forum any more conservative than me. But I also know that Paul is an unelectable also ran. He had no chance, and he has no chance. Each passing primary proves that over and over again. Of the 4,123,590 primary votes cast to date, Paul got 463,176. That's 11.2%. 88.8% went to his competitors. IT WILL NOT GET BETTER FOR PAUL SUPPORTERS. And in every primary so far, Paul has NOT beaten any other candidate in the groups that consider themselves conservative or very conservative. Nor has he beaten any other candidate in the groups that somewhat support the tea party or do support the tea party. He has consistently done best, never a majority, but done best in the 18 to 29 age group which comprises less than 10% of the voters.
This is not saying Paul is a good person or a bad person. Or Paul's ideas are good or bad. This is simply stating the obvious. He is getting beat badly and he is falling back, not improving. That is the reality, That is fact.
If Paul were the Republican candidate, I would vote for him,,,,,,,,,,KNOWING obama would cream him. But Paul won't be the Republican candidate. NOT because he is bad or wrong, but because he has NO SUPPORT.

 

Uh, ...........yes, it really is.

Now kindly crawl back into your big government, corporatist hole and enjoy what your country will become.

Thanks to you, and all the other political tools just like you, who treat politics as a sporting event, we will get another big government, corporatist, banking whore in the white house, no matter who wins.

 

than you must be stupid, as you vote for big government corporatists.
What do you do, vote, then cross your fingers and hope for the best ?

 

4. Paul was incredibly ineffective in Congress.
5. Paul is hypocritical about earmarks.
6. Paul is hypocritical about term limits.
7. Paul ran a racist newsletter.
8. Paul is supported by white supremicists.
9. Paul has an isolationist foreign policy.

Shall I go on? I think the point is there are PLENTY of things Obama could try to get Paul on and VERY LITTLE ammunition for Paul towards Obama.

 

Wow...you are grasping at straws bro....NONE of the things you mentioned have or could effect the country in a negative way...lol.

(It's nice to see in your response though that you are supporting Obama...at least now we know where you stand...)

 

It certainly would effect Paul in a negative manner. But it's nice to see that you're admitting that Paul is an isolationist.

Then you'd better have your eyes checked because I don't support Obama.

 

Please explain how any of the things you stated effect the country in a negative way...

After you are done trying to explain that, then explain how:

1. Talking and trading with other countries
2. Strengthen our nations defense
3. Going to war with a declaration of war after diplomacy resolutions have failed

would be considered "isolationism"

"and VERY LITTLE ammunition for Paul towards Obama"

Sounds to me like you support Obama saying there isn't much he has done to hurt the country...

 

We live in a global community, not the late 18th century.

Then you'd better have your hearing checked too because I've stated numerous times that I don't support Obama unless the impossible happens and Paul gains the Republican nomination.

 

You're right...although you completely failed in stating why the claims you made would effect the country in a negative way.

Hey...you're the one that said there is little ammunition to use against Obama...not me...

 

Oh for god's sake give your brain a chance. Paul wants to turn this country into the international equivalent of N. Korea.

Hey, you're the one who said I supported Obama. I never did.

 

Seriously...just stop posting. You replied to my post giving 6 things you THINK Obama could attack Paul on...when in reality nothing you stated has ANYTHING to do with effecting the country in a negative way. When questioned on it...you give no reason as to why....just stop. We understand you don't like Paul. You are just looking for a fight against his supporters.

I repeat...you said: "and VERY LITTLE ammunition for Paul towards Obama."

That right there says you find no problems with the past 3 years of our current POTUS.

 

No way. I intend to criticize Paul at every opportunity.

Right. Even though I've time and again stated that I don't support Obama I must support him because you say so. That makes about as much sense as Ron Paul.

 

And you also intend to avoid backing your arguments...it's not a surprise though...

Then why did you state there is little ammunition for Paul (or other candidates for that matter) to have against Obama?

 

No, you just give your support to the guy that will obey the same corporatist masters as Obama.

Yay ! You should feel good in November. Either way, their guy wins.

 

The most recent poll just put Paul over Obama in the general election by 2 points:

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/2012/02/28/poll-ron-paul-bests-obama-for-the-first-time-nationally/

I hate polls, but that is all an election is, a poll (thus; going to the polls, poll tax, etc.). At best it is a poll of a 50% sample even.

Paul can beat Obama because

1. He can win voters from Obama on the War issue, and drug War issue (which none of the other GOP candidates can do).
2. He can keep "libertarians" from voting for Gary Johnson (as the Libertarian Party Nominee).
3. He can bring in voters that might sit out the election.
4. He can keep the anti-Obama GOP voters (as you said, you'll vote for him if he is the nominee).
5. He can again, attack Obama on the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, TARP, etc. Things the other candidates cannot do.

Paul's only hurdle is winning the nomination. That is the real contest, that is where he needs help. He will do just fine in the general election, obviously, as you have pointed out, his problem is getting the Nomination.

If you like Paul help him win, the worst that will happen is that you'll get Romney as the candidate anyway (I'm assuming that is who you think has the best shot at Obama right?).

 

Please elaborate.

N. Korea blocks Internet access to its citizens...

Paul wants cut off the Internet for his citizens?

From what I've noticed Paul is the most vocal against Internet censorship/regulation. He was recently quoted to something in the manner of, "I don't know all the particulars about the Internet, but I like it, and I hope it becomes bigger than any country."

N. Korea blocks its citizens from leaving the country...

Paul wants to prevent his citizens from traveling?

From what I gathered he is against Sanctions, and wants us to travel more. He wants to open up travel to Cuba. He has stated that we are the best diplomats for the country. I agree. When I've traveled I've been able to cut through the media line that Americans are ignorant and greedy.

The Majority of Citizens in N. Korea are in the Military...

Paul wants to increase the size of the military?

From what I've seen it is the opposite. His budget decreases military spending, and emphasizes only on Defense.

N. Korea threatens its neighbors with Nuclear Strikes...

Paul wants to threaten the world with Nuclear Weapons?

From what I've heard he is actually on the opposite side of every other candidates. He doesn't want to threaten, or "keep on the table" nuclear first strikes.

Please elaborate how Paul wants to turn the U.S. into the "international equivalent of N. Korea."

Also, on your image: "18th Century Policies, 21st Century Country."

I think the biggest thing that disproves that Paul is stuck in the 18th Century is his view on defense capabilities. He talked about how we are able to hit nearly anywhere on the planet with a missile, we have drones, missile defense shields, etc...so why do we need troops on the ground? As he said, it is "antiquated military strategy."

Additionally, he wants to keep the Internet free (18th Century Technology?), and wants to end Oil Subsidies so that Renewable Energy can compete on the market.

He has also said the Constitution isn't perfect, just that it holds very important concepts.

Please elaborate more on "18th Century Policies, 21st Century Country"...what exactly do you mean?