Ron Paul Receives ZERO(0) Delegates from Iowa

I know some think Ron Paul took 7 delegates. He took 0. These clown running DC are scared crapless of Paul becoming president. They are going to lie, cheat and steal to keep him out of the light no matter the cost. I consider this an outrage. The only thing the corrupt accomplished is to make me determined they don't pull that off locally in Illinois. I am sorry for those Iowan who's votes no longer count for anything!
***Twenty-five delegates were at stake in the caucuses. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas came in third in the voting but was shut out of delegates because he didn't win any of Iowa's four congressional districts.***

San Francisco Gate

Apparently Romney, Santorum, & Paul have 7 delegates each ? Perhaps someone can clarify.

The America voting system makes absolutely no logical sense to me and I can now understand why many people are dis-inclined to vote (besides the obvious reason that voting has no real bearing on results if the powers do not want it to.) the American system just boggles my mind... Not that Canada's is any better.

from the horses mouth.. www.dailypaul.com...

Even the MSM are giving him more credit than you:
www.cnn.com...

I know, I found it strange. Ron Paul only got 3% less than the two top candidates, Romney and Santorum. In all fairness, he is statistically tied.... maybe there's an explanation? I have been trying to find more information.

reply to post by TheSparrowSings


Its designed to that effect. The rules need to be applicable to the situation. Just another system of control to keep the list at the least 2 evils of choice. Bush won in 2000 because he had 279 votes more than Gore in florida. Forget that Gore had a half million more nationwide. Check out my other posts on last night. More info for the story.

Originally posted by BohemianBrim
from the horses mouth.. www.dailypaul.com...

I´m sorry but nowhere in that text does he mention how many delegates he got.

So what is it, 7 like some sources claim, 0 like the OP article claims?

Someone that can clear this up?

Delegate Allocation: None of Iowa's 28 delegates will be bound to any candidate as a result of the Jan. 3 precinct caucuses.

As in 2008, the state's delegates will be elected at district caucuses and at the state convention, which is scheduled for later in the year.

The January caucuses will elect delegates to the county conventions currently scheduled for March.

The results of the caucuses are non-binding on the delegates of Iowa.....so anything can happen in March.

This site explains it pretty well -

elections.nytimes.com...

Delegates aren't set in stone yet, things should start unraveling in March when the Iowa county conventions take place.

It isn't binding, but it's loud and clear for a statement. Decency and the appearance of fairness are of absolutely no concern to the Republican Party establishment it would seem. It's been decided Paul is a no body and simply won't be allowed a chair...not even one...at the table. Heck with what the people think...We just pay taxes after all. We have no say.


Voting IS worthwhile though. There are down ticket races from Congress to School Board. Many of those races DO count by vote and they often matter more in effects on daily life than the Presidency does.

RP was able to grab 7 delegates from what I understand, but he was also able to ensure his people stayed long enoung to get themselves voted into delegate positions.

He is smart enough to play the system and you may be surprised at what will occur.

Those goddamned progressive liberals!

reply to post by GoldenRuled


Paul got zero because ZERO national delegates were elected last night.
ZERO.
ZERO FOR ANYONE.

After the nonbinding straw poll that occurred last night there was a SECOND vote in each precinct for COUNTY DELEGATES.
That second vote was for those who STAYED for it (and Paul supporters stayed for it in disproportionate numbers relative to the other candidates and the nonbinding straw poll)

Again, ONLY COUNTY DELEGATES were elected last night.

Any numbers you see relative to national delegates are statistical extrapolations ONLY and/or projections based on the nonbinding strawpoll numbers.

The AP article is THEIR opinion- NOT FACT.
Though they do a damned good job of making it appear so...
and in my opinion, this kind of BS, so-called 'reporting', should be CRIMINAL.

The Associated Press is no different than the rest of the MSM- full of incompetent talking-head idiots who love the smell of their flatulence.
Don't forget that.

It was more like a straw poll was it not?