Ron Paul is Winning! (Delegates Explained)

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I think a media blackout of ron Paul deserves some outsmarting??? If the other candidates were that smart then they would have done it too. look how bad the other guys suck man cmon...............

Paul has more wisdom and knowledge than all those other nominees combined. He knows how much the average American ACTUALLY cares about politics, so that when he did campaign, he would make his campaign WORTH IT. He didn't gain more supporters than all of the other candidates, instead, he gained a more DEDICATED voter backing.

In politics, it doesn't matter if 90% of the people vote for you. If those 90% don't give a rat's ass about the voting from the start, I think we know the other guy could get away with a win(exactly how Bush won the first time - most of the people who voted didn't give a crap about the voting anyways). This would have all those other nominees turning their heads going "How does he do that?!"

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Yes. Blame Ron Paul by playing the GOP Establishment's rules. The same GOP Establishment that is doing everything they can so he can't win. You act as if he came up with it. What's funny is that the GOP hates that he's playing by their rules and possibly winning. How is it fair to have the cards stacked against him? This is the only way for Dr. Paul's voice to be heard.

I think you're just upset now because all your bold "predictions" might blow up in your face. So you try to come up with, "Oh the peoples voices aren't being represented". Again....I agree it is a messed up way to get representation but it's all the good Doctor's got. I never seem to hear you talk about the MSM ignoring him. We're talking about the man who only had 89 seconds to speak at a Presidential Debate and you're trying to side with fairness? Give me a break.

The only thing anybody ever sees from you is....

"I can't wait to see all you Ron Paul supporters when he loses."
"He only has farther to fall because you all support him so much. Did I mention he's going to lose?"

What is it that drives you to sit in front of your computer with the sole purpose to aggravate people and always try to one up them? Its one thing to express your opinion but you are truly a professional troll. I know this is nothing new to you but you really need another hobby. To be honest I don't even know why I'm wasting my time telling you this because you seem to get some sort of sick arousal from it.

Alot of people are saying Paul is playing dirty by using this delegate system over the popular vote, yet thats what all of the candidates plan to do and its part of the election process, otherwise it would be illegal. Im sure the gingrich and santorum delegates are waiting for them to drop out and flood to Romney. Doug Wead explained in the video that the system also benefits Romney who has problems in southern states, Id bet he would be kicking ass delegatwise if it was just Santorum Gingrich and Willard duking it out. But Pauls supporters sign up because theyre know the message and theyre passionate, Romney will use his big bucks in any way legally and or secretly can to get delegates.

Funny thing is that this is EXACTLY how Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the last election. Short memories here?

Look, I'm a Paul supporter. To an extent. But if his campaign is seriously gaming the system to obtain a result that the voters didn't, then that is not right, and it is not conservative which is where my value system lies, not republican but true conservatism which includes honesty. For all the fellow Paul supporters out there that disagree, if you found it was rabid Gingrich supporters gaming the system the same way you would be posting conspiracy and take to the streets. Above all else the will of the people shall be done.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

If you think people are going to support Ron Paul who just overturned their vote by trickery...I think you are mistaken. Nothing disenfranchises voters more than outright telling them their vote didn't count for anything.

Yes, when they plan on voting opposite of what their precinct voted...I am calling fraud. They have been entrusted to REPRESENT their entire precinct...not just themselves. Honestly tell me you would not be pissed if any other candidate did this. Tell me that if your precinct voted for Paul and then the delegate voted for Romney that you wouldn't be pissed. That you wouldn't feel like you were robed of your voice and that the system is FRAUDULENT. This speaks more to the unethical behavior of Ron Paul and his supporters than anything else Paul could have said himself. Just more reason not to like the man or his supporters.

Here is what you dont seem to understand: There is absolutley ZERO trickery going on here!

The entire point of "unpledged delegates" is that they are NOT pledged! You can argue that the system is flawed, but to call fraud on the Paul camp for using the system the way it was intended is wrong.

You do realize that both parties have these unpledged "superdelegates" right? Do you realize the effect these unpledged delegates had the 2008 Democratic nomination? There were quite a few who switched their vote from Hillary Clinton to Obama, despite what the "popular" vote was in the state they represented.

A superdelegate can also choose to vote his or her "conscience." This is one way of saying that a superdelegate may not vote the way the majority of voters do, but on the candidate he or she feels is best. "Superdelegates are supposed to vote their conscience and supposed to vote for [the] person they think would make the best candidate and the best president," Howard Wolfson of Hillary Clinton's campaign said in February 2008 [source: Miami Herald]. This is what California Congressman Dennis Cordoza did when he officially switched his pledge from Clinton to Obama the following May, citing her "contentious primary campaign" [source: The New York Times].

Source

Nowhere is it said, or implied that unpledged delegates are "entrusted" to vote a certian way. Their power, and the reason they were created, is in the fact that they are UNPLEDGED!

Don't hate the player - Hate the game.

DC

Apparently the New York Times has a different story...
elections.nytimes.com...

if You support Ron Paul here are things you can do to help him/us.

1-vote,get your friends and family to vote
2-plague cnn,fox and major websites comment sections after articles about opponents saying I WILL ONLY VOTE FOR RON PAUL
3-make videos for youtube and stay informed

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree

"I can't wait to see all you Ron Paul supporters when he loses."
"He only has farther to fall because you all support him so much. Did I mention he's going to lose?"

Please go find a quote from me that says anything like that.

I comment on the election, the politics, and the realistic expectations.

Ron Paul supporters see that as me "hating" him because it just so happens to turn out that when you look at reality...Ron Paul doesn't have the support that his supporters think he does.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Funny thing is that this is EXACTLY how Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the last election. Short memories here?

Would you care to provide a source for that?

Here is a link to the 2008 Democratic primaries...do all the searching you want...you aren't going to find a thing to back up your ridiculous claim.

www.cnn.com...

reply to post by xDeadcowx

The entire point of "unpledged delegates" is that they are NOT pledged! You can argue that the system is flawed, but to call fraud on the Paul camp for using the system the way it was intended is wrong.

That is not the point of unpledged delegates.

The reason for having unpledged delegates tied to caucuses/primaries is for a few reasons.

1) It gives a reasonable estimate based on the voting results of who is "winning" in delegates.

2) If a candidate drops out after already participating in primaries and caucues, those delegates can be shifted to another candidate. Usually to the candidate that the person dropping out endorses.

3) So that when there is a "presumptive" nominee that all delegates can cast their vote for that person so the party appears to be united.


They are not meant to mis-represent the will/vote of the people...sorry...they just aren't.



Superdelegates are not the same thing as unbound delegates...two seperate things. They are never tied, bound or unbound, to the state primary or caucus.

reply to post by cuervo


You are sure to have a portion that will vote whoever is against Obama...it could be a corpse on the ticket and a protion of the GOP would vote for it instead of Obama.

But there will be a large portion of disenfranchised voters if this is trule Paul's strategy and he carries it through. Not just Romney supporters, but Gingrich and Santorum supporters as well.

Like I said...I'm all for it...continue to fracture the GOP...I love it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

reply to post by Erongaricuaro

I am not an American. My interest in the American presidential politics, is because of the impact of the US on the rest of the world. While most of what Paul promises impresses me, what really interests me about Paul is his foreign policy.

Now if there is a Ron Paul revolution as has been promised by many of his supporters, it would mean Paul's foreign policy would become the long term foreign policy of the US, which is an extremely welcome proposition. On the other hand, if Paul makes it to the White House by gaming the system, as it appears to be current strategy, he will be firmly in the grip of the system and won't be able to make any difference.

But I have no role in what happens there. Merely a curious observer.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Funny thing is that this is EXACTLY how Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the last election. Short memories here?

Would you care to provide a source for that?

Here is a link to the 2008 Democratic primaries...do all the searching you want...you aren't going to find a thing to back up your ridiculous claim.

www.cnn.com...

why would anyone check CNN for election results??
oh yeah ... there are those still among us aren't there?

yes, some of you folks have very short memories and a poor choice of resources indeed.

considering your statement of

it just so happens to turn out that when you look at reality...Ron Paul doesn't have the support that his supporters think he does.

apparently, Hillary didn't either and since you need proof, here ya go ...(link is to a graph of the popular vs delegate swing votes in 2008 from Hillary to Obama Dem Convention 2008

it's the game dude, we've been saying it needs changed for years now, do you believe us yet?

IF you look at the chart closely, you'll clearly see that Hillary had the greater popular vote by a slim margin, however, there were twice as many UNpledged delegates who provided the delegate votes that catapulted Obama to the nomination by a very large margin.

the "people" chose Hillary by popular vote so if the Ron Paul camp is being fraudulent, how then can anyone justify Obama's current seat? tis the only way he got there, so are you saying he cheated too?

you really can't have it both ways ... either, he who plays by the rules wins or he cheats, which is it?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by xDeadcowx

 

The entire point of "unpledged delegates" is that they are NOT pledged! You can argue that the system is flawed, but to call fraud on the Paul camp for using the system the way it was intended is wrong.

That is not the point of unpledged delegates.

The reason for having unpledged delegates tied to caucuses/primaries is for a few reasons.

1) It gives a reasonable estimate based on the voting results of who is "winning" in delegates.

2) If a candidate drops out after already participating in primaries and caucues, those delegates can be shifted to another candidate. Usually to the candidate that the person dropping out endorses.

3) So that when there is a "presumptive" nominee that all delegates can cast their vote for that person so the party appears to be united.


They are not meant to mis-represent the will/vote of the people...sorry...they just aren't.



Superdelegates are not the same thing as unbound delegates...two seperate things. They are never tied, bound or unbound, to the state primary or caucus.

SERIOUSLY

surely you jest ?
if not, check again as you're sadly mistaken.

UNpledged is just that ... not committed to ANY candidate.
PLEDGED delegates are transferred if their chosen candidate drops out of the race.

#1 is irrelevant - MSM speculates, not the election process itself.
#2 is just plain wrong regarding UNpledged delegates
#3 is your creative imagination regarding the most irrelevant of all, your perception of how it should work.

now, please go back to the beginning and try again.

They are not meant to mis-represent the will/vote of the people...sorry...they just aren't.

this statement ^^^ applies equally to the POTUS, yet, we're here aren't we?

reply to post by Honor93


I am not talking about national popular vote...I'm talking precinct, county, congressional district popular vote.

I'm talking about delegates saying they will vote opposite of what their precinct/county/district voted if it comes down to a brokered convention.

The 2008 Dem convention wasn't a brokered convention...Hillary moved to nominate Obama by acclamation.

Paul isn't stealing super delegates...he is stealing delegates that are supposed to represent the vote of the people.

Show me any source that shows Obama getting delegates out of a precinct/county/district he didn't win.

Wanting anyone but Ron Paul as President is like asking for 4 more years of unconstitutional laws and more Corporate Government with no real change.

I know people don't agree with everything he says, but man do we really want to continue to see the US continue on this downward spiral we have seen in the past decade?

I'm about 75% sure everything any other candidate says they will deliver if elected will never happen. Just look at the last 4 years.

At least Ron Paul has had the backbone to stand by his views for decades. While these other candidates switch it up every so often to win whichever state they are campaigning in.

Just look at all the money funneled into advertising. Millions of dollars in states and pretty much all I see is negative ads. Not positive things, and ideas on what needs done to change anything. Thats all the proof anyone should need.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Honor93

 

I am not talking about national popular vote...I'm talking precinct, county, congressional district popular vote.

I'm talking about delegates saying they will vote opposite of what their precinct/county/district voted if it comes down to a brokered convention.

The 2008 Dem convention wasn't a brokered convention...Hillary moved to nominate Obama by acclamation.

Paul isn't stealing super delegates...he is stealing delegates that are supposed to represent the vote of the people.

Show me any source that shows Obama getting delegates out of a precinct/county/district he didn't win.

ok, like i said, go back to the beginning and go slower.

the popular vote re: POTUS / national popular vote is not the same as the nomination vote, in which we are currently involved.

the graph i provided you has nothing to do with the national vote re: POTUS.
it is the delegate vote AT the Democratic Convention choosing the nominee to run for POTUS.
(just like the delegate vote at the upcoming Republican Convention which will choose their nominee - which you seem to think is somehow being manipulated differently than has been done previously.
THAT my friend is illogical in every sense of the word.

I'm talking about delegates saying they will vote opposite of what their precinct/county/district voted if it comes down to a brokered convention.

this is why the delegate process is SOOOOO important and too frequently overlooked by those more interested in manipulating media.

IF you have a solid base - in my day they called it a loyal base - the delegate process is a cinch and often a greater number of pledged delegates will emerge.
decades later, it's become a total sham where loyalty is a commodity and many voters just turn a blind eye.

Ron Paul, has a loyal base and it's building by the day.
Show me ANY other candidate, including Obama, who can say same.
it's an election bro ... is this your first?

psssst - your reaching for straws ... do you see the difference between Hard Total & Floor Vote ??
there is your answer.
RP isn't stealing anything ... he's playing by the rules, don't shame him, support him or the delegate process for whomever you do support, THAT is the process.
i never said i liked it either but it is what it is