Official Maine Caucus Results Thread!!

reply to post by freedom12


Yes you are correct. However I would point out that this is how we do it every election cycle and the ability to predict outcomes based on this system has proven to be extremely accurate. You are absolutely correct in your assessment of how the process works but I believe you are hoping against hope that Paul can persuade enough delegates to support him.

Nice to see another knowledgable person on this subject though.

reply to post by freedom12


Yep. NPR has an actual legit delegate count, these are ones that are awarded and even though the disparity is still pretty large it's worth noting that Paul has probably picked up most of his delegates recently.

NPR delegate tracker

reply to post by Kenrichaed


This election cycle is anomalous to previous ones due to several factors. This one had a candidate that put serious forethought into beating the odds. It's almost asymmetrical warfare, people inside the Paul camp have been infiltrating the GOP with the intention of doing just this with the delegates. It's working so far, and if he wins today that will be another milestone.

reply to post by Toolatetotalk


I don't think anyone here has any delusions that he is leading. I think in reality he is probably in around the 30-40 range and Romney is around 85-95.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


This election cycle is eerily similar to 2008 with pretty much the same candidates. I'd actually go so far as to say that I can't recall there ever being two different elections that were so much alike.

reply to post by Kenrichaed


You mean an election year with tight races on both sides is in anyway similar to an election year where a sitting president is running unopposed while on the other side an establishment candidate is up against a huge grassroots movement for a candidate using an atypical election strategy?

I can honestly say I don't see it.

reply to post by Kenrichaed



Well, thanks for the compliment!

I wouldn't begin to claim to know it all about the process, but have looked into it and read up on how to become a delegate in several states out of curiousity. I've seen arguing back and forth amongst ATSer's, so I looked into it.

I understand as a Dr Paul supporter that he is NOT winning the delegate race so far. Some Paul supporter's look for every little positive to try and boost the good doctor. I try to remain level-headed about it all.

For example, today on Ron Paul 2012 Facebook page, many are erroraneously reporting that the Maine caucuses have all been cancelled. Not true! There may have been ONE county that postphoned their caucus til next weekend because of weather.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I was referring to the primary only, not the general election.

reply to post by freedom12


Even though I am extremely biased agaisnt Paul, political science is my field and after watching this race I must say that he is facing opposition that other candidates are not. He has the media attaching labels that frankly are not fair to him so I would like to see him be successful on that reason alone. Just not as far as the actual nomination.

I hope he does well.

There are a total of 482 delegates in Caucus states. Even if Ron Paul stole them all (yes...stole...not won based on the will of the people in the states so far)...he would still need to win a whole hell of a lot in primary states...where he does very very poorly.

Optimism is one thing...being unrealistic is quite another.

reply to post by freedom12


Wow.. that is a crazy thing to post. I would actually say that those are people that have joined the RP fb to try and mislead. Why on Earth would they say that unless they were trying to get RP supporters to not show up for the Caucasus?

Nevermind, irrelevant to the topic.

reply to post by Kenrichaed

www.abovetopsecret.com...# have a look at this .... i think u r wrong

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow


Nevermind, irrelevant to the topic.

edit on 11-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Honestly I have never liked either party's candidates with the exception of Ross Perot. I therefore switch my vote every election to the party that will nominate Supreme Court judges that bring more of a balance to that court. If its leaning conservative I will vote democratic but if its leaning the other way I will vote republican. I believe that allowing the court to be balanced one way or the other too long leads to rulings that tend to become more and more extreme.

reply to post by Toolatetotalk


Yep, the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. I suspect by design. Someone here at ATS brought up something neither party want you to think about. Political parties are diversionary by design, and I add, confusing, by design. George Washington knew the dangers this posed.

Political parties
Alexander Hamilton, the founder of the Federalist Party

Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the government and country as a whole. His warnings took on added significance with the recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party by Jefferson, to oppose Hamilton's Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791, which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others. A more pressing concern for Washington, which he makes reference to in this portion of the address, was the Democratic-Republican efforts to align with France and the Federalist efforts to ally the nation with Great Britain in an ongoing conflict between the two European nations brought about by the French Revolution.

While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents.[11].

Moreover, Washington makes the case that "the alternate domination" of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and "is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." From Washington's perspective and judgment, the tendency of political parties toward permanent despotism is because they eventually and "gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual."[12]

Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.

en.wikipedia.org...
I would ask, is this not what has happened in this country? Looks to me George Washington knew what he was talking about...

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
I just think a lot of people in general are misinformed.

Some RP supporters latch on to anything without fact-checking anything. Remember all the cries about FRAUD in Nevada?

It isn't just RP supporters that are guilty of it. It's prevelant throughout society and even ATS. We've become an instant gratification society.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher



I was wondering how long before OutKast would show up?

You never fail to disappoint with your prescence on EVERY Ron Paul related conversation.

Personally, I've tempered my enthusiasm of Dr Paul. I understand that he is in this for delegates and hopes for a "brokered convention".

I do disagree with your assessment of Dr Paul "stealing" delegates. Paul supporters are just more educated in how the delegate selection process ocurrs. They have learned from 2008 mistakes and are using the system to ensure he gets as many delegates as possible. I don't here you complaining about Romney's use of the tax system to it's full extent by hiding money in the Cayman's, tax shelters, and other methods?

The GOP made it's own rules for delegate selection, if they follow them is another thing.

By moving up the calendar, Florida will lose half its voting delegates to the national convention, as happened in 2008 when the state advanced its primary to the same Jan. 31 date.

The Republican National Committee voted to "elongate" the 2012 primary season by denying winner-take-all votes in any states that held primaries before April 1.

Joining the chorus of Florida critics this week, Senft, a national committeeman, said the Jan. 31 primary means the Sunshine State "will have little, if any, impact on the delegate count for any candidate.

www.sunshinestatenews.com...

So if you want to know the real delegate count, ignore MSM, and do your own math and follow the rules the
GOP set. No winner take all, before April 1 . All candidates will get a portion of delegates.

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Good point Hippy!

I had forgot about the GOP punishing Florida by taking half their delegates away.

Qusetion is, will the GOP follow through on this pledge or change their minds and let Florida have all it's delegates at the convention?

I also think I remembered reading, other states would be punished by the GOP for moving up their primaries. I guess we will have to wait and see.

reply to post by freedom12


docs.google.com...

why isnt this page ever updating? And the other livestream in the OP seem offline. Anyone got a better place to watch this vote? Somewhere with continuous updating preferably... The end result should be presented later today right?