Rumors of Ron Paul campaign demise greatly exaggerated

I know you guys are probably tired of the "Paul can win" threads, but i felt this article was very informative and well written.

communities.washingtontimes.com...

Despite the MSM's efforts to downplay the campaign, there is very much evidence still that Paul's strategy is working.

In many states, there is no cause-effect relationship between the popular vote and the delegates awarded to each candidate. Delegates are awarded via a completely separate process that doesn’t utilize the popular vote totals in any way. The purpose of the popular vote is to inform the eventual delegates of the preferences of voters in their states.

The arguments against Paul's campaign seem to be that he hasn't won a state, however, as we see above, that has no effect on delegates.

First, Mitt Romney is probably the weakest Republican “frontrunner” in several decades. Remember, Republicans weren’t exactly energized by John McCain and he soundly defeated Romney four years ago.

Romney’s campaign has been able to get supporters to take fifteen minutes to stop at a polling place and pull a lever, but it’s much more difficult to get them to participate in a delegate process that takes months to complete.

Ron Paul’s supporters are completely the opposite. While he has not pulled off a “beauty contest” win, his supporters are willing to walk through fire to see him become president. They have learned Robert’s Rules of Order, stayed behind after caucus popular votes, and taken over the delegations in many counties in caucus states.

This is a very good point. Romney has almost no grassroots base, and a very small amount of determined supporters, the same goes with Santorum.

However, Paul's supporters have shown that they will go to the ends of the earth to get their guy elected. This could end up in a seriously interesting convention in August.

The devotion of Paul’s supporters isn’t only a factor in the caucus states. In those states where the popular vote does bind the delegates to the winner, there is still an important question. Who are those delegates? Do they truly support the winner of the primary vote? Or are they Paul supporters?

This also, is a great point. As in the case of a brokered convention, the delegates will be unbound, this could be a very good strategy.

It seem's Paul supporters are gearing up for a brokered convention and are utilizing a Trojan horse of the delegate system, if you will.

This is probably the most intricate strategy i've ever heard of in an election, it's gonna be a long strange trip to the RNC Indeed.

Just some food for thought.

Ramble On ATS.

In many states, there is no cause-effect relationship between the popular vote and the delegates awarded to each candidate. Delegates are awarded via a completely separate process that doesn’t utilize the popular vote totals in any way. The purpose of the popular vote is to inform the eventual delegates of the preferences of voters in their states.

So if the delegates, who are owned by TPTB, decide that Ron Paul should be the GOP presidential nominee..he will become the presidential nominee...
Yeah a snowball has a better chance in hell.

reply to post by Ghost375


Well, Paul supporters are the delegates, even for Romney and Santorum. Usually, delegates would be bound and in control. However, in the case of a brokered convention they can in fact vote for whoever they want
.

If the delegates don't reflect popular vote, then they are being fraudulent and will be dismissed.

Paul is toast.

Originally posted by DaTroof
If the delegates don't reflect popular vote, then they are being fraudulent and will be dismissed.

Paul is toast.

In a brokered convention there isn't a decidedly popular vote. Several votes take place, deals are made, compromises, until there is a winner.

Paul's toast is about to pop up so get ready to slather on the butter and jam.

Flag for the skull, OP, star for the lightning. Ramble On Rose.

reply to post by MrRamblinRose

Well this has been their strategy from the very beginning. It started in early 2011 with the brainwashing "Ron Paul cant win" mantras.

Never in our lives will we see such a concerted effort by the propaganda matrix to TELL US that a person CANT WIN. If he really couldnt win, why would they have to tell us that every 2 weeks?

There's a huge problem with forcing a candidate on a group -- the Powers That Broker The Win may still find that the ones doing the voting will refuse to vote for their star candidate.

This is the case with Ron Paul.

It's a REPUBLICAN convention. He's not "on board" with what the party wants. Delegates can force him to be the candidate, but this does not mean that Republicans will vote for him. Democrats certainly won't. Libertarians might, but they might support their own candidate instead. Statistics show that only 18% of the Republican women are interested in voting for him, thanks to his stance on women (the "life begins at conception laws that he's initiated three times and failed to get through Congress.)

Many teachers might not vote for him because he wants to end programs like free lunches and would do away with early childhood programs (leaving those to the states, which don't have enough money.) We teachers have seen kids thrown out on the streets through a variety of circumstances -- kids whose only meal of the day comes through school breakfast or school lunch programs.

Guess what -- we're not going to vote for a guy who would do things like that to our little ones.

So, he might be manipulated into being the party's front runner, but he doesn't represent what Republicans want, the Democrats vote for Democrat candidates.

Because he doesn't represent what the Republican Party platform states, Republicans won't vote for him. They might, however, turn and vote for Obama.

I know Ron Paul's campaign is dead because Ron Paul ATS threads are dead.

It seems the passion has been toned down a bit and there are no longer 10 new Ron Paul threads a day.

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Powers That Broker The Win may still find that the ones doing the voting will refuse to vote for their star candidate. This is the case with Ron Paul. He's not "on board" with what the party wants. ... this does not mean that Republicans will vote for him. Democrats certainly won't. Libertarians might... Republicans won't vote for him. They might, however, turn and vote for Obama.

I can tell you for absolute fact that many Democrats WILL vote for Paul, even as a write-in if he is not nominated. Paul is breaking down all party barriers and attracting voters of all stripes. There are many people registered in various parties that do not vote strictly by party line and actually examine the various candidates running from all parties and will vote for who they deem best suited. That applies to Republicans as well as there are some that will not vote for Romney nor Santorum. Outside of Paul the Republican line-up looks pretty dismal and Obama might be their next best choice given that some will vote for the incumbant anyway. And some would support Paul if he got the nomination just because he has an (R) after his name.

Paul remains somewhat of a longshot in this election cycle but he is far from having absolutely no chance in Hades due to his delegate strategy and a weak Republican lineup and whithering platform in need of revamping, or at least candidates that actually support their purported platform and not just corporate cronies and religious zealots. You may be reluctant to admit that but by your "anti-" campaigning antics I see you are well aware of it. It appears you are a staunch supporter of "Anyone But Paul" but you fail to convince those who would vote for no one else.

Anyone talking about this election is talking about Paul, pro or con, that is, except for the MSM who is trying very hard to ignore him. You are helping by keeping Paul on the tips of people's tongues and by bringing attention to Paul and prompting previously disinterested persons to investigate him to see what the commotion is about, and most of them like what they find. The R3volution appreciates your support.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I know Ron Paul's campaign is dead because Ron Paul ATS threads are dead.

It seems the passion has been toned down a bit and there are no longer 10 new Ron Paul threads a day.

Ahh but you're still here. Good to see you are still talking about Paul and keeping him fresh on people's minds. People just love to talk about Paul. The R3volution thanks you too.

A LOT of shills here.
PAUL or NO ONE!!!

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by MrRamblinRose

 

Well this has been their strategy from the very beginning. It started in early 2011 with the brainwashing "Ron Paul cant win" mantras.

Never in our lives will we see such a concerted effort by the propaganda matrix to TELL US that a person CANT WIN. If he really couldnt win, why would they have to tell us that every 2 weeks?

I am confused I though Ron Paul was ignored and now he is a the subject of a massive propaganda matrix? Or maybe people just do not want him? But thats not possible is it?

The reason MSM is saying that Paul can not win is because TPTB are all against him. I hope he does win and Im a brit MSM is just another arm of the govt machine. TV = brain washing and they hope if they can continue the CANT WIN mantra, then people wont bother voting for him. But I think the Paul supporters are die hards and will stay the distance, when it comes to the delegates.
Pauls revolution is the only hope left for the states. Other wise you will end up with another obama clone, same as bush and the rest of those snakes who are suposed to represent the people.
Best of luck and I hope the revolution works out for him.
That would be a nice change/hope, that we can all believe in.

Originally posted by MrSpad

I am confused I though Ron Paul was ignored and now he is a the subject of a massive propaganda matrix? Or maybe people just do not want him? But thats not possible is it?

Some people very likely do not want him, perhaps even a vast majority. Hear No Evil and See No Evil may not acknowledge Paul has a visible and vocal following but even you are here in many, many Paul threads voicing your opinions. If Paul is the big Zilch you always claim him to be are you here so frequently because of a fascination with the obvious (in your eyes)? Is beating a dead horse a kind of hobby for you? Possibly you just enjoy raining on other people's parades, since you apparently feel he poses no threat to the election? Or does he seriously have you worried about something?

Whatever the case, people just love to talk about Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Powers That Broker The Win may still find that the ones doing the voting will refuse to vote for their star candidate. This is the case with Ron Paul. He's not "on board" with what the party wants. ... this does not mean that Republicans will vote for him. Democrats certainly won't. Libertarians might... Republicans won't vote for him. They might, however, turn and vote for Obama.

I can tell you for absolute fact that many Democrats WILL vote for Paul, even as a write-in if he is not nominated.

What makes you think this? There have been a number of Republican primaries where Democrats (notoriously) DID come out to vote, and Paul did no better in those than he has anywhere else. Furthermore, his platform is even further from the Democrat platform than it is from the Republican. Democrats tend to be environmentalists and pro-union and for social spending.

There's no reason for a Democrat to vote for him, particularly since he voted against most of the things we voted for.

Paul is breaking down all party barriers and attracting voters of all stripes.

A commonly quoted statistic, but if you look at who's voting for him, he's only attracting 18% of the women's vote overall and only attracting significant support from conservative male voters 18-30. He's not popular with older folks (who vote.)

There are many people registered in various parties that do not vote strictly by party line and actually examine the various candidates running from all parties and will vote for who they deem best suited.

After seeing his shenanegans here in Texas where he voted for things like allowing cement plants to continue polluting, I'm sure not voting for him. He hasn't done much for the poorer classes here in Texas.

...and a weak Republican lineup and whithering platform in need of revamping, or at least candidates that actually support their purported platform

Have you actually read the RNC national platform? They support
* stepping up military support
* no drawdowns in other countries
* more homeland security measures
* tighter border standards
* reforming the State Department
* advancing "hope and prosperity in Africa"
* strengthening ties with the rest of the world (vague, but that's their platform)
* improving medicare and medicaid
...and several other things Ron has spoken against and voted against. So how is this "supporting the (Republican) platform" more than, say, Romney's campaigning platform?

Here's a related thread....nothing to do with media hype.

This is real deal data from the front lines, I know, I was there.

check it out

reply to post by Byrd


Hi Byrd, I can understand your confusion given that you're a Texan and I am a lifetime Californian now living in Mexico. The ideologies of these two states may appear to be a world apart.

You don't honestly believe all Paul supporters are Republican do you? That group may be the more lukewarm toward Paul. I am still in touch with a number of friends up north and we speak about the elections and other mutual friends' activities. A great number of Democrats I know there may be better categorized as social libertarians that value their privacies and liberties more than big government programs and tree-hugging issues. they shun the Republican party due to their stance on "get tough law and order" issues. They find Paul to be more to their liking than others after having given Obama a shot and find him somewhat disappointing. Fair to say, though, that Obama would be their second choice over the other Republican candidates, consider them weak choices and will support Paul to the end while suspecting their vote for him should he go third-party would more likely give the election back to Obama.

Their chief disagreement with Paul is his pro-life stance as is common to virtually all Republican politicians and is another reason they choose to register as Democrats. They reason as I do that the abortion issue has been under fire for decades and has not changed yet despite efforts by conservative White Houses and congressional majorities, and also that they, like myself, are now middle to senior-aged and less personally effected by abortion rulings. It is not just the youth that support Paul.

I also have a few Republican friends there that are firearm enthusiasts, ex-military, and work for or are contracted by the Defense Department and work on the several military bases in our area. They are not all in favor of having our forces on all parts of the globe and a number favor some degree of pull-back and less global interference. Several have stated they are growing weary of the authoritarian stance long associated with conservatives and right-wing shock-jock rhetoric and would favor a bit smaller and less intrusive government - given that authoritarian encroachment is now making their lives a bit less comfortable. They are less than enchanted with the effects of crony-capitalism and now using terms as "fascism" when speaking of government these days. They don't find any of the current candidates especially to their liking, and though less than optimistic about Paul being able to get elected or able to restore traditional liberties they still view him as the best choice.

I cannot speak for everyone I know, especially now that I don't have as regular contact with them as before when we were neighbors, but I relate developing trends as I understand them, how they are addressed by mutual friends and personal contacts, and not a voice for every one of their concerns and political choices. I expect my reply touches on each issue you have brought up. Respectfully, -Eron

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
Here's a related thread....nothing to do with media hype.

This is real deal data from the front lines, I know, I was there.

check it out

Nice delegate work.I talk to random people all the time about who they support. The majority say Ron Paul. All age groups, all races, all genders. I take my own polls, and my projections are far different from the MSM projections.

Hey liquidsmoke, thanks for taking Tavaris Jackson off our hands.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I know Ron Paul's campaign is dead because Ron Paul ATS threads are dead.

It seems the passion has been toned down a bit and there are no longer 10 new Ron Paul threads a day.

I can't add anything to this but, that rumors of this thread being true is also greatly exaggerated

I don't expect Ron Paul's pathetically small delegation to make any impact on the Republican Convention -- so far he doesn't even have the delegate distribution required to assure that he can be put in nomination. But it seems probable that he will be induced to repeat his previous folly of running for a Third Party. If so, that will undoubtedly split the anti-Obama vote.