Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Republican Primary Bound Delegate Count

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkinin

NOTE: The "soft" delegate count is this website's estimate of the potential delegate support for each contender based on key delegate selection events already held and is subject to change as we get closer to the National Conventions; the "hard" count is the tabulation of delegates already formally pledged or bound by law and/or Party rules.


The Paul campaign came out with numbers a long time ago that are on-par with what this website's "soft" count is estimating for Ron Paul's delegate total. I doubt that is anywhere near the correct number.


On what basis is your doubt? Whether you use this chart or any other chart you can name, the numbers are all very very close. At least these folks took the trouble to add it all up. Yet you "doubt" the numbers. Do you have access to astrology charts or numerology studies or some secret way to knowing these numbers are "doubtful"? Skepticism of the numbers is certainly okay, but you must have SOME basis for doubts. What might that be?




posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
The fact is, when people actually vote (as opposed to caucuses) Paul gets about 11% of that. So there;s is no way that Paul will win. His supporters are completely delusional.


bingo

and that is in his own party. in a general election he's looking at 5%



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Legally bound to vote in a first voting round right? I think I read something like that. If a Ron Paul supporter becomes a Romney delegate and it goes to convention they legally have to vote for Romney in a first round (i admittedly don't know how it works) and after that they are able to vote as they wish?

You also have to understand that when a lot of us say that he is winning, we don't mean literally winning the race (even though I think if it was a fair race he would be doing much better than he currently is), but instead we are gaining traction and attention. If Romney wins and nothing improves it just moves the cause forward even more so. We don't care about Republicans or Democrats we just want an actual good president that doesn't make decisions influenced by big corporate backers. So Ron Paul's ideas and the movement are winning. A lot of us know that it is not likely he would ever be allowed to win and there us plenty of evidence and even video of the GOP conspiring against him and even arrests due to it.

It would be very hard for a guy with assets in the 4 million dollar range to beat a guy with assets in the 200-400 million range. You don't get that wealthy by playing fair and Romney did nothing but hurt American industry to get there. Also it's hard to beat a guy who advises for a company that owns clear channel communications and therefore has the media in his pocket.
edit on 27-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Ah! OK. So when you say Ron Paul is "winning" you don't actually mean he is winning as in winning any substantial number of delegates in the real world (though he probably will break 100 this time.) You mean he's kind of a virtual winner or a shadow winner (I'm fishing for words here, haven't quite got the right one.) or that his ideas are winning even though people are voting for other folks with substantially different ideas.

So it's kind of like winning the World of Warcraft, but having to get up and go to work the next day.

Long time ago a friend of mine and another guy started a kind of newsprint weekly magazine for the county which featured the local entertainment scene and, of course, solicited advertising from the clubs and music scene around the four towns in the county. It was about an 8-pager or so and free to the public. I'm sure y'all have seen similar. It came to pass after a year or so that it wasn't making any headway, so they had to shut it down. The editor (not my friend) wrote this great swan song in the last edition. I wish I could remember exactly what he said, but it was something like this:

"When we started this publication we had certain goals. I like to think we have achieved these goals because we've done a lot to promote the music scene in Slaughter County and I don't think it will ever be the same again. Having achieved our goals here this will be our last issue. We now have other goals to pursue and I hope you will wish us well..."

So long, Ron, and thanks for all the fish.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


The basis of my doubt lies in that, after many weeks and numerous contests, Paul's delegate total would have gone up by only about ten, even after he had just very handily won a number of conventions.

As for the matter of which chart a person uses, that doesn't matter at all at this point in time. Fact is that all of the media uses their projections safety word. I believe that there are still a number of cites that have Paul below fifty, even.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Ah! OK. So when you say Ron Paul is "winning" you don't actually mean he is winning as in winning any substantial number of delegates in the real world (though he probably will break 100 this time.) You mean he's kind of a virtual winner or a shadow winner (I'm fishing for words here, haven't quite got the right one.) or that his ideas are winning even though people are voting for other folks with substantially different ideas.

So it's kind of like winning the World of Warcraft, but having to get up and go to work the next day.

Long time ago a friend of mine and another guy started a kind of newsprint weekly magazine for the county which featured the local entertainment scene and, of course, solicited advertising from the clubs and music scene around the four towns in the county. It was about an 8-pager or so and free to the public. I'm sure y'all have seen similar. It came to pass after a year or so that it wasn't making any headway, so they had to shut it down. The editor (not my friend) wrote this great swan song in the last edition. I wish I could remember exactly what he said, but it was something like this:

"When we started this publication we had certain goals. I like to think we have achieved these goals because we've done a lot to promote the music scene in Slaughter County and I don't think it will ever be the same again. Having achieved our goals here this will be our last issue. We now have other goals to pursue and I hope you will wish us well..."

So long, Ron, and thanks for all the fish.


That was very well said, and I especially liked your analogy at the end. It seems to me that the RP cult has moved on at least on ATS. There are still some threads about him, which they all flock around to artificially gain stars and write it off as truth, but that's just BS.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkinin
reply to post by schuyler
 


The basis of my doubt lies in that, after many weeks and numerous contests, Paul's delegate total would have gone up by only about ten, even after he had just very handily won a number of conventions.

NO that just means not as much people like him as you think. Or are led to believe on here



As for the matter of which chart a person uses, that doesn't matter at all at this point in time. Fact is that all of the media uses their projections safety word. I believe that there are still a number of cites that have Paul below fifty, even.


YES it does, because these are facts. Those are projections, but these charts use facts. As mentioned before you can doubt facts all you want, but you haven't really given a solid reason as to why. It just makes you look like you want RP to win, so you don't trust facts!


+3 more 
posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Only one problem....


The numbers are not accurate. If you look to see how this site has come to a total, and look at the individual States, you will easily see the problem.

Look at Iowa as an example. It is now being reported that Ron Paul took the majority of Delegates. However, if you look at what this site is showing, it claims that Santorum got 7, Mitt with 6, Paul with 7 and Gingrich with 4.

Washington is being reported as Paul taking the majority. However, if we look at the numbers according to this site, we see that Romney has 16, Paul 10.

Clearly we can see that something is wrong.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by Darkinin
reply to post by schuyler
 


The basis of my doubt lies in that, after many weeks and numerous contests, Paul's delegate total would have gone up by only about ten, even after he had just very handily won a number of conventions.

NO that just means not as much people like him as you think. Or are led to believe on here


No, it doesn't. Paul has won a couple score delegates since that time just from the conventions that have recently ended.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Thank you for posting this Outkast, I was getting sick of all the Ron Paul propaganda. People here still can't believe that Romney is far ahead in the delegate count, they can't deal with the fact that Ron Paul has more support. Once he is confirmed as the nominee, they'll just brush it off as more fraud.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


No, and no need to be condescending. I am only speaking for myself and I know there are others that share my ideas. It is a movement, even if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination (he only needs to win the majority in 5 states to be considered at the convention in Tampa. Even though as I said before the "odds" are actively against him he already has in at least 3 states already). The movement is gaining steam now, unfortunately the media pushed him out of the spotlight until the majority of the primaries were done, however it doesn't just die out. Once these people understand his message they will never go back to supporting a corporate candidate like Romney or Obama. So next time they will vote for the candidate that best represents the movement and by then this support will be from the start.

Honestly if there wasn't total media bias and one news station talked about him like they do Romney then I think he would undoubtedly be beating Romney or at least tied. Paul has waaay more people turning out as his events and these people are voting for him. You can ignore the corruption all you want, and I guess you will because you probably support Obama, but one day it could easily be against the person you support (unless you support the shill your entire life). You guys cannot deny Ron Paul.

He is an ordinary man that took on the corporations and their puppets and even against obvious fraud has continously gained support. So I don't know why you condescend and act so smug in your post when you are talking about someone who has achieved more than you ever will and likely changed the direction of this country. I guess you want your president to be chosen for you forever? You think that a popular vote cast by masses that vote out of party allegiance, ignorance, and belief in paid for media (Romney advises for the company that owns clear channel com that owns several media stations..) can compare to real Americans that want change and inform themselves? This election cycle has change things for America whether you believe it or not and RP has won.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Really? I thought it smug and pointless. You guys are always in threads like these like a giant circle jerk. You have no cause. Obama is no different than Bush, no different than Romney. They are just continuing the same direction. IMO you guys have no desire to see your country do well (the Americans among you that is). I see just as many Ron Paul threads today as I did at the start. Supporters haven't gone anywhere and they never will.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



MrWendal is absolutely right.
The numbers posted in the OP on this thread are STILL wrong.The don't include Pauls recent wins in at least three states. So in the end this thread turns into more anti Paul propaganda and is a poor post by Outkast. We know you support Obama dude, what interests you so much about RP?

We know Romney is ahead in the delegate count, we always have. He just isn't as far along as the media promotes, and Paul isn't as far behind. I actually still question the graphic posted. With Paul winning the majority in three or four states in the last week or so I would say he is well over a hundred and the thing about Paul delegates is that even the ones that aren't technically bound are most likely hardcore Paul supporters. I think if the real number comes out you guys will be surprised.

As I said before he only needs the majority delegates in 5 states (he has them in 3 already) to be a nominee at the convention. The count in the OP is wrong (both of them) hopefully we will get to see the real count soon.
edit on 27-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Here.. everyone can go here and look at this count state by state.

It is way off already

Paul should have 17 - 18 in Colorado (not 0 hard, 2 soft)
It is showing him as gaining 4 in Missouri where he will likely (if he hasn't already win the majority of the 52).
In Iowa he ended up winning I think half. Instead of showing his true count they just subtracted the ones allotted to Rick and Mitt.

There are going to be a lot more on this page that end up looking like his count in Minnesota. This chart is off.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


See.. I would disagree. I would say way more people like him than YOU think.
You don't see it, because you choose not to and the media isn't exactly putting it out there so it's easy to miss.
No other candidate is getting the actual support of Paul. They might be getting the support on paper.. somehow, but they aren't getting the support of thousands in person and people using their personal time to volunteer and make thousands of calls each for Dr. Paul.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Yes indeed as others have said - counts are STILL wrong. All you have to do is look back as what Paul is known to have received as delegates even recently and you know this.


But to clarify something... I don't think anyone at all is saying that Ron Paul is going to or even capable of winning the nomination outright - as in getting 1144 delegates heading into the convention. But apparently the people downplaying his chances just do not understand that he is not planning on winning, and he isn't even trying - the only thing he needs to do is prevent Romney from getting to 1144 in the first vote of the convention.

You do realize that after the first vote, all "bound" delegates then become unbound. And you do realize that it was the goal, even prior to the race heating up, of the Ron Paul campaign, to ensure that the maximum number of delegates, bound, unbound, and uncommitted all around - were Ron Paul supporters.

This means, that despite whoever those delegates are REQUIRED to vote for in the first round, so long as there are not 1144 voting for Romney to take place, there will be ANOTHER vote that takes place and they can vote for whomever they like... the idea being - THEY ARE MOSTLY ALL RON PAUL SUPPORTERS!

So then they vote again, and again, and again, until one candidate reaches a consensus of 1144 votes to receive the nomination.



So put it this way. If Romney gets the HARD delegate count BEFORE the convention, and I'm talking legitimate, REAL numbers - not more of this malarchy - then obviously Ron Paul doesn't have a chance. Ron Paul isn't going to get the count, that is for sure.

But if it comes to a brokered convention and Romney does NOT clinch the nomination before hand - you can bet your arse that this is pretty much Ron Paul's game, wrapped, sealed, and hand delivered - because Romney supporters will be outnumbered in droves. This is simple reality.
edit on 27-4-2012 by gwydionblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack

This means, that despite whoever those delegates are REQUIRED to vote for in the first round, so long as there are not 1144 voting for Romney to take place, there will be ANOTHER vote that takes place and they can vote for whomever they like... the idea being - THEY ARE MOSTLY ALL RON PAUL SUPPORTERS!


I find it very difficult to believe that the delegates to the convention "are mostly all Ron Paul supporters."

What's the basis for this claim?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 



Look at Iowa as an example. It is now being reported that Ron Paul took the majority of Delegates. However, if you look at what this site is showing, it claims that Santorum got 7, Mitt with 6, Paul with 7 and Gingrich with 4.


And again...you are looking at the "soft count".

There is no "hard count" for Iowa yet, because they haven't had their state convention yet.

www.thegreenpapers.com...

Saturday 16 June 2012: The Iowa State Republican Convention officially convenes. 25 of 28 National Convention delegates are selected.

The delegates to the Iowa State Republican Convention gather: at this time, the delegates to the State Convention from each county making up a given congressional district meet in separate Congressional District Caucuses to choose the state's district delegates to the Republican National Convention.

Each of Iowa's 4 congressional districts are assigned 3 National Convention delegates. Thus, a total of 12 district delegates will be chosen by these Congressional District Caucuses. These 12 delegates to the Republican National Convention will be allocated to the presidential contenders in such a way as determined by each Congressional District Caucus.
The State Convention chooses the remaining 13 at-large of Iowa's delegates (10 base at-large delegates plus 3 bonus delegates) to the Republican National Convention.

There is no formal system of allocating these 13 at-large National Convention delegates to presidential contenders. These delegates will be allocated according to the vote of the Iowa State Convention as a whole.
In addition, 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Iowa's Republican Party, will attend the convention as unpledged delegates by virtue of their position.



You seem to be obsessed with the "soft counts"...this thread is to show the difference between soft counts and hard counts. None of Iowa's delegates are counted in the "hard count" yet because they haven't had their state convention yet and that is when ALL of their delegates are selected.

Maybe you have recieved bad information somewhere...but there are not assigned delegates in Iowa yet and their won't be until June 16th.

The same goes for WA...they haven't had their state convention yet so there is no "hard count" yet.


These are FACTS....these are the true BOUND delegate counts in the "hard count" section. None of your examples show a descrepency with those numbers.
edit on 27-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Here.. everyone can go here and look at this count state by state.

It is way off already

Paul should have 17 - 18 in Colorado (not 0 hard, 2 soft)
It is showing him as gaining 4 in Missouri where he will likely (if he hasn't already win the majority of the 52).
In Iowa he ended up winning I think half. Instead of showing his true count they just subtracted the ones allotted to Rick and Mitt.

There are going to be a lot more on this page that end up looking like his count in Minnesota. This chart is off.


The count is not wrong for Colorado. 21 of the national delegates are from the district convention.

www.thegreenpapers.com...

Delegates to the Republican National Convention:

Congressional District 1
Nancy McKiernanm, Santorum
Celement Koerber Jr., Unpledged
Florence Sebern, Unpledged

Congressional District 2
Timothy Leonard, Unpledged
Sue Sharkey, Santorum
Solomon Martinez, Unpledged

Congressional District 3
Todd King, Unpledged (Note 1)
Luke Kirk, Unpledged (Note 1)
Frieda Wallison, Romney

Congressional District 4
Guy Short, Unpledged
Sean Conway, Santorum
Karen Pelzer, Unpledged

Congressional District 5
John Suthers, Romney
Robin Coran, Santorum
Kent Lambert, Santorum

Congressional District 6
John Carson, Romney
Ted Harvey, Unpledged
Erik Hansen, Romney

Congressional District 7
Pete Coors, Romney
Anil Mathai, Santorum
Jeremy Strand, Unpledged

Note 1: On 16 April 2012, Two CD 3, unpledge delegates, Todd King and Luke Kirk, announced their support for Ron Paul. This changes the soft count from Unpledged 10, Santorum 6, Romney 5 to Unpledged 8, Santorum 6, Romney 5, Paul 2. Reference: Cortez Journal.


If you add those up you get that Romney has 5 declared delegates, Santorum has 6, and 10 are Uncommited. Now 2 of the Uncommitted later said they declared for Ron Paul, but this site is only counting them in the "soft count" because they aren't LEGALLY bound because they didn't declare so at the convention. The others that did declare are LEGALLY bound to their declaration...so they are counted in the "hard count".

Now...12 more delegates are selected at the state convention that happened on April 14th. Romney won 8 and 4 are unpledged.

There are 3 party leader super delegates, one of these has declared for Romney, to are unpledged.

So you have Romney getting 5 from the district conventions, 8 from the state convention, and 1 of the super delegates....So Romney has a total of 14 BOUND DELEGATES. Ron Paul has 2 "pledged" delegates that pledged after the convention...so technically they are UNBOUND but have declared for Paul...so he has 2 "soft count" delegates.

There are 14 delegates in CO that are still uncommitted...this website doesn't speculate on where these might go...they count them rightly as "uncommited" delegates.



So no...the counts aren't wrong...just your understanding of the process is wrong.
edit on 27-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 



Yes indeed as others have said - counts are STILL wrong. All you have to do is look back as what Paul is known to have received as delegates even recently and you know this.


Please give me an example of the HARD COUNTS being wrong. Two have tried with Iowa, Washington, and Colorado....but I have just detailed in other posts how the counts are exactly right as of right now. So please give me an example.


So put it this way. If Romney gets the HARD delegate count BEFORE the convention, and I'm talking legitimate, REAL numbers - not more of this malarchy - then obviously Ron Paul doesn't have a chance. Ron Paul isn't going to get the count, that is for sure.


And if you re-read the OP, you will see what it will take from Ron Paul to prevent him from getting the 1144 he needs. He needs more than 60% of the remaining unbound delegates...those that are uncommitted in states that have already had conventions and states that haven't had primaries yet.

I'm saying it is close to impossible for Ron Paul to get 60% of the remaining delegates.





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join