Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Republican Primary Bound Delegate Count

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
There's one problem with the 'hard' delegates count. That assumes that the people who get chosen to be those delegates, will actually vote for Romney on the first ballot. Their supposed to but will they? With a secret ballot there's no way to know if they do or not. I've already seen one 'committed' Romney delegate declare that he's now an RP supporter and will vote that way at the convention. If there's one, there are likely to be more. How many more is the BIG question. But most Romney supporters and delegates aren't nearly as committed to him or his ideas as your average RP supporter/delegate. If Ron Paul can win Texas, that would shut up the talking heads that say he's never won a primary and Texas sends a lot of delegates to the convention. The other thing I wonder about is now that Santorum and Gringrich are out of the race, anyone who doesn't like Romney has only one choice in the remaining primaries(ie. RP) and Romney supporters are very likely to not bother to vote for him figuring that he's already got the nomination locked up. Will Romney continue to campaign? What if he just doesn't bother to visit most of the remaining states that he thinks won't matter anymore? Wouldn't that anger a lot of voters to vote for RP just to spite Romney? I think that Ron Paul still has a chance and it would great political theater to see the convention go to a 2nd ballot.




posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Studenofhistory
 



There's one problem with the 'hard' delegates count. That assumes that the people who get chosen to be those delegates, will actually vote for Romney on the first ballot. Their supposed to but will they? With a secret ballot there's no way to know if they do or not.


There is no secret ballot...the announce their delegate count during the roll call. It's probably the Republican Party state chairman that will announce the delegate count. The bound delegates have no choice, they are counted as delegates for the candidate they are bound to. The uncommited delegates will announce who they are voting for at the convention.

So no...BOUND delegates can not just change their vote.


I've already seen one 'committed' Romney delegate declare that he's now an RP supporter and will vote that way at the convention. If there's one, there are likely to be more.


I would LOVE for you to provide a source for this information. What state and what is the name of the delegate?


If Ron Paul can win Texas, that would shut up the talking heads that say he's never won a primary and Texas sends a lot of delegates to the convention.


Paul has been polling under 15% in Texas consistently...I don't think he has a chance of winning Texas at all.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I'm kind of dissapointed in the Ron Paul supporters...even with facts being presented...they still try to claim they are wrong.

Ron Paul supporters...please...be honest with yourselves.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
OP: thank you very much for creating this post. It s by far the most informative post so far. At least this one gives me some hard facts that are much needed.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
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.


Are you part of the Romney cult?

I know Ron Paul won't win, but I still think he is the best candidate.
edit on 4/28/2012 by Morpheas because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Check out Ben Swann's Reality Check. www.facebook.com... He does a show on Fox 19 in Cincinnati. He's saying the race is far from over and is currently following the caucas battle in Alaska and Maine. I'm not sure whose "Reality Check" to believe. His or yours.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
According to Ron Paul's website he has over half of the delegates in Washington, Iowa, and Minnesota. He needs to have more than half the delegates in five states to get on Florida's ballot. Maine and North Dakota may end up being more than half. Does this give him a chance? I still don't think it is enough, but I do support Ron Paul.

www.ronpaul2012.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
OP, your hard count has 22 Wyoming delegates going to Mitt Romney. Yet if you click on Wyoming, it shows that they are unpledged "soft" delegates. So Romney has 702 hard count delegates not 724. Not that it makes much differrence, if this site you reference is a true picture. I heard that Florida might change over from winner take all to proportional. If so, that would knock Romney down under 700 hard delegates.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I'm kind of dissapointed in the Ron Paul supporters...even with facts being presented...they still try to claim they are wrong.

Ron Paul supporters...please...be honest with yourselves.


Dig further into those hard count numbers - on the site they came from - and you will find innaccuracies.
edit on 28/4/2012 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Florida, Arizona, and Puerto Rico could be changed to proportional rather than Winner Take All. They broke RNC rules by going winner take all before the window and therefore RNC Members and/or the convention could enforce the rules and make the delegations proportional.

So 50 in Florida, 29 in Arizona and 20 in Puerto Rico are part of Romney's hard count. Let's say he loses half of those. That would knock 50 off of his hard count. Plus the 22 in Wyoming that are really unpledged though counted as pledged by your website. Romney then would have about 652 pledged delegates right now if the convention enforces the rule.

Now let's say Ron Paul wins Texas which gives him big momentum moving forward, causing him to win California which is winner take all with 172 delegates. Romney will win all of NJ (50) and all of Utah (40), giving him 742. But let's say Ron Paul wins the conservative state of Indiana with a winner take all haul of 46.

That would mean Romney would need to pick up much more than 40% of the remaining delegates on a proportional and caucas basis.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by hab22
Florida, Arizona, and Puerto Rico could be changed to proportional rather than Winner Take All. They broke RNC rules by going winner take all before the window and therefore RNC Members and/or the convention could enforce the rules and make the delegations proportional.

So 50 in Florida, 29 in Arizona and 20 in Puerto Rico are part of Romney's hard count. Let's say he loses half of those. That would knock 50 off of his hard count. Plus the 22 in Wyoming that are really unpledged though counted as pledged by your website. Romney then would have about 652 pledged delegates right now if the convention enforces the rule.

Now let's say Ron Paul wins Texas which gives him big momentum moving forward, causing him to win California which is winner take all with 172 delegates. Romney will win all of NJ (50) and all of Utah (40), giving him 742. But let's say Ron Paul wins the conservative state of Indiana with a winner take all haul of 46.

That would mean Romney would need to pick up much more than 40% of the remaining delegates on a proportional and caucas basis.


Indeed. The website quoted is not accurate - at least not entirely. State by State analysis confirms this.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by UKTruth

Originally posted by hab22
Florida, Arizona, and Puerto Rico could be changed to proportional rather than Winner Take All. They broke RNC rules by going winner take all before the window and therefore RNC Members and/or the convention could enforce the rules and make the delegations proportional.

So 50 in Florida, 29 in Arizona and 20 in Puerto Rico are part of Romney's hard count. Let's say he loses half of those. That would knock 50 off of his hard count. Plus the 22 in Wyoming that are really unpledged though
counted as pledged by your website. Romney then would have about 652 pledged delegates right now if the convention enforces the rule.

Now let's say Ron Paul wins Texas which gives him big momentum moving forward, causing him to win California which is winner take all with 172 delegates. Romney will win all of NJ (50) and all of Utah (40), giving him 742. But let's say Ron Paul wins the conservative state of Indiana with a winner take all haul of 46.

That would mean Romney would need to pick up much more than 40% of the remaining delegates on a proportional and caucas basis.


Indeed. The website quoted is not accurate - at least not entirely. State by State analysis confirms this.


I found another inaccuracy. Massachusetts is a proportional state yet this greenpapers website has all 38 delegates going to Romney. So knock 30% of those 38 delegates off of Romney's hard count. So even though Romney will certainly win all of New Jersey and Utah, he still will need to find a way to win at least 400 delegates.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by hab22

Originally posted by UKTruth

Originally posted by hab22
Florida, Arizona, and Puerto Rico could be changed to proportional rather than Winner Take All. They broke RNC rules by going winner take all before the window and therefore RNC Members and/or the convention could enforce the rules and make the delegations proportional.

So 50 in Florida, 29 in Arizona and 20 in Puerto Rico are part of Romney's hard count. Let's say he loses half of those. That would knock 50 off of his hard count. Plus the 22 in Wyoming that are really unpledged though
counted as pledged by your website. Romney then would have about 652 pledged delegates right now if the convention enforces the rule.

Now let's say Ron Paul wins Texas which gives him big momentum moving forward, causing him to win California which is winner take all with 172 delegates. Romney will win all of NJ (50) and all of Utah (40), giving him 742. But let's say Ron Paul wins the conservative state of Indiana with a winner take all haul of 46.

That would mean Romney would need to pick up much more than 40% of the remaining delegates on a proportional and caucas basis.


Indeed. The website quoted is not accurate - at least not entirely. State by State analysis confirms this.


I found another inaccuracy. Massachusetts is a proportional state yet this greenpapers website has all 38 delegates going to Romney. So knock 30% of those 38 delegates off of Romney's hard count. So even though Romney will certainly win all of New Jersey and Utah, he still will need to find a way to win at least 400 delegates.




I believe that in a proportional vote you have to pick up a minimum % of the vote to get anything - hence Romney getting all the delegates. However, there are innacuracies in the numbers on this site.
edit on 28/4/2012 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I'm very leery of poll results that show that Ron Paul only has 15% support in Texas. He's from Texas and has been reelected to the House of Representatives 11 times in his district. Are Texans REALLY more likely to vote for a rich guy from the east coast instead of one of their own, especially given the difference in their platforms? Texans pride themselves on being independent. They don't like the Federal government which means the establishment and Romney is seen as the establishment candidate. If the vote count in Texas isn't rigged, then I think Ron Paul will do very well there.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
........and havent we all been hearing about the magic little choice of abstaining from voting during the first round? So how does that play into your numbers OutKast Searcher? You addressed the 'projection' part of the argument, but what about simply not voting on the first round to keep Romney from the 1144. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is still a glimmer of hope. Like I said in the last thread I posted in, everyone needs to chill until August because thats what will count unless someone else drops which isnt likely at this point. Romney has the perceived 'win' at the moment, and Paul has a mission to get to the White House if at all possible. So we will see what happens.

As a note, I will be the first to admit, im not entirely too sure how the abstaining works, but all indications lead me to believe that it is in fact an option and worse case scenario the GOP exercises some penalty upon you for breaking a rule, but thats not a real law, so again no real consequence. And I think you are missing the entire point of all of this. I think Paul has set himself up to literally take over the GOP. Essentially kick out the old traditions and implement a new change within the Party. If you gain control of the majority, you can start making any rules that the majority is wiling to pass. The GOP is a private party that simply has traditions and a way they have set-up to run things. Its no different then the Neo-Cons or whomever shaping the party to their needs, this is just an attempt at a more drastic change.

At any rate, best of luck to you. I hope your desired outcome comes to fruition just as much as mine.

I think the only thing really concrete at this point is that Romeny will not be our next President, no matter how you look at it. He might could stand up about as good as McCain did in 2008 IF he had the support of the 'Paulites', as it is now though, to me it looks like Paul supporters would just as soon see Obama in office as Romney simply because in our eyes he represents no change and even worse hes a known member of the type of people who have screwed this country. Like I said though, all you can do is go with the convictions in your heart and vote accordingly. I will NOT vote Romney nor Obama, no matter what. My ego doesnt dictate I always need to be on the 'winning' side. Those choices arent 'winning' in my opinion so i will vote how i see fit. Even if its the longest shot in the world. Like I said, its not over until a formal declaration has been announced, and we are all fools to continue to bicker about it back and forth.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by UKTruth

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I'm kind of dissapointed in the Ron Paul supporters...even with facts being presented...they still try to claim they are wrong.

Ron Paul supporters...please...be honest with yourselves.


Dig further into those hard count numbers - on the site they came from - and you will find innaccuracies.
edit on 28/4/2012 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)


Why don't you just point them out to me???

Obviously you have already done the digging and found some inaccuracies...why not share your knowledge with all of us so we can see the flaws as well???


Let me guess...you will reply by saying "I'm not going to do the research for you"


This is what people say when they want to ignore facts but have no logical reason for doing so.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Morpheas
According to Ron Paul's website he has over half of the delegates in Washington, Iowa, and Minnesota. He needs to have more than half the delegates in five states to get on Florida's ballot. Maine and North Dakota may end up being more than half. Does this give him a chance? I still don't think it is enough, but I do support Ron Paul.

www.ronpaul2012.com...


And that article on Ron Paul's website is using ESTIMATES for Iowa and Washington because they have not had their State conventions yet, so there are NO delegates yet. What they are doing is looking at the delegates that have come out of the districts and trying to estimate how the vote will go...but State conventions can get just as messy as the national one...so who knows what will happen.

In MN, yes, he did get the majority and that is included in the "hard count" that I have posted.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Long time watcher, first time poster. Firstly let me say I do not trust any of the figures being fed to us by the TS or the mainstream media. It is well documented that at every corner they have misrepresented & misreported on Dr. Ron Paul & tried to downplay much of his momentum. There are many inconsistencies with a hard count & even more technicalities that "sway" these numbers.

Dont bother to argue circles with them because even the professionals don't know exactly where all the chips fall !

I pay very close attention to certain posters who go farrrrrrrrrrrrrrr out of their way to discredit such a man as Mr. Paul, almost as if they have ulterior motives (;

Fact is there are many big states still up for grabs & many surprises left in this race.

Who are you going to believe? The white collars fighting to support a love & liberty movement .....
Or the very same people that told you 9-11 wasn't an inside job. The very same people who manipulated most the country into thinking Obama actually stood for change lol The very same people who want to pass CISPA. They want you to believe Fukushima has no effect on the rest of the world & that millions of gallons of oil/chemicals being spilled into the Gulf of Mexico isn't a big deal.
Say what?!!!!?
These people are professional liars.I see alot of would be RP supporters apathetically saying he has no chance. They go out their way to hope that you think that.


Truth is it's alot harder to rig the system when you got thousandths of socially active, young fervent supporters watching with cell phones & cameras :-)

Truth is if they slip up major things happen, look at all the voter fraud that got put on blast. One slip up on their part & we got a new viral video (:

Jah bless.

RON PAUL. A man I would be honored to call my President!!!!!!!!!!

Please donate to his campaign. We can make # happen .



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hab22
OP, your hard count has 22 Wyoming delegates going to Mitt Romney. Yet if you click on Wyoming, it shows that they are unpledged "soft" delegates. So Romney has 702 hard count delegates not 724. Not that it makes much differrence, if this site you reference is a true picture. I heard that Florida might change over from winner take all to proportional. If so, that would knock Romney down under 700 hard delegates.


I'm not sure where you are looking, but here is the state page for Wyoming and it clearly shows 23 hard count delegates for Romney.

www.thegreenpapers.com...

I'm not sure people are grasping the "hard" and "soft" count columns. If a candidate has a count in the "hard count" column, they will have at least that many but maybe more in the "soft count".


Florida is not going to switch to proportional...they have already been penalized for going early and they have repeatedly said they are sticking with that. Gingrich tried to petition them and they shot him down.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Everything I am seeing says they are wrong. Even if you want to say they aren't bound, then the soft count is wrong, but in reality I believe it is actually both counts. The whole thing.



n Colorado, supporters of the 12-term Congressman from Texas won 12 delegates and 13 alternate delegates. Paul’s state operation is confident that it can win over more of the Rick Santorum delegates to its side who were elected on a combined Paul-Santorum slate.


Source

Yet if you look at this from your source, and I suggest everyone does since it gives more info than OP's picture, it shows that he has no hard delegates and only 2 soft. It us undeniably incorrect, even if you just want to say it's the soft number (though you and I know it's more than that).
SOURCE
edit on 28-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join