Republican Primary Bound Delegate Count

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
lmao look at outkast the sheep bashing ron paul. How about you join him? Why don't you want him to be president? What's your Agenda? lmao Don't like liberty? Enjoy having your rights taken away? Enjoy all the wars? Enjoy the federal reserve counterfeiting money?

What's wrong with you and the other Ron Paul Bashers? Why would you rather have a puppet run for president? That's what doesn't make sense to me.




posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 



And here is where your numbers are wrong which I am sure you just copied from somewhere. In the coming 15 states left to hold primaries and caucuses, 713 bound delegates are up for grabs. Only 3 of those states are winner-take-all states, the rest are proportional, which means Ron Paul will definitely be walking away with some of those delegates. There are 106 delegates from that states that are unbound.


I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but from what I see there are 15 primaries left with a total of 770 delegates up for grabs.

www.thegreenpapers.com...

If you have a different source that shows there are 819 delegates left up for grabs, please share it.

The Proportional states usually have a minimum percentage that a candidate needs to get to qualify for the proportional allocation. In Texas it is 20%...Ron Paul is hasn't been polling about 15% in Texas so far...so he is going to have to campaign hard just to get above 20% to qualify for proportional allocation. If he doesn't...Romney will get all the delegates. He may have a better chance with Gingrich dropping out...but that is yet to be seen.



Seeing as how Ron Paul has taking the majority of almost all unbound delegates in each state to come across, I think it is safe to say he will at least be seeing half, if not more of those unbound delegates, with the possibility of nearly ALL of them being Ron Paul supporters.


You can't make a statement like this without proof. Please show me proof that he has won nearly all the unbound delegates.


Even if Romney wins all three winner-take-all states, he will receive just 259 delegates, which sure, is obviously a big chunk needed in the right direction, but not enough to clinch the vote. Considering Ron Paul support in Utah, one of those such states, I'm not exactly sure Romney is going to "run away" with those 40 delegates now that Santorum and Gingrich are out. It could very well come down to Utah to decide it all.


Again, where are you getting your numbers?

The remaining winner take all states are Indiana(46), California(172), New Jersey(50), Montana(26) and Utah(40). If Romney wins all of those, he gets 334 delegates. Added to his hard count of 724, that is 1058. He would only need 86 more to clinch the nomination. So if Ron Paul can't outright win one of those states, then it is all but over.



You make it SOUND impossible for Ron Paul to reach such a drastic number, but when delegates are allocated via proportional means, it isn't that hard of a feat at all, especially when you only have two statistics. You like to skew everything to make it sound great in your favor, but in reality - Ron Paul does indeed still have a very good chance of making it to the convention and getting the nomination whether you want to admit it or not.


Yes, it is almost impossible for a man who has yet to win one single state to gain that many delegates this late in the election. Not impossible...almost impossible. Mathmatically it is still possible...but not probable at all.

For you to say he has a "very good chance" is being a bit dishonest in my opinion.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


There's nothing in the GOP convention rules that say that committed delegates are legally bound to vote for their declared candidate and there are no penalties that I can see for delegates that do not vote the way they're supposed to. Legally bound implies that not doing so breaks a law. We are talking about rules from a private organization. Breaking the rules is not the same as breaking a law.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by phishfriar47
 


You want me to provide proof that legally bound delegates are legally bound???

Do you want me to define what "is" is also???


This is desperation at it's worst...



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by phishfriar47
 



So what you are telling me is that you are trying to soften the blow of a Ron Paul loss to us supporters? Why?


Politics is an interest of mine. Counting delegates, electoral votes, and popular vote is a something of a hobby of mine.

Seeing all the mis-information being floated around here about Ron Paul's delegate count was a bit annoying...so I decided it was time to throw facts out there. I fully knew that most of you wouldn't accept facts...but I thought it was a good thing to try anyway.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Studenofhistory
 


If enough delegates and there alternates abstain on the first round there is nothing the GOP can do about it, politically embarrassing yes, but then once unbound they will pick who they think can beat Obama, and there is only 1 guy left.

Americans did way more than this when they had there revolution against the British, compared to what they did, a political revolution with no blood spilled is minor in comparison. But perhaps equally important in history.
edit on 28-4-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by phishfriar47
 



And who is going to stop them from not voting their 'bound' candidate,are the GOP Police going to do something about it? You are forgetting its a private party, so yes they could make arrests on trespassing or something like that I guess, but just imagine the chaos if most of the delegates support Paul, vote accordingly, then get tossed out. We wont be having an election most likely if thats the case. Again, like I said, wait until the convention, where all will be answered. There are too many unknowns to be trying to give an authoritative OPINION on the matter, even the pros and the GOP have no idea whats likely to happen at this point, they are just trying to paint everything as being hunky-dory to keep the appearance of everything being OK.


I would like nothing more than for Ron Paul to destroy the GOP, have them cancel the convention and just nominate someone from within the party....but I am a realistic person so I don't live my life believing in fantasies.

It is unbelievable that you are to the point of arguing over if bound delegates are truly bound.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


It isn't ignorant at all.

Anyone who is against individual liberties is just wrong. Enforcing public opinion on an individual used to go by another name, what was it? Ah, slavery.


And enforcing a personal opinion on others has a name to....oh yeah....dictatorship.


Not only is it ignorance...it is also arrogance...to think that only your point of view is the correct point of view.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





It is unbelievable that you are to the point of arguing over if bound delegates are truly bound.


And if enough rebel at convention and don't give Mitt the nomination first round ?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Outkast. Why are you bashing Ron Paul instead of voting for him. How about you explain why you want a puppet to be President instead of Dr. Paul?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Someone has already quoted from a Financial Times (I think) article that Ron Paul is half way to getting the majority of delegates for a minimum of five states in order to be on the ballot at the convention. That requirement also applies to Gingrich and Santorum. Gingrich has no chance of meeting that criteria and Santorum may not either if his caucus state 'wins' select a majority of delegates for Ron Paul. So the convention might be just a two way contest between Romney and Ron Paul. Given that Santorum is idealogically closer to Ron Paul than to Romney, I suspect that most of his delegates, even the 'committed' ones will vote for RP.

And again, there is no legal ie. enforceable requirement to vote for a declared candidate regardless of whether a delegate is committed or not. Committed delegates, who do not vote the way their supposed to, will not be arrested or go to jail nor will they be fined or otherwise penalized as far as the GOP convention rules go. So Romney can't count on actually getting all of his committed delegates on the first ballot.

And finally, I do not believe any poll that says that Romney and Santorum or Gingrich are more popular in Texas than Ron Paul. If the announced results are consistent then they're consistently wrong. Do you see any large crowds in Texas for any of the other candidates? I don't.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Studenofhistory
 


If enough delegates and there alternates abstain on the first round there is nothing the GOP can do about it, politically embarrassing yes, but then once unbound they will pick who they think can beat Obama, and there is only 1 guy left.

Americans did way more than this when they had there revolution against the British, compared to what they did, a political revolution with no blood spilled is minor in comparison. But perhaps equally important in history.
edit on 28-4-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


Like I said, I'm all for Ron Paul supporters destroying the GOP...I may even start supporting him just for that reason.


The only information I have ever seen about bound delegates abstaining from a vote is on Ron Paul forums....forgive me if I don't take that for fact. None of the posts ever give a source...they just claim that "yes, bound delegates can abstain".

But I find it funny how Ron Paul supporters have claimed Ron Paul is winning, the media just isn't reporting the real numbers...only their "projections". So I post the real 'bound" delegate counts...and you guys just move right along with another excuse as to why they are wrong....you come up with this "abstaining" from voting.

If you have any proof at all that a BOUND delegate can abstain from voting...please present it.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





It is unbelievable that you are to the point of arguing over if bound delegates are truly bound.


And if enough rebel at convention and don't give Mitt the nomination first round ?


If it goes past the first round...I don't think Romney or Paul will be the nominee.

If Paul can get enough delegates to prevent Romney getting the 1144...I don't think he will have enough to get the 1144 himself. I think this opens the door for Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin to walk right into the nomination.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Studenofhistory
 


They don't have to be arressted...they are bound...so the GOP will count their vote for that candidate no matter what that person is screaming. They are there to represent at that point...not to vote their individual preference. If it goes past the first round...then they can vote their individual preference.

The bound delegates will just be counted...they won't be asked to vote.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 




The bound delegates will just be counted...they won't be asked to vote.


True but....

Are you aware that if there is enough stealth delegates at the state level they could vote to unbind all delegates before Tampa?
edit on 28-4-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I have nothing good left to say about this country, I have no faith nor hope.

I don't care what happens to this place and the American people any more.
This whole country can jump off of a cliff for all I care.

There was an actual chance to save this place. A small bit of real hope and
now its gone.

This country deserves what the next leader does to it. We all deserve to be
slaves. We don't deserve the truth. We don't deserve freedom.

We wont even vote for it. Why would we deserve it?

We belong to them. We are there sheep and rightfully so. We gave them the
rights to do it and when given the chance to change our minds, we watched
tv and played video games.

No wonder the rest of the world disrespects us.

Its because we deserve it. We are losers. We are worthless. We wont even
stand up for our selves.

Just open the borders, burn the constitution, put on a pair of hand cuffs,
pepper spray our selves in the face and go were we deserve to be.

IN THE GARBAGE.

Flame me all you want. If you are American, shove it up your wazoo.
If you are foreign, good luck finding freedom now because you wont
find it here.




posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Let me first say, I am a Ron Paul supporter. He is the ONLY logical choice and the only person to be President at this time in our history.

With that said, I firmly believe if something doesn't racally change over the next few weeks Romney will sew up the GOP Primary.

However, if some major economic event happens in the near term all bets are off. This country is on the brink of the abyss and anything could happen at any time.

If a financial crisis happens or the criminal activities of the government get exposed, I truly believe things would change dramatically over night. Even to the point of a convention vote to release or abstain all committed on the first ballot.

I think this is more than just wishful thinking, because if we do not act before this next election we may never be able to change the course.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 




The bound delegates will just be counted...they won't be asked to vote.


True but....

Are you aware that if there is enough stealth delegates at the state level they could vote to unbind all delegates before Tampa?
edit on 28-4-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


I don't know all the states rules..but I would assume they would have to do this AT the State convention. And I think all the "hard count" delegates are from states that have already had their convention.

I don't understand all the resistance to facts.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

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.


So don't look at the "soft count"...use the "hard count".

That is the whole point of this thread.


Is that really the whole point of this thread? Just numbers?

Or is it yet another attempt to sing the mainstream's anthem since day 1, "Ron Paul has very little support and has no chance"?
They've been showing us inaccurate statistics since before the Iowa Caucus.

No Democrat fears an Obama vs Romney campaign. Romney is their opponent of choice. That's the whole point of this and all Bash Ron Paul Supporters threads that originate from admitted Democrats. Else why would a Democrat create a thread regarding Republican delegate counts?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 



Is that really the whole point of this thread? Just numbers?


Yes, that is the point of this thread...it shows the hard count of bound delegates.

I tried to be as fair an unbiased in the OP with my analysis as I could...from then on I am just responding to Ron Paul supporters doubting the numbers or saying they are incorrect.

Believe me, if a Romney supporter comes on this thread to claim he has 200 more delegates than the hard count shows, I will respond to him in the same way as I would to these Ron Paul supporters that are claiming the numbers are wrong.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix is on-air in 14 minutes.
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def