Republican Primary Bound Delegate Count

Originally posted 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.

This is where you loose all credibility with me. You start a thread about "Bound" delegates. You present a link to a web site (never heard of that site EVER, does MSN, CNN, FOX use those that site as a source??). You present your case as FACT that RP has no chance. You go back and forth about how RP supporters wont except the FACTS that YOU provide as FACTS and at the same time basically ridicule and characterize every RP supporter a certain way.

Than, all of a sudden anyone who has some different numbers from a different site those are not FACTS according to you. So you really cant argue any numbers are correct and accuse RP supporters of doing the same exact thing you have been doing this entire thread. On top of that, you now say how arguing over the HARD Bound delegates is "unbelievable". Why is it so Unbelievable when most of the States Counts have been wrong?? THAN, after all your arguments and banter, you now want to talk about how JEB BUSH AND SARAH PALIN will walk right into the nomination??? ROTFLMAO......your killen me Smalls.

reply to post by hoochymama

You present your case as FACT that RP has no chance.

Nope, never did.

I said that it is close to impossible for Ron Paul to accomplish what he needs to in order to prevent Romney from getting the needed 1144 bound delegates.

You go back and forth about how RP supporters wont except the FACTS that YOU provide as FACTS and at the same time basically ridicule and characterize every RP supporter a certain way.

If there is something I presented as fact that isn't...please point them out.

Than, all of a sudden anyone who has some different numbers from a different site those are not FACTS according to you. So you really cant argue any numbers are correct and accuse RP supporters of doing the same exact thing you have been doing this entire thread. On top of that, you now say how arguing over the HARD Bound delegates is "unbelievable". Why is it so Unbelievable when most of the States Counts have been wrong?? THAN, after all your arguments and banter, you now want to talk about how JEB BUSH AND SARAH PALIN will walk right into the nomination??? ROTFLMAO......your killen me Smalls.

If you are talking about the Examiner article...do you know what the Examiner website is??? I can go write and article for Examiner right now...I can say anything I want and it will be published.

Again...please show me what State counts are wrong from my source.

If you don't think it's a possibility that Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin could get the nomination...then you are not familiar with what happens at a brokered convention.



So please...if you question some of the numbers from my source...point them out and explain to me how they are wrong. Many have claimed they are wrong in different states...but in fact the numbers are right and it is their own misunderstanding that is causing the confusion.

regarding the delegates in Wyoming, the greenpapers site lists 29 soft unpledged delegates, then it lists 29 hard pledged delegates. There are ONLY 29 total delegates in Wyoming and they are ALL UNBOUND. Greenpapers got it wrong. So take those 22 hard count delegates they give to Romney out of your equation.

That site is flawed, at least when it comes to Wyoming.

Originally posted by hab22
regarding the delegates in Wyoming, the greenpapers site lists 29 soft unpledged delegates, then it lists 29 hard pledged delegates. There are ONLY 29 total delegates in Wyoming and they are ALL UNBOUND. Greenpapers got it wrong. So take those 22 hard count delegates they give to Romney out of your equation.

That site is flawed, at least when it comes to Wyoming.

Again...I'll ask you for a source for your information.

I think you are being confused by the Wyoming presidential preference straw polls being non-binding and the eventual selected delegates being bound delegates.

Wyoming has a non-binding straw poll...that means that the eventual delegates don't have to be bound to the winner of the straw poll. However, the delegates that are selected can still be bound to a candidate.

Here are the results straight from the Wyoming GOP website.

wygop.org...

Election Results

Delegates
1.Gov. Matt Mead Romney
2.Rep. Cynthia Lummis Romney
3.Hon. Ron Micheli Romney
4.Susan Thomas Romney
5.Hon. Barbara Cubin Romney
6.Hon. Cynthia Cloud Romney
7.Dicky Shanor Romney
8. Margaret Parry Romney
9.Miles Dahlby Romney
10. Erin Begeman Romney
11.Hon. Odgen Driskill Romney
12.Bob Grady Romney
13.Clay Long Romney
14.Patrick Bishop Romney

Here is another article...just in case you still have doubts.
www.therepublic.com...

So there are two sources for you....one being the OFFICIAL Wyoming GOP website showing the bound delegates to Romney.



So again...where are your sources...please show me a source that says these delegates are not bound to Romney.

This is going to be one of those years when nobody actually knows the true count until it comes time to vote.
It seems like Mitt has it, but even if he wins, if you have 750 angry GOP delegates that does not bode well for the general. These people will take there political power they have gained and use it some other way, but the GOP won't get it.

Dude, I'm using YOUR source. Go to Greenpapers, the one you linked at the start of this thread. Then click
on Wyoming. It listed 29 Soft Unpledged Delegates, but it makes the mistake of listing 26 of those same delegates as Hard Count delegates, with 22 going to Romney. Check other sources. Wyoming only has 29 total delegates and they are all unbound. abcnews.go.com...

I just want you to admit greenpapers has given more hard count delegates to Romney than he actually has.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
This is going to be one of those years when nobody actually know the true count until it comes time to vote.
It seems like Mitt has it, but even if he wins, if you have 750 angry GOP delegates that does not bode well for the general. These people will take there political power they have gained and use it some other way, but the GOP won't get it.

Yes, because of all the uncommitted delegates, the exact count won't be known before the convention. But you can track the bound delegates, and if Romney gets above 1144 in bound delegates...all the other delegates don't matter.

And I'm curious...what political power do you think a delegate has that they could take somewhere else??? I don't think the GOP is counting on the Ron Paul supporters to support the eventual nominee if it isn't Paul...so I'm not sure what you think will happen. The only person with power is Ron Paul...he can, and probably will, run as a third party.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

And I'm curious...what political power do you think a delegate has that they could take somewhere else???

To be a delegate means you are committed to the political process more than the average person, they would be a great asset in the general election. Instead Mitt will basically tell them to get lost, and they will.

Originally posted by hab22
Dude, I'm using YOUR source. Go to Greenpapers, the one you linked at the start of this thread. Then click
on Wyoming. It listed 29 Soft Unpledged Delegates, but it makes the mistake of listing 26 of those same delegates as Hard Count delegates, with 22 going to Romney. Check other sources. Wyoming only has 29 total delegates and they are all unbound. abcnews.go.com...

I just want you to admit greenpapers has given more hard count delegates to Romney than he actually has.

You are confused on how they are using the "soft counts" and "hard counts"...they are two seperate counts...you don't combine them.

If there are x amount in the "hard count" column for that candidate...there is going to be at least x amount in the "soft count" column for that candidate.

You don't add the "soft count" and the "hard count" delegates together to get a total...they are two independent counts.

Here is the definition of the soft and hard counts.

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.

So for Wyoming...the soft count closely matches the hard count because many of them are bound delegates.

And lets talk about Nevada. Greenpapers lists 14 hard count delegates for Romney. But Nevada is a caucas/convention state, and the delegates can change the rules at their state convention and request the bound delegates become unbound. Since many of the 14 Romney delegates are known to be Ron Paul supporters, they will campaign with Ron Paul's 9 delegates and make that rule change. Ron Paul will pick up most of Romney's delegates that are "hard count" according to your listed site.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

And I'm curious...what political power do you think a delegate has that they could take somewhere else???

To be a delegate means you are committed to the political process more than the average person, they would be a great asset in the general election. Instead Mitt will basically tell them to get lost, and they will.

What power do they have in the general election?

And do you think Romney delegates are going to support Ron Paul if he would win the nomination and they see it as him stealing the nomination???

reply to post by hab22


That is exactly what I am talking about earlier, some states will do this, and there is nothing Mitt or the GOP can do to stop it

Originally posted by primus2012
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?

Your assumption that threads negative to Ron Paul are from admitted Democrats is wrong. Once again, Paul supporters are being delusional. They regard any thread that attempts to be objective, such as this one, to be a "Ron Paul bash" thread. I'm a vocal opponent of Ron Paul supporters because I detest the way they act. And I'm a Republican myself. I don't foresee EVER voting for a Democrat to national office.

Originally posted by hab22
And lets talk about Nevada. Greenpapers lists 14 hard count delegates for Romney. But Nevada is a caucas/convention state, and the delegates can change the rules at their state convention and request the bound delegates become unbound. Since many of the 14 Romney delegates are known to be Ron Paul supporters, they will campaign with Ron Paul's 9 delegates and make that rule change. Ron Paul will pick up most of Romney's delegates that are "hard count" according to your listed site.

Nevada hasn't had their convention, but their delegates are bound by the Caucus vote.

I have seen no information from any source that says that they can vote to unbind the delegates...if you have that source, please provide it.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

And I'm curious...what political power do you think a delegate has that they could take somewhere else???

To be a delegate means you are committed to the political process more than the average person, they would be a great asset in the general election. Instead Mitt will basically tell them to get lost, and they will.

What power do they have in the general election?

And do you think Romney delegates are going to support Ron Paul if he would win the nomination and they see it as him stealing the nomination???

Here is the difference, Mitt will get zero democrats coming over, Ron Paul on the other hand will rally the Blue Republicans and the anti-war singe issue crowd, many young people as shown by the support he gets from schools he goes to, the same young people who voted Obama in.
And then there will be the GOP crowd that wants to stop Obama no matter the cost so they will hold their noses and vote for Ron.
We both might not be that realistic because our perspectives taint our viewpoints, I accept that.
But I see what is slowly developing, do you?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by hab22

 

That is exactly what I am talking about earlier, some states will do this, and there is nothing Mitt or the GOP can do to stop it

Provide the source please.

You and hab22 keep claiming this...but you have offered up no proof.

Give me the section of the Nevada GOP convention rules that allow this. I know the Daily Paul says they can do this all the time, but they don't provide any sources either....just someone who creates a post saying they "know" they can do this.

Most the time for any convention...the rules they vote on are for the NEXT convention...not the current convention. So they can vote to have the 2016 convention to have unbound delegates...but I have seen nothing that says they can do this for this year.

So if you are going to continue to make this claim...please back it up with a source....the official Nevada GOP rules would be ideal.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Here is the difference, Mitt will get zero democrats coming over, Ron Paul on the other hand will rally the Blue Republicans and the anti-war singe issue crowd, many young people as shown by the support he gets from schools he goes to, the same young people who voted Obama in.
And then there will be the GOP crowd that wants to stop Obama no matter the cost so they will hold their noses and vote for Ron.
We might both might not be realistic because our perspectives taint our viewpoints, I accept that.
But I see what is slowly developing, do you?

Most of that is irrelevant to me...I don't care if you think Ron Paul has a better chance at beating Obama. But I do think you are overlooking the REpublicans Ron Paul will lose soley based on his foreign policy. Because that is one area that he can do what he wants...he doesn't need congress for that...and that will lose him the majority of the pro-war Republicans.

I don't see how this gives Ron Paul delegates any "power" during the general election.

In a better world it would have been interesting to see how Paul did without media bias, and with fair and accurate caucus results.

Unfortunately, I think this is might be internet propaganda

First let me say thanks for this eye opening thread.
I am a big fan of Ron Paul, but never believed any GOP candidates stood any chance against Obama in November. I'll even go so far as to say the GOP will probably lose the house majority as well.
I hope Ron Paul will run on a third ticket. Only then does he stand a chance...small chance at that.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Why doesn't this match up with other numbers???

"In fact, according to the Associated Press, Paul currently is in last place in the delegate count, trailing presumptive nominee Mitt Romney and the other candidates. Paul has 67 delegates to Romney's 697, Santorum's 269 and Newt Gingrich's 137. It takes 1,144 delegates to cinch the nomination."

697 is a lot different than almost 800???? That is as of april 24th....

Jaden