Republican Primary Bound Delegate Count

page: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


that's preposterous... Republicans who would vote for Romney aren't voting for Romney, they're voting against Obama. Whoever is the presidential candidate against Obama will find all of the Republican vote and quite a bit of the independent vote...

Jaden




posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by swoopaloop
 


Can't blame all of us. Informed voters support Ron Paul. He has a lot of support for a guy that has to make his own buzz and rely on supporters to spread his message since the MSM wont.



Again with the "Ron Paul supporters are right...all others are wrong".

Do you guys not see how ignorant that is???


I'll take that one step further... Ron Paul supporters are hopeful, all others are either ignorant or manipulative liars...

Jaden



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
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


A link to the source you are quoting would be nice...I have no idea where that came from.

But it talks about the Associated Press delegate count...here is thier current count....they have Romney at 844.

hosted.ap.org...



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willease
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.


He still wouldn't win. But it would be interesting to see what happened. Most third party candidates throw the election. Nader threw the election to Bush in Florida, for example. The Nader vote was greater than the difference between Bush and Gore. Perot gave us Bill Clinton in 1996. There are many examples, but I think Paul is different because he MIGHT draw from both sides. So you can't say a third-party Paul candidacy would automatically give us Obama. He might draw Obama supporters more than Republicans. I've not read or heard of an analysis on this issue.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


that's preposterous... Republicans who would vote for Romney aren't voting for Romney, they're voting against Obama. Whoever is the presidential candidate against Obama will find all of the Republican vote and quite a bit of the independent vote...

Jaden


And I'm sure you have some sort of data to back this claim up with....right???

I'd love to see it.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by swoopaloop
 


Can't blame all of us. Informed voters support Ron Paul. He has a lot of support for a guy that has to make his own buzz and rely on supporters to spread his message since the MSM wont.



Again with the "Ron Paul supporters are right...all others are wrong".

Do you guys not see how ignorant that is???




I'll take that one step further... Ron Paul supporters are hopeful, all others are either ignorant or manipulative liars...

Jaden


Yeah...I think you missed the point.
edit on 28-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Easy way to show what the source says has little consequence: Click on Massachusets (MA) under republican. it says Romney has 38 hard delegates, with only 3 left to nominate (unpledged). Well as of today, 27 of those delegates where selected, and guess what. Most of them seem to be Ron Paul supporters. They are currently discussing to vote to set the delegates free, so that they become unbound (Which means they can vote however they want anyway, which is possible according to the rules).

If such a vote fails though, they are obliged to vote for Romney anyway in the convention the first time, but if the convention is brokered they are free to vote for Ron Paul.

Keep in mind Massachussets is Romneys home state, and he is apperently not too happy with this.


www.dailypaul.com...
edit on 28-4-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 



They are currently discussing to vote to set the delegates free, so that they become unbound (Which means they can vote however they want anyway, which is possible according to the rules).


Why can't any of you link the the actual rules to prove this claim???

I know over at the Daily Paul this is being commonly quoted...but no one ever links to the actual rules that allow this.

I'd also like to see proof that they are all Paul supporters.

I'd actually like to see any proof at all of anything you just posted.

Let me help you out with the actual rules from MA GOP.

massgop.com...

1.6 If there is a roll call vote for President at the Convention, all delegates and alternate delegates whose selection is made subject by the Plan to qualifying Presidential Primary Candidates defined by Section 4.2 of the Plan, shall vote on the first such roll call for that presidential candidate unless released by such candidate. (G.L. c.53, §70I)
...
4.2 The Allocation Committee shall study the votes received in the Republican Primary of each presidential candidate and shall allocate all delegates based on a formula. A candidate in the Presidential Primary shall not qualify for allocation of any delegates unless the candidate receives at least 15% of the “final net Republican vote” statewide. The percentage of delegates and alternates allocated to a qualifying candidate shall be determined by taking the number of votes cast for the qualifying candidate divided by the total number of votes cast for all qualifying candidates. The votes for non qualifying candidates shall not be used in this calculation. This percentage shall be applied to the total number of delegates and alternates allocated to the state delegation to determine the number of delegates and alternates that shall be allocated to the qualifying candidate.
...
Each nominee for election as a pledged Congressional District delegate or alternate delegate shall express a commitment to a qualifying Presidential candidate and agree to be bound to vote for that candidate on the first such roll-call unless released by such candidate, as required by law. c. 53 § 70(I)




So go ahead and find me the section that states that the delegates can vote themselves to be unbound...because I sure as hell can't find it.
edit on 28-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
www.demconwatchblog.com...

Democratic Convention Watch

by: Matt
Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 23:03:13 PM EDT

In probably the strangest day in the history of superdelegates, a petulant Mitt Romney would not allow members of the RNC to enter a meeting with him unless they signed a form pledging an endorsement. Most did, but notably for the presumptive nominee, many did not:

So, if Romney has it all tied up, why the pledge of loyalty? Looks like the writing is on the wall for all to see.

Dr Paul WILL get his second round at the convention. He WILL sweep the delegates needed to win the nomination. He will then DESTROY Obama in the next election and become the 45th President of the United States.

NONE BUT PAUL IN 2012!



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


That is why i gave you the source, you gotta wade through the comments though to find the real meat.

To save you some trouble;

These are the current numbers from massachussets, for each Caucus District.


CD1: 2 Paul, 1 Romney

CD2: 3 Paul (+alts)

CD3: 3 Paul (+alts)

CD4: 3 Romney

CD5: 3 Paul (+alts)

CD6: 2 Paul, 1 tie (7 provisional ballots to be counted later)

CD7: 3 Paul (+alts)

CD8: 3 Romney

CD9: ?

Paul: 16

And they can always choose to abstain their vote, even if all else fails so that they are pldeged to Romney



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


You aren't given me sources for your claims...and now you add a new claim with no source.


And they can always choose to abstain their vote, even if all else fails so that they are pldeged to Romney


PLEASE...go to the MA GOP rules and show me where it says the delegates can vote to unbind themselve OR that they can abstain from voting.

All I find are rules saying they are legally bound to vote for the candidate.

Please...go find me the sections that back up your claims.

massgop.com...


ETA:

That is why i gave you the source


The daily paul is not a source...it is a message board.
edit on 28-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
im voting for Ron Paul no matter what. as a Republican or Independent. I'd rather have Obama than Romney. if that is what results, so be it. I have been a Republican for 30 years and have been disillusioned by the big fat establishment Republicans turning this party into corporate fascism. Romney will be no different than the Bushes who were counterfeit conservatives.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


It is not in the RNC Rules, but in the Roberts Rules of order. And in 2008 there was one abstention, to quote what someone else said about this:


I think the reason nobody ever seems to know for sure about abstaining is because abstaining isn't mentioned in the RNC rules, at all. I watched the entire roll call from 2008 (borrrring), and there were no abstentions, but McCain went into the convention with 1144 delegates. However, I did watch the 2008 DNC and there was one abstention vote, even with everyone pretty sure Obama was gonna win it. According to Robert's Rules of Order, an abstention vote is allowed (but "highly frowned upon") but the book didn't mention a national convention, just in general. Here's the link to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Skip to the 14:00 mark, Florida: www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I like most Paul supporters will continue to support Dr. Paul no matter what. If you say you are a RP supporter but in the same breath say he can't win and your voting for someone else because of that you were never a supporter in the first place!!!!

RON PAUL 2012

Either by election or force!!!



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


It is not in the RNC Rules, but in the Roberts Rules of order. And in 2008 there was one abstention, to quote what someone else said about this:


I think the reason nobody ever seems to know for sure about abstaining is because abstaining isn't mentioned in the RNC rules, at all. I watched the entire roll call from 2008 (borrrring), and there were no abstentions, but McCain went into the convention with 1144 delegates. However, I did watch the 2008 DNC and there was one abstention vote, even with everyone pretty sure Obama was gonna win it. According to Robert's Rules of Order, an abstention vote is allowed (but "highly frowned upon") but the book didn't mention a national convention, just in general. Here's the link to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Skip to the 14:00 mark, Florida: www.youtube.com...




Oh come on...you know the Roberts Rules of Order do not trump the RNC rules. Wow...seriously...please don't tell me you don't believe that the Roberts Rules of Order....a book used to run meetings...trumps the rules set by the RNC.

And again you are making a claim with no proof...show proof that a BOUND delegate abstained from voting in 2008.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
A link to a source does not mean its FACT. I tried to point out this to you earlier and every time someone has something to say you always refer to "wheres the source". What if someone here has some kind of an "inside source" and cant reveal it. Would you believe it then?? Of course not. So, dont be naive to the fact that the source you decided to link may not have the most accurate numbers and may not be FACT.

I prefer to wait until this actually shakes out. That is a FACT and you can be sure this thing aint over yet and that is a FACT. No source but its pretty reliable.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
This thread has turned into a Anti-Ron Paul thread, what a surprise.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join