It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The REAL 2012 GOP Delegate Count >HERE<

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
First off, I'd like to kindly ask we keep this thread on the topic of delegates only and not get into pointless arguments that does not have anything to do with the GOP delegate count going into the Republican National Convention this year.

You may have thought Mitt Romney was 200 delegates from 'clenching' the nomination, or so say almost all mainstream media sources but ever wonder why Ron Paul supporters keep claiming the mainstream counts are off?

Let's take a quick look.

Associated Press, who is considered to be one of the MAIN sources of the 2012 GOP election delegate count has the following candidates listed:
Romney @ 991
Santorum @ 266
Gingrich @ 131
Paul @ 107

elections.nytimes.com...


The way they calculate their delegate results are based off of caucus straw poll results or primary results and award delegates either proportionally based off of percentage or winner-take-all by % of threshold reached.

I have a concern to raise with AP's numbers though, let us look at the FIRST example, which is Iowa.

They awarded delegates proportionally to Romney and Santorum but didn't award delegates proportionally to Paul. The straw poll and delegate results, as reported by the Associated Press were:

Romney: 24% - 13
Santorum: 24% - 13
Paul: 21% - 1

Wait a minute, I thought according to AP, the delegates were awarded proportionally? Iowa has a total of 25 delegates (plus 3 super delegates that cannot be 'elected' but have been 'pre-determined') but did AP award Ron Paul his 21% of the 25 delegates? Doesn't seem so to me. Is the Associated Press flawed by their own logic, which does not take the rules of the Iowa caucus into consideration? You be the judge.

First off, Iowa's straw poll was nothing but a poll, the votes do not count, the delegates that are decided in the caucuses that work their way up to the state convention are the ones who decide who wins Iowa at the precinct, county, state, and national conventions.

Let's take a look at the Iowa delegate count that contests the mainstream delegate count:



Through the caucus process, per the rules of the GOP of Iowa, Ron Paul has won 13 delegates thus far and 12 delegates are to be determined at the Iowa GOP state convention that takes place on June 15th. At least one of the 3 super delegates in Iowa is a Ron Paul supporter, AJ spiker who was recently elected as the Iowa GOP state chairman.

So does that mean Ron Paul has won or tied in Iowa? You do the research and you be the judge.



Now, this is the FIRST example by Associated Press, if they could not get this right, does this mean they are wrong about numbers in many states thus far?



Now I present to you, the REAL 2012 delegate count
that takes GOP state rules and conventions into account without awarding delegates where the delegates have not be elected yet.

thereal2012delegatecount.com...


edit on 19-5-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
First off, I'd like to kindly ask we keep this thread on the topic of delegates only and not get into pointless arguments that does not have anything to do with the GOP delegate count going into the Republican National Convention this year.

You may have thought Mitt Romney was 200 delegates from 'clenching' the nomination, or so say almost all mainstream media sources but ever wonder why Ron Paul supporters keep claiming the mainstream counts are off?

Let's take a quick look.

Associated Press, who is considered to be one of the MAIN sources of the 2012 GOP election delegate count has the following candidates listed:
Romney @ 991
Santorum @ 266
Gingrich @ 131
Paul @ 107

elections.nytimes.com...


The way they calculate their delegate results are based off of caucus straw poll results or primary results and award delegates either proportionally based off of percentage or winner-take-all by % of threshold reached.

I have a concern to raise with AP's numbers though, let us look at the FIRST example, which is Iowa.

They awarded delegates proportionally to Romney and Santorum but didn't award delegates proportionally to Paul. The straw poll and delegate results, as reported by the Associated Press were:

Romney: 24% - 13
Santorum: 24% - 13
Paul: 21% - 1

Wait a minute, I thought according to AP, the delegates were awarded proportionally? Iowa has a total of 25 delegates (plus 3 super delegates that cannot be 'elected' but have been 'pre-determined') but did AP award Ron Paul his 21% of the 25 delegates? Doesn't seem so to me. Is the Associated Press flawed by their own logic, which does not take the rules of the Iowa caucus into consideration? You be the judge.

First off, Iowa's straw poll was nothing but a poll, the votes do not count, the delegates that are decided in the caucuses that work their way up to the state convention are the ones who decide who wins Iowa at the precinct, county, state, and national conventions.

Let's take a look at the Iowa delegate count that contests the mainstream delegate count:



Through the caucus process, per the rules of the GOP of Iowa, Ron Paul has won 13 delegates thus far and 12 delegates are to be determined at the Iowa GOP state convention that takes place on June 15th. At least one of the 3 super delegates in Iowa is a Ron Paul supporter, AJ spiker who was recently elected as the Iowa GOP state chairman.

So does that mean Ron Paul has won or tied in Iowa? You do the research and you be the judge.



Now, this is the FIRST example by Associated Press, if they could not get this right, does this mean they are wrong about numbers in many states thus far?



Now I present to you, the REAL 2012 delegate count
that takes GOP state rules and conventions into account without awarding delegates where the delegates have not be elected yet.

thereal2012delegatecount.com...


edit on 19-5-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)


Good post, but why is Jesse Benton suggesting otherwise? What is his deal?

He basically said there is no way we can make up the delegate deficit. If, even the Paul campaign believes this, why should I think differently?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by macaronicaesar
 




They're flying under the radar. You think Benton doesn't know the REAL delegate count?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Holy crap! Ron Paul is a lot closer to the Presidency than I thought! Holy crap holy crap holy crap. Honestly, I don't see how its possible for him to lose at this point. He's got all the major mainstream media outlets looking like fools, he's got Romney spending money left and right in a fritz, and he's got Obama on the ropes with the coming impeachment. I can see it now, headlines: Obama Impeached, Romney disqualified due to massive fraud, and Ron Paul becoming the only individual qualified to take up the rungs of the Presidency in 2013.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by macaronicaesar
 




They're flying under the radar. You think Benton doesn't know the REAL delegate count?


I think this is merely wishful thinking on your part, by coming out and suggesting they have insufficient delegates to capture the nomination, but will continue to fight on for platform change ect is an unnecessary risk that could cost Paul some of his own support.

Benton knows the count and seems to know we can't catch up. He isn't flying under the radar, to say what he has said is admitting defeat and way too risky to be an evil plan, lmao.

I hope you are right, but I think you're grasping at straws here. We'll see, my support for Paul is strong, but the mixed messages from Benton ect have worried me.
edit on 21-5-2012 by macaronicaesar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Davian
Holy crap! Ron Paul is a lot closer to the Presidency than I thought! Holy crap holy crap holy crap. Honestly, I don't see how its possible for him to lose at this point. He's got all the major mainstream media outlets looking like fools, he's got Romney spending money left and right in a fritz, and he's got Obama on the ropes with the coming impeachment. I can see it now, headlines: Obama Impeached, Romney disqualified due to massive fraud, and Ron Paul becoming the only individual qualified to take up the rungs of the Presidency in 2013.


Wow, you come from an alternate universe. Come back to reality for a bit.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Your map must be created by a Ron Paul supporter...it assumes all delegates are unbound.

Just look at Nevada...your map is giving Ron Paul 22 delegates...and yet that is just false. Romney has 14 that are bound to him...Paul has 5.

The Green Papers has the best counts around because they actuall do stick to the rules and binding.

www.thegreenpapers.com...

They have Romney at 829 and Paul at 63.


You can only lie to yourself until August...and then you will have to come up with another excuse.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





The Green Papers has the best counts around because they actuall do stick to the rules and binding.

www.thegreenpapers.com...


And you posted something by Richard E. Berg-Andersson...His profession is a music teacher?....



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





The Green Papers has the best counts around because they actuall do stick to the rules and binding.

www.thegreenpapers.com...


And you posted something by Richard E. Berg-Andersson...His profession is a music teacher?....


And you support a candidate that talks a lot about economic issues...and his profession is a gynecologist?


Nice of you to look down upon people based on what they studied in college...are you an elitist???



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





And you support a candidate that talks a lot about economic issues...and his profession is a gynecologist?


What does that have to do with the source you posted above? Stop trying to be a dodger bro...Your semantics are becoming old



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





And you support a candidate that talks a lot about economic issues...and his profession is a gynecologist?


What does that have to do with the source you posted above? Stop trying to be a dodger bro...Your semantics are becoming old


Exactly...what does someones background have to do with their current capacity???

It seems like you have gotten my point without even knowing it.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





Your map must be created by a Ron Paul supporter...


You posted that, and posted a source that was created by someone who has a degree in music? I really don't know what to believe. Someone who actually knows politics or someone that can read music? Hmmmmmmmm



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Your map must be created by a Ron Paul supporter...it assumes all delegates are unbound.

Just look at Nevada...your map is giving Ron Paul 22 delegates...and yet that is just false. Romney has 14 that are bound to him...Paul has 5.

The Green Papers has the best counts around because they actuall do stick to the rules and binding.

www.thegreenpapers.com...

They have Romney at 829 and Paul at 63.


You can only lie to yourself until August...and then you will have to come up with another excuse.


Actually it is you who is incorrect in assuming delegates are bound.

I present to you Rule 38 of the RNC which States:
No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any State or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.

Source PDF

So why is this important?

At the 2008 Republican Convention this issue came up when a delegate did not want to support John McCain (as he was "bound" to do) and instead wanted to cast his vote for Mitt Romney. This delegate cited Rule 38 This Delegate was completely successful and was able to cast his vote for Mitt Romney and it was RNC Lawyers who backed up this interpretation of the rule and allowed this Delegate to cast his vote for Romney in the First Round of voting.

I am sure this seems confusing and there has been a lot of misinformation and flat out wrong information posted about this issue. So where did this whole assertion start? It started with Brian Jenkins a Utah delegate to the RNC at which John McCain received the Nomination.

Prior to the Convention, the issue was addressed by legal counsel for the RNC Jennifer Sheehan.

Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC, plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman, several weeks before the convention, “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” And, “The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not.”


You can read Brian Jenkins full account at this link.
Utah County GOP (unofficial) Blog

So who should we believe about the interpretation of this rule? Should we believe the RNC Legal Counsel who upheld this ruling or should we believe Outkast Searcher? A poster on ATS?

Sorry but I will take the RNC Legal Counsel's interpretation over yours any day of the week. At the end of the day, they make the call. Not you.
edit on 21-5-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-5-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
it doesn't matter, even if your map is the real delegate count or not, Romney is still winning he has 700% more delegates than Ron Paul. With Ron Paul math he still only gets 30 more delegates.
That's not going to help him win anything so it doesn't really matter at this point..
edit on 21-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


People have been over this so much, and Paul supporters refuse to listen.

The RNC can not unbind delegates that are bound by state laws or rules...but they don't enforce the binding themselves.


But you guys won't listen to your own candidates campaign...so it is obvious you won't listen to anyone else.


Does it bother you at all that one of the reasons Paul is pulling back is because fanatical supporters that aren't listening to the campaign???



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





Does it bother you at all that one of the reasons Paul is pulling back is because fanatical supporters that aren't listening to the campaign???


Is that what it really is Outkast because of fanatical supporters that aren't listening to the campaign? I kind of find that hard to believe if we are talking about someone who is constantly being ignored, their really isn't much to listen to.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by MrWendal
 


People have been over this so much, and Paul supporters refuse to listen.

The RNC can not unbind delegates that are bound by state laws or rules...but they don't enforce the binding themselves.


Ok now explain this to me like I am a 5 year old. If no one is enforcing the binding, how can you insure that these "bound" delegates will vote in accordance to this "binding" that no one is enforcing?



Does it bother you at all that one of the reasons Paul is pulling back is because fanatical supporters that aren't listening to the campaign???


Does it bother you at all that you are quoting hearsay and Paul himself has not publicly said any such thing? You are passing off one person's opinions and view point on what Paul may or may not have said behind closed doors as fact. Do you have any proof at all that Paul has said such a thing or is it all coming from third party voices? I can sit here and say you are a closet Ron Paul supporter all day long, but until you say it yourself, it is just hearsay and not actually factual.
edit on 21-5-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
The whole problem is most people don't know parliamentary law , much less understand it and how it works.
For anyone who claims to know how the convention goes at the state level or the nation level is pure speculation.
The only thing for sure is Ron Paul supporter are well versed on parliamentary law and are prepared for anything.
No one knows how the national convention will go till the convention. Anything can and will happen.
Which means no one knows how the real count goes, till the national convention.
Delegate credentials could could be contested on both sides.
A call to suspend the rules by either side could be called at any time.
Many rules may be in question, and voted on.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 



Ok now explain this to me like I am a 5 year old. If no one is enforcing the binding, how can you insure that these "bound" delegates will vote in accordance to this "binding" that no one is enforcing?


Ok 5 year old...you get in trouble by your parents...they say you are not to watch TV, if you do you will be in more trouble. You are going to spend the day at your grandparents, your parents tell your grandparents that you are not to watch TV, your grandparents say OK, but if they catch them watching TV they aren't going to punish them, but they will let the parents know about it. Your parents tell you that when you go to your grandparents that you are to not watch TV, if you do...even though your grandparents won't punish you, you will be punished when you get home.

It's really not that hard of a concept to understand....but then again I didn't know I had to explain things to you like you are 5.


Does it bother you at all that you are quoting hearsay and Paul himself has not publicly said any such thing? You are passing off one person's opinions and view point on what Paul may or may not have said behind closed doors as fact. Do you have any proof at all that Paul has said such a thing or is it all coming from third party voices? I can sit here and say you are a closet Ron Paul supporter all day long, but until you say it yourself, it is just hearsay and not actually factual.


It was said by Paul campaign staffers and senior aides.

So either it is true...or Paul's campaign is falling apart and spreading lie about their own candidate.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join