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.
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)
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?
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.
The Green Papers has the best counts around because they actuall do stick to the rules and binding.
www.thegreenpapers.com...
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?
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
Your map must be created by a Ron Paul supporter...
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.
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.”
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???
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.
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???
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 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.