That is essentially correct, as I see it, (that then Romney would win, not about voting for Santorum). At that point it would be more does Ron get plurality of 5 states so he can be nominated from the floor and speak (there is no 'deal' for a speaking slot necessary if he is nominated from the floor.)
If Romney gets to 1144 we lose
End of story, he takes the nomination... Which is why I support strategic voting for sanatorum to stop mitt at all costs
I think we have to be real with ourselves.... In states where ron is clearly in fourt, but first place is up in the air , we can do more good by stopping mItt from winning.
No. Absolutely not.
Voting for evil for "strategic reasons" is no better than voting for the "lesser of two evils", and it misses the point.
Every single vote is a referendum on where this country should be heading. Every vote for Ron Paul sends a pro-liberty message. Every vote for santorum sends a pro-tyranny, pro-spending, pro-war message.
Do not get sucked into their game. Never support evil, period. We do not need kniving people to try to manipulate the process. We need men and women of courage who will stand up for what is right, regardless of whether it's popular.
That is the big thing, Romney saying 'I got that number' if he is counting winning, say NV and WA and ME might or might not be accurate since those delegates are unbound.
Votes don't choose delegates, conventions do.
We just need to get delegates. Do NOT follow the vote for Santorum plan if you don't know whether your state is a caucus or porportional state. Make sure to become a delegate. And don't make it obvious your a Ron Paul supporter.
Sometimes votes choose delegates, as in Illinois winning a DISTRICT would have directly given Ron delegates, even if he were fourth in the state. And he is ignored more when his numbers are low. I think it is a dangerous strategy, and minimizes the importance of Ron's message. There may be a time or two I would think differently, but at the moment none occurs to me.