Is Ron Paul in 1st place for delegates?

[gerryb]

just wish there was a more factual outlook on it in the MSM and general electorate (yeah I know, what are the odds, but I can still dream )

It's hard enough getting those on RPF's to understand, there is absolutely no hope for the MSM zombies.

 

[Slacker]

Are FL delegates for sure? I thought there was still talk about them being cut or given out proportionally?

 

[erowe1]

The way to win delegates is by winning primaries and caucuses. Ron Paul is 4th place in the primaries and caucuses, therefore, he's 4th place in delegates.

There's no secret strategy for losing the primaries and caucuses and then winning the most delegates.

At this point, what we're fighting for is leverage in the event of a brokered convention, not the nomination.

 

[Travlyr]

The way to win delegates is by winning primaries and caucuses. Ron Paul is 4th place in the primaries and caucuses, therefore, he's 4th place in delegates.

There's no secret strategy for losing the primaries and caucuses and then winning the most delegates.

At this point, what we're fighting for is leverage in the event of a brokered convention, not the nomination.

According to the TV.

 

[erowe1]

According to the TV.

I don't know why people keep buying into all this conspiracy stuff. We already went through all this 4 years ago.

These primaries and caucuses aren't beauty pageants or straw polls, they're how candidates win delegates. The reason some delegates are unbound is not to give Ron Paul a chance, it's to give the party leaders a way to dispense with him in the off chance that he wins the primaries.

 

[bobmurph]

I don't know why people keep buying into all this conspiracy stuff. We already went through all this 4 years ago.

These primaries and caucuses aren't beauty pageants or straw polls, they're how candidates win delegates. The reason some delegates are unbound is not to give Ron Paul a chance, it's to give the party leaders a way to dispense with him in the off chance that he wins the primaries.

Then why is this the campaign strategy?

 

[erowe1]

Then why is this the campaign strategy?

Like I said, the campaign's strategy is to get as many delegates as possible in the event of a brokered convention. But let's not pretend there's some path to the nomination that doesn't involve winning the most primaries and caucuses.

If something they said made you think they believed there was such a path, then you need to understand that the reason they say those things is to get you to keep donating. People don't donate when they don't think a candidate has a chance to win.

 

[newbitech]

Then why is this the campaign strategy?

Because Ron Paul and his message are not popular enough to win the nomination. Yes, the movement is growing. Yes, people are waking up. Yes the message is the right message, and the solutions are the right solutions.

Ron Paul believed he had a shot at winning because of the rising popularity of the message. Now that voters are judging that message and the candidate, the reality is Ron Paul cannot rely on the popularity of the message to win. Now he must rely on formalities like the delegate selection process. So essentially, this is a fall back strategy. A way to stay in the race until it is mathematically impossible to win. In fact, it's not really a strategy at all, since no matter what strategy is used, the requirement for nomination is to win a majority of delegates.

It's like saying the Giants strategy in the super bowl was to score more points than the Patriots. Yeah..

 

[gerryb]

Like I said, the campaign's strategy is to get as many delegates as possible in the event of a brokered convention. But let's not pretend there's some path to the nomination that doesn't involve winning the most primaries and caucuses.

If something they said made you think they believed there was such a path, then you need to understand that the reason they say those things is to get you to keep donating. People don't donate when they don't think a candidate has a chance to win.

You are 100% flat out, WRONG.

Learn the damn rules before you open your mouth.

 

[erowe1]

You are 100% flat out, WRONG.

Learn the damn rules before you open your mouth.

I was a delegate to my state convention in 2008, and I'm one again this year. I studied the rules of my state's GOP carefully.

We went through all this 4 years ago. You should remember it. This argument was settled then, and there's no need to bring it back to life.

If you have some particular rules in mind, feel free to post the link. If you don't, then you're the one spouting off at the mouth, not me.

 

[jacmicwag]

Like I said, the campaign's strategy is to get as many delegates as possible in the event of a brokered convention. But let's not pretend there's some path to the nomination that doesn't involve winning the most primaries and caucuses.

If something they said made you think they believed there was such a path, then you need to understand

that the reason they say those things is to get you to keep donating. People don't donate when they don't think a candidate has a chance to win.

Well one thing is for certain - you have to have the money to keep this thing going. If we can keep racking up good totals on the bombs, the campaign will keep going and the strategy will sort itself out on the way to the convention.

 

[A. Havnes]

Because Ron Paul and his message are not popular enough to win the nomination. Yes, the movement is growing. Yes, people are waking up. Yes the message is the right message, and the solutions are the right solutions.

Ron Paul believed he had a shot at winning because of the rising popularity of the message. Now that voters are judging that message and the candidate, the reality is Ron Paul cannot rely on the popularity of the message to win. Now he must rely on formalities like the delegate selection process. So essentially, this is a fall back strategy. A way to stay in the race until it is mathematically impossible to win. In fact, it's not really a strategy at all, since no matter what strategy is used, the requirement for nomination is to win a majority of delegates.

It's like saying the Giants strategy in the super bowl was to score more points than the Patriots. Yeah..

This is why Iowa was so important - it would have built the momentum he needed to keep going. That's also why Maine was important to him - it would have made him more viable in the minds of voters.

 

[Vet_from_cali]

Even assuming Ron got HALF of all the unbound delegates (unlikely), he would still not be in first place.

Was going to post the exact same thing. Be realistic here, he would need like 90% of the unpledged delegates to be in first at this moment. Again, 90% lol.

Seriously need to stop spewing this non sense on the boards and just tell it like it is. Do we still have a chance to get the nomination? Definitely.

Is there a chance we got over 90% of the unpledged delegates? Highly unlikely.

Stop with bs guys srsly

 

[gerryb]

We went through all this 4 years ago. You should remember it. This argument was settled then, and there's no need to bring it back to life.

If you have some particular rules in mind, feel free to post the link. If you don't, then you're the one spouting off at the mouth, not me.

It was not settled then. Otherwise we would control party leadership in all of the states. Participation in these things is ridiculously low. Maine was the only state we took any significant leadership of. Some states we have strong counties in, but not nearly enough. This fact alone proves we didn't do a good job of the delegate process in 08, failed to take part between 08 and now, and continue to fail.

We're going to be in the same position in 2016, everyone scratching their head about why we keep getting steamrolled by "the establishment"

Look at all the posts on the forums, talking about primary states... RevPAC just gave $6k to a group in VA to win straw votes there... Which won't matter because no one was organizing to participate in the mass meeting/district convention which decides who the delegates are, as well as party leadership from county all the way up to state...

It is similar in every other state. We're shooting at the wrong targets.

 

[erowe1]

It was not settled then. Otherwise we would control party leadership in all of the states.

We don't control party leadership because it was settled then. He did not win at the primaries and caucuses, ergo, he did not have the most RNC delegates, notwithstanding thousands of Ron Paul supporters who were positively convinced that he secretly did.

It doesn't work that way. It didn't work that way in 2008, and it doesn't now.

Why do we keep getting steamrolled by the establishment? Because they outnumber us. How do I know? Because they keep beating us in primaries and caucuses. You want to beat them in an election, you have to get more people to vote for your guy than their guy.

 

[newbitech]

This is why Iowa was so important - it would have built the momentum he needed to keep going. That's also why Maine was important to him - it would have made him more viable in the minds of voters.

I agree, the numbers in Iowa were extremely important. You sure as hell didn't hear the campaign and grassroots supporters on this forum talking about Iowa being a meaningless beauty contest in the run up to Iowa! LMAO! I mean seriously, we wanted to WIN the popular vote. We didn't spend all that ad money leading up to Iowa in order to win a "plurality" of delegates in a non-binding process! LOL! And THOUSANDS of volunteers did not go to that state canvassing and door knocking for the sake of reminding people to become a delegate at a later date because that is how we win! WOW!

I think even more important than the results coming out of the Iowa caucus was the campaigns REACTION to the results. It seemed like the campaign IMMEDIATELY went in to panic mode and started talking about the delegate selection formalities. I think this was totally premature. I know hindsight is 20/20, but the big buzz around these forums was how Romney LOST votes from 2008 and Ron Paul CRUSHED the 2008 totals. This was a CLEAR sign that the message and the campaign were the absolute most popular thing in the last 4 years! But damn, the first thing the campaign did was claim victory based on phantom delegates, claim a 2 man race, claim national fundraising status, claim the ability to compete in ALL states.

Of course, the campaign in the same breath started talking about skipping state due to lack of money, lack of ability to get phantom delegates (even though they could have challenged and competed for those delegates), attacked other candidates in ads that were not part of the 2 man race, and blatantly and openly decided to only campaign in caucus states because that is where "organization and enthusiasm" would pay off.

So the alarm bells started going off right after Iowa. For some, including those inside the campaign, it still has not sunk in yet that changes need to be made RIGHT NOW in order to make sure that the trajectory of the campaign is going OVER the delegate wall and not UNDER it!

No Ron Paul is not in first place for anything, because we don't elect candidates based on enthusiasm of their support, organization abilities of their grassroots, rightness and truthfulness of their message, their ability to work inside the system to change the system, or any other reason.

We elect candidates based on the popularity of their message and the acceptance of that message by the majority of voters. Once everyone involved realizes that, as we did in the time after the ALT-GOP convention in 2008 and the lead up to Iowa 2012, once we get back to what was successful, that is, making the message popular, THEN we will get back to a winning strategy.

 

[bobburn]

Ron got the majority of unbound delegates in Minnesota and Maine and will likely do very well in Colorado according to the campaign (we won all the delegates at several locations despite having the least amount of votes.

 

[KMX]

Two things that is certian. We don't know how many delegates anyone truly has and we don't know what lies ahead. So much fraud like things are going on if it contiinues Ron Paul don't have a chance, the people of the USA are to stupid to figure out what's going on. To busy watching Amercan Idol or shopping. WAKE UP!

 

[Sam I am]

The other day, Doug Wead said that Dr. Paul may be in 1st place in the delegate count.

Here are the totals so far for pledged delegates:

Bound delegates (including NV, which seems to be a binding caucus?):

Romney 73
Gingrich 29
Paul 8
Santorum 3

Unbound delegates (from caucus states):

116 (all of which will be selected at future conventions)

So how many of those 116 delegates will Ron Paul get, and is he really in 1st place through the first 8 states?

(Additionally, Romney has about 20 superdelegates and Paul has 1.)

According to Wikipedia, the most optimistic projections suggest that Ron Paul will get 19 out of those 116 delegates.

 

[erowe1]

Ron got the majority of unbound delegates in Minnesota and Maine and will likely do very well in Colorado according to the campaign (we won all the delegates at several locations despite having the least amount of votes.

The Minnesota GOP's state convention is not until May. So nobody has any unbound Minnesota RNC delegates yet.

I don't know when Maine's convention is, but according to their state GOP by-laws it has to be between March 1 and August 1. So they haven't elected their RNC delegates yet either.