Is Ron Paul in 1st place for delegates?

J

JJ2

Banned
Joined
Jan 1, 2012
Messages
2,121
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.)
 
Probably second, first is unlikely. Problem is the media will not report this and voters in upcoming states will not know so there is no momentum from it.
 
Even assuming Ron got HALF of all the unbound delegates (unlikely), he would still not be in first place.
 
Realistically, I think we can probably look forward to a quarter or so of the unbound delegates.
 
Iowa won't select the National delegates until June 15 despite the caucus being over a month ago.
 
Paul actually has 2 superdelegates. A Paul supporter became chairman of the Iowa GOP a few days ago.
 
I think he said first in certain states, not first overall. He may END UP first.... but he needs funding to campaign, and needs a win to ensure needed funding imho.
 
We should remember that the bound delegates are mostly elected via a caucus like system, as well.

For example, SC and FL are bound, but the delegates are not yet selected. It is important that they be Ron Paul people... so we can elect Tom Woods, Judge Nap, or someone similar as the GOP National Chairman, and conduct other favorable party business.

If we have a majority, we can also control the rules committee, who can unbind all delegates who are not legally bound by their respective State law. What would Karl Rove do?
 
bluesc said:
There is another in Oklahoma.
Click to expand...

DCW, which is tracking the superdelegates (and is used by Wikipedia as a source), thinks the OK superdelegate is James Dunn, but we've been unable to verify this. If anyone has published information confirming the endorsement, please post it here, or leave a comment at the website, so we can give Dr. Paul credit for his 2nd superdelegate. (which would be more than Santorum, who has only 1).
 
Dudes, this unbound bound crap needs to stop. If we do have a brokered convention, a lot of bound people will become unbound. So technically Ron Paul could be in first place with delegates.
 
I'm not sure I understand the delegate selection in these caucus states, so someone help me out here.

If we got a majority of the delegates at the local precinct level in the majority of the counties in a particular state, then wouldn't that majority be able to elect at least a majority of Ron Paul delegates at the County Convention level, who would then elect only Ron Paul delegates at the State Convention to go to the National Convention?

Wouldn't it almost be an all-or-nothing prospect? Either 0% or 100% of that state's delegates?

Or do I not understand the process?
 
JJ2 said:
Or do I not understand the process?
Click to expand...

You understand it exactly. There are minor details different in each state, but that's the basic concept.

It is exactly the same in the primary states, too, except they have a different way of conducting the beauty contest. But the delegate process is the same.

Except in primaries that directly elect delegates(such as NH, NJ or PA for example). Primary states like SC, VA, GA, OK, etc. select delegates just like you described at conventions.
 
Then there's also the shift in delegate count (even among those that were both selected and bound) if their candidate drops out of the race (for example Huntsman).

To my mind the short version of all of this is really the media jumping the gun trying to call the race over when it's only sort of started.
If you have less than ~5% of the national delegates actually selected (and even when selected some of those will be unbound even without a brokered convention)
trying to call the race as a foregone conclusion is at best factually inaccurate.

Paul has good reason to expect to do well in many of the caucus states but we won't know for quite awhile yet and neither will anyone else.
Not mind you that I'm saying it's bad to ask what the delegate count is or to consider the matter ;) 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 ;) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top