Politifact -

[Gravik]

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...ul-touts-nearly-200-delegates-bound-his-cand/

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul proclaims "great news" in a message to supporters posted online June 6, 2012.

The Texas presidential candidate says: "Due to the smart planning of our campaign and the hard work and diligence of supporters like you, we stand to send nearly 200 bound delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. This number shatters the predictions of the pundits and talking heads and shows the seriousness of our movement."

 

[realtonygoodwin]

In five of six states with caucuses -- Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine and Washington -- the AP reached delegate counts by assuming each candidate would capture the share of delegates commensurate with how they fared on caucus day, even though actual mix of delegates would be determined later, Ohlemacher said.

Well, you know what they say about assuming...

 

[Cody1]

How about fuck politifact.

-I rate this claim mostly true.

 

[Lindsey]

Must be mostly false because of the underestimating.

 

[parocks]

Well, this article didn't seem to get into it, but Maine for instance sends "unbound" delegates. They're all Ron Paul supporters, but they're technically unbound. Was Ron Paul calling the Maine 21 "bound", because technically they're unbound.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Just remember 2008. There were countless posts here about the "stealth strategy", secret delegates for McCain who really supported Paul, state party conventions flooded with Paul supporters and blah blah blah. The medias' jaws were going to hit the floor as Paul did better than everyone expected.

Do a search, all those old posts are still here.

Then the convention came, and Paul got 21 votes on the first and only ballot. After that, McCain was then selected unanimously.

 

[anewvoice]

Just remember 2008. There were countless posts here about the "stealth strategy", secret delegates for McCain who really supported Paul, state party conventions flooded with Paul supporters and blah blah blah. The medias' jaws were going to hit the floor as Paul did better than everyone expected.

Do a search, all those old posts are still here.

Then the convention came, and Paul got 21 votes on the first and only ballot. After that, McCain was then selected unanimously.

It is not 2008.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It is not 2008.

It will likely turn out roughly the same way, except with larger numbers. It won't be enough, though. You can count on that.

 

[Austin]

Just remember 2008. There were countless posts here about the "stealth strategy", secret delegates for McCain who really supported Paul, state party conventions flooded with Paul supporters and blah blah blah. The medias' jaws were going to hit the floor as Paul did better than everyone expected.

Do a search, all those old posts are still here.

Then the convention came, and Paul got 21 votes on the first and only ballot. After that, McCain was then selected unanimously.

I was in Minnesota when that happened. There is one small mixup here. Ron did get between 15-21 votes on the first round. After all of the votes were cast, the chair asked took a vote to make the nomination unanimous. Several people objected, but the motion still passed. Thus, McCain was nominated unanimously. Whatever that means.

Anyway, we had a few more delegates than that. But they were likely convinced that voting for Ron, however principled it may be, would end any future in their local GOP.

I imagine the same thing will happen this time, except in states where we have a majority and/or our guys are in party leadership.

 

[leffewture]

"In five of six states with caucuses -- Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine and Washington -- the AP reached delegate counts by assuming each candidate would capture the share of delegates commensurate with how they fared on caucus day, even though actual mix of delegates would be determined later, Ohlemacher said."

This was their biggest inaccuracy. This is what they apparently still don't get.

 

[affa]

It will likely turn out roughly the same way, except with larger numbers. It won't be enough, though. You can count on that.

It really warms my heart seeing people post such declarative statements about how Ron Paul has no chance. Let me guess, your second job is as a cheerleader? I mean, seriously. Right or wrong, you're posting 'You can count on that' about Ron Paul losing. What the hell? You sound like you'd be upset if you were wrong.

 

[Just Another Genius]

Of course Ron Paul failed to mention the hundreds of UNBOUND delegates who are also voting for him, which is why that message he sent out was total BS, and yet I haven't heard one person mention this on any Ron Paul site. Why is that?

 

[George Dance]

Yeah, "bound" wasn't the right word to use here.

Well, this article didn't seem to get into it, but Maine for instance sends "unbound" delegates. They're all Ron Paul supporters, but they're technically unbound. Was Ron Paul calling the Maine 21 "bound", because technically they're unbound.

My own thought is that Paul (or whoever typed up this letter for him) just used 'bound' as a shorthand way of saying, "Not bound to anyone else" - meaning, either bound to him, or pledged to him but actually unbound. I'm not sure what he could have said instead -- "pledged" or "committed" would have been the wrong words, because they would have included, for example, the Delegates in Massachusetts bound to Romney, which I think he wanted to exclude from the total.

If that is what he meant, then his claim is not "mostly false" -- my own count shows (189 bound or unbound) first-ballot votes for Paul.