Question about Louisiana "Coalition".

GodOfThunder

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
104
I'm having a hard time understanding this "uncommitted" coalition.

Was Ron Paul the only name on the ballot, along with "uncommitted"??? Like how the Democrats had Hillary winning Michigan?

Did "Uncommitted" beat "Ron Paul" on the ballot? When and how did the other guys get their names off of the ballot?
 
There are NO candidates names on the ballots. Only the delegates names appear on the ballots and only those who KNOW the delegates would know which candidate they are supporting. It is a very local process. I cannot tell you how many people I knew there, and I have only been a Republican for 2 months.

Please people. Stay sane about this. The group that formed this pro-life slate of delegates is guilty of nothing but superior politicking. While we might cry foul, they didn't do anything wrong.
 
I was actually just curious because I have no f'ing clue how this process works!

What a complete mess.

I need somebody to put this in "idiot terms".
 
Any elected delegates are initially uncommitted, meaning they aren't bound to any candidate (unless after the primary a candidate gets 51+% of the vote, after which some delegates are bound to them.)

There were a few 'tickets' there that people were pushing, a ticket being a grouping of uncommitted delegates, running on a candidate or an issue or platform.

Mitt had one, we had one, and the pro-life/pro-family group had one.

First, someone got out the vote, and we suspect it was the LAGOP, which is ok. This would entail local candidates and regional candidates emailing their voters and friends, and getting them to come out and vote.

Once there, people look for a ticket. I'm not sure what drove them there, but the caucuses are not advertised on the local media as far as I can tell, so the only people who went got emailed by activists like us or pro-life groups or politically connected and inclined people. Some people may have come for only a few people, and may have used a ticket to supplement their vote.

The bottom line is that SOMEBODY (be it the LAGOP or other candidates) got out the vote and were able to channel people to one ticket. I think the establishment showed it's politically prowess last night. We depended on people to listen to rational reasons to vote for Ron Paul, and they relied on Nancy Reagan and the Gipper.
 
what happens to the coalition if no one gets the 50% in the Feb 9th primary? Wouldn't they all have to agree on one candidate to beat Paul or can they just stay uncommitted? I would think with some politics we could get some people to switch to Paul. I mean would Huck supporters go with Rudy over Paul. That would be very surprising.
 
Thank you.

I think I understand it, now.

Under normal circumstances, each of the other candidates would have their own ticket to vote for. Somehow, the other guys got together and just set up one ticket for all of them... so the choices were Mitt, Ron Paul or All of the other guys.
Are the tickets chosen prior to the caucus or is this something they could have done (the collusion) right then and there?
 
How ironic, the pro-life coalition against Ron Paul- which happen to also be Pro-war-death!......Sometimes it is really hard to wrap one's mind around how these people operate...
 
I think this coalition is potentially illegal since in reality it seems the delegates are NOT uncommitted.

Each delegate should be made to make it clear who they represent.
 
Thank you.

I think I understand it, now.

Under normal circumstances, each of the other candidates would have their own ticket to vote for. Somehow, the other guys got together and just set up one ticket for all of them... so the choices were Mitt, Ron Paul or All of the other guys.
Are the tickets chosen prior to the caucus or is this something they could have done (the collusion) right then and there?

They could have done it last minute.
 
Back
Top