[Video] Rand Paul on Fox News America's Newsroom 4/12

[jct74]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYD1nF_Ql50

 

[bronc_fan23]

Love that he's mentioning how his father got screwed in 2012. It's like, yeah, the establishment screws with the process to get what they want, and they've done it before.

 

[Jan2017]

Nice interview . . . but if it is a contested convention it will be unlike in 1976 -
there will be several candidates with first round bound delegates - kinda unfavorable for the top two with a compromise/other candidate emerging after several ballots.

 

[georgiaboy]

good to see Rand making the rounds today.

Hemmer is still a tool.

 

[georgiaboy]

Love that he's mentioning how his father got screwed in 2012. It's like, yeah, the establishment screws with the process to get what they want, and they've done it before.

Oh the stories we could tell if they'd listen.

 

[CPUd]

Rand misinterprets 40b. He is right about the Trump Train slowing considerably after Apr 26. All these states in the west, especially the caucus states were either going to be Rand states or Cruz states. I don't think his plan had them both in the race past Super Tuesday, but if they both were still in, those would be split Paul/Cruz.

 

[MarcusI]

I liked the interviews from today but the story with the vote from the Iowa delegation in 2012 and how there were announced is incorrect. It went like this (I just watched it again to be sure):

Speaker of Iowa Delegation:

"Iowa cast 22 votes for Ron Paul [Crowd mainly cheering, some whistles] and 6 votes for Mitt Romney"

Convention Speaker (that robot lady):

"Iowa ... 6 ... Romney"

Rand should rather mention how many more shenanigans went on in 2012... but anyways ofc also this embarrassing "he-who-must-not-be-named" behaviour was enraging enough. But they didnt call out "Iowa 28 for Romney".

 

[CPUd]

I liked the interviews from today but the story with the vote from the Iowa delegation in 2012 and how there were announced is incorrect. It went like this (I just watched it again to be sure):

Speaker of Iowa Delegation:

"Iowa cast 22 votes for Ron Paul [Crowd mainly cheering, some whistles] and 6 votes for Mitt Romney"

Convention Speaker (that robot lady):

"Iowa ... 6 ... Romney"

Rand should rather mention how many more shenanigans went on in 2012... but anyways ofc also this embarrassing "he-who-must-not-be-named" behaviour was enraging enough. But they didnt call out "Iowa 28 for Romney".

Yeah, he got it mixed up. The delegation chairs were announcing their vote totals, even the ones for Ron, the woman on stage was only acknowledging the votes cast for Mitt. The NV delegation announced 17 for Ron Paul, 5 for Mitt, 5 abstentions, even though bound totals were 20 Mitt, 8 Ron Paul. The national party raised hell about it for a while.

 

[MarcusI]

Yeah, he got it mixed up. The delegation chairs were announcing their vote totals, even the ones for Ron, the woman on stage was only acknowledging the votes cast for Mitt. The NV delegation announced 17 for Ron Paul, 5 for Mitt, 5 abstentions, even though bound totals were 20 Mitt, 8 Ron Paul. The national party raised hell about it for a while.

Yeah I can remember it. I know the Nevada delegation were about to cast their votes just according to how they were bound, but in the light of the shenanigans going on at the National Convention, they obviously (and rightfully) didnt feel pledged to what they promised at the Nevada Convention anymore.

If I understood Frontloading HQ correctly, this is not possible at this convention anymore. Rules would give the the announcer and vote tabulators the power to acknowledge only the result to which the delegation was bound to, even if the speaker of the delegation says something else (if they dont change the rules before the roll call starts).

 

[CPUd]

In 2012 I remember they were trying to rearrange the roll call order to have either MI or MA be the state to put Mitt over the top, and to spread out the announcement of states who had Ron Paul votes.

The roll call vote was on CSPAN instead of the major network covering the rest of the convention. They won't be able to do that this time, because everything about the process will get a lot of attention and scrutiny. Something else new for this convention- there won't be a "marriage" between a campaign and the RNC like there has been in the last 4-5 cycles. In 2012, Mitt Victory had control over all aspects of the planning, including favor on the Contests/Rules committee decisons.