We already have 6 states?
- Thread starter hammy
- Start date
Well, it isn't an amount to speak, it's an amount to be nominated. People want to vote for Ron Paul in Tampa.
The answer to "do we have enough already"? depends on who you ask. I thought that we got a solid win in Oregon. Oregon doesn't seem to be listed.
Some people insist that bound/unbound does not matter one bit for putting a name into nomination. I don't think anyone who argues this point over and over would actually stake their life on it.
Nebraska delegates appear to be as bound to Romney as the Oregon delegates are. And we won in Oregon. And in Nevada. I don't see how Nebraska can put us over the top if Oregon and Nevada can't.
No one really knows. The RNC is fighting us.
The answer to "do we have enough already"? depends on who you ask. I thought that we got a solid win in Oregon. Oregon doesn't seem to be listed.
Some people insist that bound/unbound does not matter one bit for putting a name into nomination. I don't think anyone who argues this point over and over would actually stake their life on it.
Nebraska delegates appear to be as bound to Romney as the Oregon delegates are. And we won in Oregon. And in Nevada. I don't see how Nebraska can put us over the top if Oregon and Nevada can't.
No one really knows. The RNC is fighting us.
[email protected]
Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 260
Actually Nebraska delegates are not bound. The vote wasn't tied to the selection of delegates. Oregon and Nevada were. Each state has there own rules. Also on the issue of nomination. The nominating from the floor is not a bound vote. The only time a bound vote occurs is the actual vote for president nominee. Of course the GOP will try to screw us every possible way they can.
cajuncocoa
Banned
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 16,013
Does it really matter? If we have enough, they'll change the rules at the last minute. Isn't that what they always do?
Ok, i looked at greenpapers and Nebraska is not bound based on the primary results.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
Nebraska is not a 'bound' state by primary. Nevada and Oregon are. The distinctions don't stop there, though, Nevada rules say only that the bound delegates are 'bound on the first ballot' and that particular language a rules expert in one article said made it sound like it was fine for them to vote for Ron for NOMINATION which comes before there is any ballot, only not on the ballot itself. But Nebraska would give Ron five unbound, altogether.
LOL!! this is funny because it's sooo true!
Dutch
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 413
If we hadn't been railroaded, we'd had won Iowa and gotten momentum and had many more than 8... methinks.
NoOneButPaul
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,850
I fear we pumped up Nebraska too much and now the GOP will turn this into Mizzo and LA times 10.
it's going to be a brawl no matter how it goes down.
they will challenge and change the rules at every stage.
those in tampa are going to need to be fully prepared, and ensure justice is done. hopefully, politely, but if they need to jeer down a railroad in process, I'm perfectly okay with that, personally. as long as they're the ones following the rules.
they will challenge and change the rules at every stage.
those in tampa are going to need to be fully prepared, and ensure justice is done. hopefully, politely, but if they need to jeer down a railroad in process, I'm perfectly okay with that, personally. as long as they're the ones following the rules.
Eisenhower
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2012
- Messages
- 368
Are you talking about the caucus? We did win Iowa based on delegates..
yea, he's talking all the obvious shenanigans back at the beginning. Iowa, NH, etc. when the mainstream media did everything they could to distract and defuse the RP revolution.
thatpeculiarcat
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 503
IA, MN, LA, ME...
CPUd
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 22,978
In a fair interpretation of Rule 40, Ron Paul would already to be eligible to be on the ballot. But at this point, it is more likely that the RNC will interpret Rule 40 in such a way as to deny eligibility.
Having Louisiana in the list of states is a good sign. If the MSM narrative is that Ron Paul has 4 states and NE will be number 5, people like Doug Wead will pick it up and run with it, because winning that state will give a lot of leverage to the campaign in the efforts to prevent the RNC from ejecting those delegations. Without Nebraska, it is simply business as usual.
Having Louisiana in the list of states is a good sign. If the MSM narrative is that Ron Paul has 4 states and NE will be number 5, people like Doug Wead will pick it up and run with it, because winning that state will give a lot of leverage to the campaign in the efforts to prevent the RNC from ejecting those delegations. Without Nebraska, it is simply business as usual.
neocontroll
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2011
- Messages
- 20
I've heard that Romney's camp has been de-certifying Paul delegates based on them not signing some loyal pledge. Can anyone speak to this?
ClydeCoulter
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2010
- Messages
- 11,108
So, Romney controls the RNC and state GOP?
Similar threads
