We DID WIN Washington!!

[Avalon]

How about canvassing for BOTH? Not just Huckabee... that's shooting ourselves in the foot. Of course, so is a majority of delegates for McCain.

Go out and say to people: "Do you think McCain is too liberal?" ...Yes... "Then your only real choices are Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee!" Who's Ron Paul? "Oh! Well, let me tell you about him..."

Oh, I like him "Well be sure to vote for him on xxx day"

Oh, I don't like him "Well, then I suggest Mike Huckabee"

.........Get the idea?

All RP supporters should continue to do just that. This sort of strategy just might work... we aren't going to get some magic thrown our way. We're gonna have to get our hands dirty.

No, because anything under 20% and we get 0 national delegates from the primary process. And all of those delegates awarded are allocated proportionally.

Here's an example (I assume this is how the proportionality will work excluding those below 20%)

Huck 40% 10 delegates
McWar 40% 10
Paul 10% 0
Rom 10% 0

If on the otherhand, we can get 3/4 of our supporters to vote Huckster, get 50% of Romney supporters to vote Huckster and 20% of McCain supporters to vote for Huckster through serious canvassing (It's much easier to convince people to vote for that nice pastor who has a slim chance and who is strong on terrar than RP...) then you'll have the following results:

Huck 60.5% 13 delegates
McWar 32% 7 delegates
Paul 2.5%
Rom 5%

Bam! Stole three delegates from McWar and gave them to Huckleberry Hound.

 

[literatim]

Please explain it then. The onus is on you, you are making the claim contradictory to all evidence. McCain has 21% more pledged state delegates. Ron Paul has some guy making unsubstantiated claims on the internet.

McCain does not have 21% more pledged state delegates. They only estimate how many delegates he has by the votes he got.

There are a set amount of delegate slots for each precinct. Other candidates have always had a tough time finding people either knowledgeable enough or willing enough to volunteer as delegates. If there are empty delegate slots despite the amount of votes given to McCain delegates, they are automatically filled with the those delegate nominees who are willing to take the spot.

I don't know what you are talking about. If this was some master plan, why not give Ron Paul just enough to actually win and then have the rest uncommitted?

Winning is winning and it gets reported as winning. It is better than losing. Coming in third in a three man race is losing.

Winners win. Losers lose. If Ron Paul supporters really didn't vote for Ron Paul for some cute reason, they made a big mistake.

It isn't to be cute, it is to get more delegates than you would normally.

 

[jeff43]

So he might have gotten 22% instead of 21%. Wooo.

Face it, McCain won until it is proven otherwise. Ron Paul got 3rd. He still did great.

Be careful spouting off too many verified facts. You'll probably get labled a troll and told to leave. I should know because it's been happening to me all day. McCain won Washington. We thought that Paul was screwed over in Louisiana, but he wasn't even a factor there. Huckabee won Louisiana.

 

[naga_warrior]

So he might have gotten 22% instead of 21%. Wooo.

Face it, McCain won until it is proven otherwise. Ron Paul got 3rd. He still did great. But let's not make up victories just because it makes us feel better.

Where do you get 22% from? I mean, if you add up both Paul's numbers and the uncommitted then you get 34% I believe. As someone said, it is unrealistic to say these are all ours, but it means we might have. You have no proof to say we didn't.

 

[literatim]

Be careful spouting off too many verified facts. You'll probably get labled a troll and told to leave. I should know because it's been happening to me all day. McCain won Washington. We thought that Paul was screwed over in Louisiana, but he wasn't even a factor there. Huckabee won Louisiana.

Uhm, are you talking about the Louisiana primary? No one was rewarded for that primary as no one received 51% of the vote. Huckabee was barely on the radar for the Louisiana caucus.

 

[jeff43]

I guess getting 44% of the vote and winning the state means that you're "barely on the radar" nowadays. Paul must have been completely off the map at 5% then. Some of you are just embarrassing.

 

[Avalon]

Trolls validating trolls...big surprise. Of course it's effective because most of our traffic on these forums don't understand the caucus/convention process. It seems very clear that RP is *leading* in WA, but we need to see the breakdown in terms of counties/congressional districts in order to get a feel for the sweeps that will come (looks like district 4 will be one for us).

 

[fortilite]

Where do you get 22% from? I mean, if you add up both Paul's numbers and the uncommitted then you get 34% I believe. As someone said, it is unrealistic to say these are all ours, but it means we might have. You have no proof to say we didn't.

This is sad. You think Ron Paul is gonna get 100% of the uncommitted? Why? Because some poster said so? Give me a break.

Also you're confused on my reference. McCain's 26% / Ron Paul's 21% = 1.238, or 23.8% more than Ron Paul.

 

[literatim]

I guess getting 44% of the vote and winning the state means that you're "barely on the radar" nowadays. Paul must have been completely off the map at 5% then. Some of you are just embarrassing.

He scored 44% of basically nothing. He gets no delegates for it. The only way the Louisiana primary provides delegates is if a candidate scores 51% or more of the vote. Since no candidate got 51% of the vote, all national delegates are distribute through the State convention when the state delegates vote.

 

[fortilite]

Trolls validating trolls...big surprise. Of course it's effective because most of our traffic on these forums don't understand the caucus/convention process. It seems very clear that RP is *leading* in WA, but we need to see the breakdown in terms of counties/congressional districts in order to get a feel for the sweeps that will come (looks like district 4 will be one for us).

He got 21% of the vote. That's 3rd, not 1st. How is it "very clear that RP is leading in WA"? LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. This is one of many reasons why we don't get taken seriously.

The assumption that Ron Paul got nearly all of the uncommitted delegates with nothing to back that assumption up is the very definition of wishful thinking.

Sorry for being a realist... oops... I mean troll.

 

[jeff43]

He scored 44% of basically nothing. He gets no delegates for it. The only way the Louisiana primary provides delegates is if a candidate scores 51% or more of the vote. Since no candidate got 51% of the vote, all national delegates are distribute through the State convention when the state delegates vote.

How do you know he gets no delegates? Are you assuming that none of the uncommitted delegates would vote for him? If so, then that's a pretty lame assumption. Right now, he gets the press for winning the state. If the state convention becomes relevant, then he'll get a good chuck of the delegates. It probably won't be relevant though after McCain sweeps the contests this Tuesday.

 

[naga_warrior]

This is sad. You think Ron Paul is gonna get 100% of the uncommitted? Why? Because some poster said so? Give me a break.

Also you're confused on my reference. McCain's 26% / Ron Paul's 21% = 1.238, or 23.8% more than Ron Paul.

Uhhh.........Didn't I SAY that he probably wont get 100% of them...Yes i think I did. And you said that he is gonna only gain 1% out of no where. So you would be saying that only 1/13 of the uncommitted was for Paul. Which is very possible, but YOU don't know that, just as I DON'T know that he got 100%.....

 

[Avalon]

He got 21% of the vote. That's 3rd, not 1st. How is it "very clear that RP is leading in WA"? LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. This is one of many reasons why we don't get taken seriously.

1. Perhaps you should read all the posts by the dozens of supporters who won uncomitted delegate slots. I'm not saying we're 100% of the uncommitteds, but I'm convinced we are the majority.
2. The Huckster and Romney delegates are not going to vote for anyone who declared themselves McCain delegates. But there may be some savvy McCain delegates who were smart enough to be uncomitted at this point as well.

 

[tomveil]

He got 21% of the vote. That's 3rd, not 1st. How is it "very clear that RP is leading in WA"? LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. This is one of many reasons why we don't get taken seriously.

The assumption that Ron Paul got nearly all of the uncommitted delegates with nothing to back that assumption up is the very definition of wishful thinking.

Sorry for being a realist... oops... I mean troll.

It must suck to be stupid

21% of straw poll <> 21% of delegates

 

[kyleAF]

Be careful spouting off too many verified facts. You'll probably get labled a troll and told to leave. I should know because it's been happening to me all day. McCain won Washington. We thought that Paul was screwed over in Louisiana, but he wasn't even a factor there. Huckabee won Louisiana.

Check your history...it looks like you're new to the forums. Louisiana doesn't work that way. It held its caucus a couple of weeks ago. Paul came in a close second to McCain (and the campaign is suing the GOP for shenanigans and think we actually got first). The primary would have been significant if a candidate had received a majority of the popular vote. Huckabee only got 44% it seems, so the delegates remain as selected at the caucus.

In WA (from what I've gathered), the vote tallies that the media is reporting has nothing to do with delegates at all. It's just another one of many beauty contests that we've seen. Their numbers come from the sign-in sheets where each voter was asked their Presidential Preference. Preferences don't vote. Delegates vote. Vote = win. QED.

Granted, we won't officially know how many delegates we get until the delegate conventions later on. The HQ will know, however, as their supporters check in.

So for now, all we have is anecdotal evidence. But that's all the MSM has too!!!

 

[Avalon]

It must suck to be stupid

21% of straw poll <> 21% of delegates

No, these are the delegates but the end result will depend on how the delegates are spread out. But it's almost impossible for McCain to win any national delegates from the state convention at this point except through deception.

 

[fortilite]

So for now, all we have is anecdotal evidence. But that's all the MSM has too!!!

Actually they have the precinct count, too. McCain has 23% more precincts won.

 

[fortilite]

It must suck to be stupid

21% of straw poll <> 21% of delegates

Actually those ARE delegates. So who is stupid?

McCain has 23% more delegates.

 

[jeff43]

It must suck to be stupid

21% of straw poll <> 21% of delegates

Those are state delegates. Maybe you should revise your insulting remark.

 

[JWZguy]

We thought that Paul was screwed over in Louisiana, but he wasn't even a factor there. Huckabee won Louisiana.

Huckabee didn't come close to "winning" Louisiana. A popular vote in the Primary means NOTHING unless it's over 50%.

If the lawsuit stops the delegates who broke the party rules and registered late from maintaining their seats, almost ALL of the state convention delegates will be Ron Paul supporters.

If they don't play by their own rules, then it was impossible for us to win anyway.

If Ron Paul not getting the majority vote in the Primary makes you somehow forget everything the GOP did to stop us from participating in the caucus, I can't help you. But you -are- delusional if you think those of us that love freedom are in the majority anywhere. We have a chance because we care more, not because there are more of us.