Have a looksie at this RP delegate thing:
http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp- ... gates4.png

SHHH!

Why you outtin' our secrets???

Are those actual delegate results? It says "sample" precincts. But I don't know if that just means "sample" as in a small set, or "sample" as in example.

Technically, I can't include myself in it. I'm a registered Libertarian.

But here's an article explaining Neal's chart.

Wahappun?

Seems like three selected precincts, not whole counties, where there are more delegates to the State conventions for Paul than straw polling of a tiny number of people would suggest.

Not actual RNC delegates, not a full picture and (I suspect), nothing more that Paulista cherry picking.

Slate is a Paulista rag? News to me.

Danivon, your argument makes no sense. This is the process they are chosen in. Yes, perhaps they are the only precincts where he got all the delegates, but we can't say. The point is, he got all the delegates in precincts where he received 30%, 16%, and 6%. Second, third, and fourth places, respectively, in a state he did quite poorly in. This only increases the chances of his delegates being selected to county and state conventions as delegates, and ultimately the national convention.

Slate wrote:For this to stick, Paul's activists have to show up at the next votes -- small affairs, not much media, happening in March -- and control the delegate process. Then they have to show up at conventions and repeat it. This is actually doable.

Holy crap. I stop paying attention for a few days, and there's a new front runner! Rick Santorum, who would have thought it? Is anyone here a fan?

Yes.

Guapo wrote:Slate is a Paulista rag? News to me.

A blog on Slate.com is not the same as Slate's editorial team. Maybe this David Weigel guy is actually a Paulista?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Weigel

Wikipedia wrote:Since early 2007, Weigel has been a registered Republican in the Washington, D.C. area,[18][19][20] in order to vote for Ron Paul at the Republican primary stage of the 2008 presidential election.[21] In 2008, Weigel voted for Barack Obama, explaining "I really don’t think McCain has the temperament to be President or the interest in standing up to a Democratic Congress... I’ve got the luxury of a guilt-free, zero-impact vote in the District of Columbia, which I would cast for Bob Barr if he was on the ballot".[16]

So, errr, he voted for Paul in the 2008 primary, and would have voted for the Libertarian in the November election if there'd been a ballot line. He's also a contributing editor at the libertarian outlet 'Reason'.

Danivon, your argument makes no sense. This is the process they are chosen in. Yes, perhaps they are the only precincts where he got all the delegates, but we can't say. The point is, he got all the delegates in precincts where he received 30%, 16%, and 6%. Second, third, and fourth places, respectively, in a state he did quite poorly in. This only increases the chances of his delegates being selected to county and state conventions as delegates, and ultimately the national convention.

Only if that isn't just a cherry picked pattern. If he came first in some precincts but didn't get the most delegates there, then perhaps it pans out more in line with the polling. Out of context it's not really saying much, other than that perhaps Paulistas in some places can hack a caucus.

Of course, if Paul were leading in straw polls and not getting delegates, you guys would be moaning about party machines and conspiracies to block the popular choice etc etc.

May argument makes sense, it's jus that you don't like it: Three precinct results prove little without context. None was provided, but Paul supporters are well known for their historic breathless zeal and spouting that they are going to win, just we cynics wait and see...

So I take it with a pinch of salt. You don't because you want to believe that the extrapolation is true. Accept it, Santorum won those primaries, not Paul.

Forgetting policy and positions for a moment, I didn't think Santorum had the gravitas to be considered a real candidate. He's comes across as the goofy, forgettable guy who used to sit across from you in homeroom. Gingrich, for all his problems, carries some weight (hah! fat joke) some gravitas, as does Romney and even Paul. I just don't see the same in Santorum. I know, his policies and positions may appeal, but in some ways the election is akin to a beauty contest, and he'd get crushed by Obama. He'd be the Republicans' Walter Mondale.

geojanes wrote:Forgetting policy and positions for a moment, I didn't think Santorum had the gravitas to be considered a real candidate. He's comes across as the goofy, forgettable guy who used to sit across from you in homeroom. Gingrich, for all his problems, carries some weight (hah! fat joke) some gravitas, as does Romney and even Paul. I just don't see the same in Santorum. I know, his policies and positions may appeal, but in some ways the election is akin to a beauty contest, and he'd get crushed by Obama. He'd be the Republicans' Walter Mondale.

Unlike Gingrich and Romney, Santorum comes across to me as someone who is very sincere. I don't agree with much of what he says, but he's shown more character than G and R.

danivon wrote:May argument makes sense, it's jus that you don't like it: Three precinct results prove little without context. None was provided, but Paul supporters are well known for their historic breathless zeal and spouting that they are going to win, just we cynics wait and see...

So I take it with a pinch of salt. You don't because you want to believe that the extrapolation is true. Accept it, Santorum won those primaries, not Paul.

It has nothing to do with "liking" anything. It has to do with understanding the process. I have a degree in political science, and I think your post demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. Straw/Primary votes ultimately don't mean anything. Watch what happens in Maine. They don't have a straw vote like other caucuses--on one day. Watch what happens in Nevada and other states that have unpledged delegates selected over a process.

That's how Obama won, for Pete's sake. The DNC wasn't as divided as the GOP is, and there were only 2 candidates.

You have to understand that the primary system is relatively new. However, the rules haven't changed much. The rules in many states allow for delegates to be unpledged for a reason. Brokered conventions haven't happened for a while because there haven't been any primaries like this in a while, and so it has been moot. But this election is not like any in the GOP since probably 1948. Look at the primary votes there. The process is designed for the passionately attached to get their candidate delegates, when there's no solid consensus. As I said before, Paulistas were ready to do this in '08, until Paul held his Rally for the Republic.

If Ron Paul wins most of the delegates in these states, they can force much more than a platform change at the Convention.

I'm not guaranteeing it, but the evidence so far is that something is happening along those lines. Yes, they still have to continue in the delegate process, but I see no reason to believe they won't. You don't turn 6% into 100% without knowing what you are doing, and these Colorado precincts are not anomalies.

It's extraordinary how you can ignore the fact that I just said that I am a Libertarian. I'm not a part of this, but I know what's going on. It seems akin to your presumption that you know the American Medical System. Let me guess, you know someone who had a medical procedure done in the US, so that makes you an expert? lol.

Republicans and Democrats are criminals, I would not support any of their candidates in a national election till those parties prove themselves to be other than what they currently are. You don't elect a man, you elect a party. No thanks!

Ray Jay wrote:Unlike Gingrich and Romney, Santorum comes across to me as someone who is very sincere. I don't agree with much of what he says, but he's shown more character than G and R.

I don't disagree, and I think that sincerity has a lot to do with his success, but that doesn't change what I said about him. In the beauty contest of the general election, he'll get wrecked.

Guapo, don't patronise me, fella. I understand how the process works. It's what the Soviets used in their 'delegative denocracy'. Similar to the system my party employed for policy and reselection of parliamentary candidates. I don't need to have studied PolSci to see it in action. A few odd result doesn't prove that the insurgent movement is going to win. These systems are designed to back the strongest position or to force a compromise.

We'll see what comes out when delegations are announced, but I think it's too easy to read a lot into three precincts.

Guapo wrote: Watch what happens in Nevada and other states that have unpledged delegates selected over a process.

That's how Obama won, for Pete's sake. The DNC wasn't as divided as the GOP is, and there were only 2 candidates.

The problem with these two comments though is the number of unpledged delegates in the GOP is only about 5% whereas in the Democratic Party it is more like 20%. I don't know of those 5% of unpledged delegates can really have that much of an impact.