Paul is consistently getting around 10% of the vote. In Tx and Ca he's polling at about that level now, so we'd probably need to see a change in that over the next few weeks to get any indication that the trend is being bucked.

However, it's likely that by the time those two states are done, Romney will have topped ther delegate count he needs to be secure of a first round win at the DNC.

Again, this is another example of the mass confusion on how the process works.

Remember the whole Colorado thing I posted about a month ago. This is where it becomes important. In the southern states (really it's about the bound/unbound delegate type--they just happen to mostly be the southern states), they still have to vote for Santorum in the first round Remember, Romney must have 1144 bound delegates in order to win before convention. His figure is closer to 500 than what the AP broadcasts. However, in states like Colorado and Missouri, where Ron Paul's supporters have been getting elected as delegates, they are free. This is happening in Romney states, as well (Maine, etc.)

Also, you're forgetting that there is still an stop-Romney constituency that will break things up in California and Texas. I never said Ron Paul would win California. I said he could, and I still think he can. But he doesn't need to. All that needs to happen is that Romney doesn't get enough bound delegates to win.

Ben Swann explains it better than I do.

Sassenach wrote:So if Paul can finish third in the vote but still end up with a majority of delegates (I'll believe it when I see it), doesn't this make the voting a complete farce ?

Oh, by the way. It happened.

Ron Paul has won Iowa, Minnesota and Louisiana--even before all the delegates have been selected. Nevada looks to follow.

Then there are the states where

1. no clear winner has a majority of delegates (Alaska, Colorado), and
2. Romney has a majority but very slight (Massachusetts has Rom @ 22 and Ron @ 16).

The media has been falsely reporting the figures in those states.

Of course, even some of those delegates "bound" to Romney are Ron Paul supporters.

Another point of note is that Ron Paul has secured a position on the RNC ballot. According to the rules, he needed a plurality of delegates in 5 states. That's already done.

And then there's the idea of unbinding delegates at the state level. It almost happened in Nevada, but the Ron Paul campaign stopped them from passing it. I think the idea is that if Nevada unbound their delegation, the RNC might have an excuse to step in and bar the state's delegates from seating at the convention.

It's a shame that there is so little real discussion about the process here.

I can't wait until some of these "Romney" delegates abstain from voting in the first round of the convention. Some of you are going to look silly in August. :)

The only votes that matter in the nomination process are the ones on the floor of the convention.

So, Ron Paul is going to be the nominee?

I don't discount the possibility of nefarious behavior by GOoPers.

So I'm not willing to make any guarantees while I'm still batting 1.000.

But...I did forget to mention Maine. 21 of 21 delegates (3 are "at large") went to Ron Paul supporters.

Romey will still win round 1 and be the candidate.

Guapo wrote:I don't discount the possibility of nefarious behavior by GOoPers.

So I'm not willing to make any guarantees while I'm still batting 1.000.

But...I did forget to mention Maine. 21 of 21 delegates (3 are "at large") went to Ron Paul supporters.

So, the guy who could not win one single State should be the Party's nominee?

John Huntsman? No, he shouldn't

Ron Paul has won 5 states so far. Oh, you mean the straw votes?

Hey, I didn't make the rules, nor did Ron Paul. Also, you should note that it wouldn't be the first time the Republicans have had a candidate who didn't win any primaries.

It's interesting, though, that so many people are bothered by the system, when its there to help "outsider" candidates, so long as they have the grassroots support. Why is it so bothersome that the candidate with the most driven supporters (they still have to win delegate seats) can work the system the way it was intended to be? Does anyone even know that the Veep candidate is also supposed to be voted on at convention?

Primaries are a new phenomenon to American politics, and particularly with Republicans. Caucuses are the more traditional form of intra-party politics, and that's how caucuses go. Round by round, district by district, county by county until the state convention. Why even have a state convention if a simple straw vote would suffice?

Party politics is not about voting once and going home. It's voting, then voting, then voting (note, not everyone has to do that--just enough supporters of a candidate to get him/her through). Remember, political parties are supposed to be ideological. That's why they were so controversial with the founders. But that's the system we have. Ron Paul's grassroots campaign is organized and informed. Why is that a bad thing?

All Romney has to do is get his support base fired up. I mean, he's the party's nominee, right? Gonna thrash Obama? Best bet? Goooooooo Mitt!!

Why isn't his base passionate enough to win the delegate seats for him?

On a side note, there's a big debate going on in Ron Paul circles over two things:

1. GOP Rule 38 Seems to indicate that all "binding" statuses may be moot to anyway. It's based on the "unit rule," which is confusing to begin with. I don't think it does what some supporters say it does, but that could be the end of any WTA states. (Note that in the rules, 24-38 are rules specifically for the convention and would supersede Rule 15). The Unit rule was important in the 1880 Republican Convention

2. first round abstention. There are known "stealth" delegates, and some of them may abstain from voting in the first round, if Rule 38 does not free their votes (i.e., delegates from "bound" states like Florida) That's another odd thing to sort out because there is nothing in the rules expressly allowing or disallowing it.

One thing's for sure, the RP delegates are going to be much more versed in Roberts Rules of Order than the Romney delegates.

Also, if Romney wasn't concerned, one of his campaign guys wouldn't have been thrown out of the Nevada state convention for handing out a fake slate of Ron Paul delegates

Guapo wrote:John Huntsman? No, he shouldn't

Ron Paul has won 5 states so far. Oh, you mean the straw votes?

Hey, I didn't make the rules, nor did Ron Paul. Also, you should note that it wouldn't be the first time the Republicans have had a candidate who didn't win any primaries.

Is this since the primary system was instituted? If before, I'd suggest you are being disingenuous.

It's interesting, though, that so many people are bothered by the system, when its there to help "outsider" candidates, so long as they have the grassroots support. Why is it so bothersome that the candidate with the most driven supporters (they still have to win delegate seats) can work the system the way it was intended to be? Does anyone even know that the Veep candidate is also supposed to be voted on at convention?

Primaries are a new phenomenon to American politics, and particularly with Republicans. Caucuses are the more traditional form of intra-party politics, and that's how caucuses go. Round by round, district by district, county by county until the state convention. Why even have a state convention if a simple straw vote would suffice?

I don't know.

What I do know is that having a candidate for national office who regularly failed to get even 15% of the primary vote would be a disaster. Ron Paul might get 30% of the vote in a general if he was the GOP nominee under these circumstances. I know you don't believe that, but for those of us with a stripe of pragmatism it's just reality.

My guess is that the more Paul pushes this, the more trouble he is going to get from the party establishment. I know you don't care, but Ron Paul should. You can't lead a party when you have less than 20% support within the party itself.

The Democrats have a rule whereby the candidate can disqualify electors who are listed as his delegates. The Republicans do not have such a rule, but probably will in 4 years.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Guapo wrote:John Huntsman? No, he shouldn't

Ron Paul has won 5 states so far. Oh, you mean the straw votes?

Hey, I didn't make the rules, nor did Ron Paul. Also, you should note that it wouldn't be the first time the Republicans have had a candidate who didn't win any primaries.

Is this since the primary system was instituted? If before, I'd suggest you are being disingenuous.

Yes. I apologize. I thought I linked to the 1920 Election. The primaries started in 1912, I believe (they are a stamp of the Progressive age--another irony to me, that you'd defend them). There were 20 states that went to a primary system by 1920.

Doctor Fate wrote:

It's interesting, though, that so many people are bothered by the system, when its there to help "outsider" candidates, so long as they have the grassroots support. Why is it so bothersome that the candidate with the most driven supporters (they still have to win delegate seats) can work the system the way it was intended to be? Does anyone even know that the Veep candidate is also supposed to be voted on at convention?

Primaries are a new phenomenon to American politics, and particularly with Republicans. Caucuses are the more traditional form of intra-party politics, and that's how caucuses go. Round by round, district by district, county by county until the state convention. Why even have a state convention if a simple straw vote would suffice?

I don't know.

What I do know is that having a candidate for national office who regularly failed to get even 15% of the primary vote would be a disaster. Ron Paul might get 30% of the vote in a general if he was the GOP nominee under these circumstances. I know you don't believe that, but for those of us with a stripe of pragmatism it's just reality.

You can't be serious. Defend those numbers. Go ahead, look at polling data, historical analysis, or whatever you choose. But I can't imagine that your 30% number is anything more than being pulled out of your 'stripe'.

Doctor Fate wrote:My guess is that the more Paul pushes this, the more trouble he is going to get from the party establishment. I know you don't care, but Ron Paul should. You can't lead a party when you have less than 20% support within the party itself.

I see, so you think that the RNC will make good on their threats to disallow entire state delegations? You think that would be a good thing for them? Actually, Romney has already decided to go the other way. The McCain camp chose to alienate the RP supporters, but Romney has wanted to appear to play nice. So he's sort of stuck. If he starts fighting with RP delegates, it's going to be nothing but bad press. That will kill him. He doesn't want that. Remember how a few months ago, Santorum was talking about a Rom-Ron conspiracy? Looks like Ron is playing Rom like a fiddle. Let me explain:

The way I see it, Ron played a brilliant game of Primary diplomacy (I guess it could be more like "Survivor," but I've never watched those vote-off shows). He knew that Romney was going to be the main target for the other candidates (because, you know, he energizes the base so much), so he decided to play nice with him. Romney wanted to appear to take the high road, but certainly appreciated Ron trashing Santorum and Gingrich.

But what can Romney do now?

He can't play hardball without major blowback. Either he's already won, and doesn't need to worry about how many delegates RP gets, or he fights back showing that he's worried. So instead, Romney decides to play underhanded, and sends in operatives to create fake RP delegate slates. Guess what has happened in both Nevada and Maine? The Seargent at Arms had to remove a man from the Nevada convention because of it.

Anyway, the RNC sent a silly letter threatening the Nevada GOP with unseating the entire state delegation if they didn't sign a pledge stating they'd vote for Romney in the first round. The RP delegation is calling their bluff.

Imagine the press when the GOP bans 2 or 3 entire state delegations from the convention. That's not a winning strategy for the general election.

Ray Jay wrote:The Democrats have a rule whereby the candidate can disqualify electors who are listed as his delegates. The Republicans do not have such a rule, but probably will in 4 years.

Ahh, so you think Ron will be running for re-election in 2016?

Guapo wrote:Also, if Romney wasn't concerned, one of his campaign guys wouldn't have been thrown out of the Nevada state convention for handing out a fake slate of Ron Paul delegates

I know it's Nevada, and therefore already half-crazy, but reading that all I can say is "is that the party that's going to be running the USA any time soon?"

Farce.