Official Maine Caucus Results Thread!!

reply to post by Wookiep


What Paul has done in Maine is absolutely phenomenal and yet I don't see anyone commenting on that. Even just a few months ago he was only polling at 5% in the state yet he managed to more than double his numbers from 2008 while Romney lost almost 700. Did people really expect Paul to almost triple his numbers while not being seen as a contender just a few months ago?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Wookiep

 

What Paul has done in Maine is absolutely phenomenal and yet I don't see anyone commenting on that. Even just a few months ago he was only polling at 5% in the state yet he managed to more than double his numbers from 2008 while Romney lost almost 700. Did people really expect Paul to almost triple his numbers while not being seen as a contender just a few months ago?

Yes, Paul did much better than he did in 2008. That wasn't what I was talking about, however. Did you actually read anything I posted just now? Here it is again on a whole new fresh page:

So most of us understand that this comes down to delegates and the media is over-hyping this for Romney etc, BUT, let's also look at what has happened in Maine in order:

The caucuses in Maine started on Jan 29th and were said to run until Saturday March 3rd with a very strong chance of Paul taking this state. (this is essentially a month long caucus event in Maine) It was said on CNN just today that Paul started campaigning there since the Florida primaries. On the 11th of Februrary a non-binding straw poll took place,(today) but we won't get in to that just yet..

Here is the caucus schedule for all states in 2012, but you can check the Maine schedule here:

www.thegreenpapers.com...

Yesterday, (the 10th) ATS member 'elpresidente' posts a thread about some suspicious goings-on from the GOP in Maine. A GOP insider who is a Ron Paul supporter reports that the GOP is adding new caucuses in fear that Ron Paul may win the state, and by a significant margin. See that thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In an article by CNN today, it is mentioned that Mitt Romney had only just arrived in Maine early Saturday:

Romney visited caucus sites in the state earlier Saturday, something he hadn't done up to this point in the campaign.

(scroll down a bit to see this)

www.cnn.com...

Then, before the MSM reported the straw poll results, (and even right now as we speak) Google had been tracking the results by precinct, and has been reporting a total of 1911 votes in. With these totals, Ron Paul is in the lead at 43% with Mitt trailing quite far behind at 33%. People on dailypaul.com are saying that both Google and Politico are reporting these numbers at 83% of the votes in.

docs.google.com...

Then the MSM reports the straw poll results:

Willard M. "Mitt" Romney 2,190 39%
Ronald Ernest Paul 1,996 36%

Next, we are told that many precincts have been postponed and not counted yet. Associated press says that State republican chairman Charlie Webster says this:

Webster said any caucus results that come in after Saturday wouldn't be counted no matter how close the vote turned out to be.

hosted.ap.org...

So, can we conclude at this point that there are some shady goins-on? Or, is it like 'Southern Guardian' says and we are all just being poor sports? I don't think so. So far this is the most shady caucus of them all IMO. There are several reasons to suspect foul play from the GOP. This kinda crap needs to stop, and we are the only ones who can stop it. I believe strongly the Paul campaign needs to call these people out for what they really are!

reply to post by juveous


I don't know about that. To many in the GOP Ron Paul is still seen as eccentric at best and crazy at worst. In order to gain some legitimacy among the voters he either needs to start winning states or at least start consistently coming in a strong second while the other three battle for first, giving him the most votes. If he's going to keep averaging third and fourth place finishes the majority of GOP voters will simply think he stole the candidacy and be confused as to why the man no one seemed to want ended up as the candidate. They will then feel like many of the Ron Paul supporters on this site. They will feel that their vote is worthless and will opt to not vote instead of taking time out of their day to vote for someone that they don't want and the majority of the GOP don't want.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by macaronicaesar

 

Gingrich actually surged more than Romney, percentage-wise. Gingrich increased by 310.6% over the initial Google tally (from 85 votes to 349), while Romney increased by 256.7% (614 to 2190). Ron Paul increased by 150.1% (798 to 1996), which is similar to Santorum's increase of 164.4% (374 to 989).

Statistically, there is nothing obviously wrong with Romney's surge past Paul.

Yes there is, it's about trending. You don't all the sudden as the front runner fall off a cliff and drop below everyone. 20% was in and he was leading everyone handily, but the last 60% he dropped to the lowest % of the bunch, ummm, nope.

If Paul can't win Maine...then I'm pretty sure he won't win a single state.

But of course...it must have been fraud.


But having your supporters to be delegates and pledge to vote Ron Paul no matter the result of their own precinct, county or state is perfectly fine.


Like I said before...at this point I hope he is stealing delegates and gets the nomination by this under handed method. Best way to disenfranchise GOP voters and have them stay home in November.

Thanks Ron

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
If Paul can't win Maine...then I'm pretty sure he won't win a single state.

But of course...it must have been fraud.

But having your supporters to be delegates and pledge to vote Ron Paul no matter the result of their own precinct, county or state is perfectly fine.


Like I said before...at this point I hope he is stealing delegates and gets the nomination by this under handed method. Best way to disenfranchise GOP voters and have them stay home in November.

Thanks Ron

He's not stealing anything, in fact, he's being robbed, everything he is doing is well within the rules. People being ignorant to the process is not an excuse. This was always about delegates.

reply to post by macaronicaesar


That's been the case in most caucuses and primaries so far. Paul appears to be doing very well initially, with a small percentage of votes counted, but, when the rest come in, he falls back. Trending doesn't matter if pro-Paul districts/counties are tallied first, which they seem to like to do. Though, in this case, one significant pro-Paul county won't be caucusing until later, so their inclusion will affect the all-important delegate vote, not this essentially meaningless straw poll.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


That old man , Ron Paul, has you lieing under your sheets at night in a cold sweat, quivering in fear.

Your posts of negativity towards RP are a sad attempt to convince yourself it will be alright.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
I'm not hearing claims of "fraud" OutKast, just that the rest of the votes, when cast, need to be counted.

You claim Dr Paul is "stealing delegates", but is he really? His supporters have played by the GOP's rules and learned from their mistakes in 2008.

Following the rules to ensure you get the delegates because you have educated supporters and then you trying to equate it with "stealing" is just sad on your part!

reply to post by macaronicaesar


It may be within the rules but it will still disenfranchise a lot of voters if the man who didn't win a single state and came in third place at best in terms of actual numbers is given the candidacy. Let's try a hyothetical situation. Let's say that Ron Paul gets the nomination. Then lets say that he actually wins your state. How would you feel if your electors then decided to vote for Obama instead because they support him?

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Winning on a technicality? There are rules in place and he's following those rules. How would that be a win by technicality? Please explain. Thanks.

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
It was unusual in the sense that he was winning by over 10 % at 20%

This is not that unusual, it's happened to other nominee runners before. This is what happens when you start off in counties that tend to vote more favourably for one candidate than the other. It may verywell be an indication of fraud in the works as anything is possible, but it is highly unlikely though.

I know your pro obama

I don't support Obama because of his vote for the Patriot act, his crackdown on medical marijuana and his support to send military to Libya. I've stated this on multiple occasions. I don't think it helps your position all that much by labelling myself as 'pro-Obama' merely because I don't share the same feelings for Paul as you do.

and think Paul is a flake

Aside from Paul's foreign policy, I do believe his position on other policies are extreme, I certainly would not vote for him. But my analysis on his performances are not based on my personal views of him. Fact is, he hasn't won a State yet, he is dead last on the table at the moment and to make it worse, this has become typical of his performances. In 2008 he did far worse in the primaries, in 1988 when he first ran for president, he got less than 1% of the vote, no state.

If this wasn't Paul but any other candidate, would you be so quick to explain away their poor performance as a product of government corruption? If it was Santorum or Gingrich, would you be defending them in the same manner? I think not.

Do you honestly think Paul has gotten a fair shake?

I don't think the media has given him an equal amount of air time or attention as say Romney or Santorum. But this isn't unusual, given his performances. The media isn't interested in being 'fair', they're interested in the big story. Ron Paul's performance thus far aren't worthy of being the big story, this is just reality.

You say he has no support, it's no wonder he doesn't get support. He nearly won Iowa, no mention of him still, did very well in Nevada, blackout continued

I think he did fairly well in Iowa, I've stated prior that it was a virtual tie between him, Santorum and Romney. He did well in New Hampshire, but failed to capture that State. His performances from there have not been all that impressive. His performance in Nevada came out worse than it did back in 2008. He should have won that state, he spent more money than even Gingrich who didn't care to focus efforts there, and yet he came third? This is very poor, and I'm not sure how many times you can blame others for Paul's short comings.

Maybe if he was given the opportunity to build momentum in the beginning from the MSM

I find this view rather interesting coming from Paulers.

Like it or not, the media consider of mostly private organizations (save NPR). CNN, Fox news, MSNBC, they are private businesses who operate how they see fit, they have audiences to appeal to. Being 'fair' to all candidates does not help them appeal to their audiences. Asking the media to treat Paul in the same way as the other candidates is comparible to telling private businesses that they all have to play fair in the market, Ron Paul wouldn't have any of the latter, and so wouldn't his supporters. Why must the media be different in this case huh? Paul says the life isn't fair when it comes to the free market, yet his supporters demand that private media audiences play fair specifically to him.

Until Paul can actually find a way to connect to mainstream GOP voters, and he will have to if he intends to have any hope of gaining momentum in the party, he will continue to be touted as a fringe candidate within the party and among the media. For starters he actually needs to start winning States.

reply to post by Tw0Sides
So true, and they number in the thousands, literally. He is still hoping for that change we can believe in, maybe? Someone ought to tell 'em it got lost in the last debt ceiling increase.

This caucus, though... Gingrich ringing in at 6%... Santorum not doing much better... Stark difference compared to the Minnesota caucus. For some reason though, only 83.7% reporting in, wonder what's the holdup for the rest of the results? Geez, I think I'm having deja vu here, unless something similar to this just recently happened here in Clark County, NV?

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by macaronicaesar

 

That's been the case in most caucuses and primaries so far. Paul appears to be doing very well initially, with a small percentage of votes counted, but, when the rest come in, he falls back. Trending doesn't matter if pro-Paul districts/counties are tallied first, which they seem to like to do. Though, in this case, one significant pro-Paul county won't be caucusing until later, so their inclusion will affect the all-important delegate vote, not this essentially meaningless straw poll.

I agree, but there were zero districts/counties that I had seen where Paul was being beaten majorly if at all.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
It was unusual in the sense that he was winning by over 10 % at 20%

This is not that unusual, it's happened to other nominee runners before. This is what happens when you start off in counties that tend to vote more favourably for one candidate than the other. It may verywell be an indication of fraud in the works as anything is possible, but it is highly unlikely though.

I know your pro obama

I don't support Obama because of his vote for the Patriot act, his crackdown on medical marijuana and his support to send military to Libya. I've stated this on multiple occasions. I don't think it helps your position all that much by labelling myself as 'pro-Obama' merely because I don't share the same feelings for Paul as you do.

and think Paul is a flake

Aside from Paul's foreign policy, I do believe his position on other policies are extreme, I certainly would not vote for him. But my analysis on his performances are not based on my personal views of him. Fact is, he hasn't won a State yet, he is dead last on the table at the moment and to make it worse, this has become typical of his performances. In 2008 he did far worse in the primaries, in 1988 when he first ran for president, he got less than 1% of the vote, no state.

If this wasn't Paul but any other candidate, would you be so quick to explain away their poor performance as a product of government corruption? If it was Santorum or Gingrich, would you be defending them in the same manner? I think not.

Do you honestly think Paul has gotten a fair shake?

I don't think the media has given him an equal amount of air time or attention as say Romney or Santorum. But this isn't unusual, given his performances. The media isn't interested in being 'fair', they're interested in the big story. Ron Paul's performance thus far aren't worthy of being the big story, this is just reality.

You say he has no support, it's no wonder he doesn't get support. He nearly won Iowa, no mention of him still, did very well in Nevada, blackout continued

I think he did fairly well in Iowa, I've stated prior that it was a virtual tie between him, Santorum and Romney. He did well in New Hampshire, but failed to capture that State. His performances from there have not been all that impressive. His performance in Nevada came out worse than it did back in 2008. He should have won that state, he spent more money than even Gingrich who didn't care to focus efforts there, and yet he came third? This is very poor, and I'm not sure how many times you can blame others for Paul's short comings.

Maybe if he was given the opportunity to build momentum in the beginning from the MSM

I find this view rather interesting coming from Paulers.

Like it or not, the media consider of mostly private organizations (save NPR). CNN, Fox news, MSNBC, they are private businesses who operate how they see fit, they have audiences to appeal to. Being 'fair' to all candidates does not help them appeal to their audiences. Asking the media to treat Paul in the same way as the other candidates is comparible to telling private businesses that they all have to play fair in the market, Ron Paul wouldn't have any of the latter, and so wouldn't his supporters. Why must the media be different in this case huh? Paul says the life isn't fair when it comes to the free market, yet his supporters demand that private media audiences play fair specifically to him.

Until Paul can actually find a way to connect to mainstream GOP voters, and he will have to if he intends to have any hope of gaining momentum in the party, he will continue to be touted as a fringe candidate within the party and among the media. For starters he actually needs to start winning States.

I disagree, they showed the list of counties, Paul was leading in them all except for 3 that hadn't started yet, the 3 that hadn't started yet were only puny counties. He was losing a couple by 10-15, but was winning some by 100+. I don't think the counties had anything to do with it. I'm not one to cry fraud at every turn here and why the hell is it highly unlikely?

I think you give the electoral process and politicians too much credit.

reply to post by imawlinn


It is the exact definition of a technicality. To quote Wikipedia:

It implies that that strict adherence to the letter of the law has prevented the spirit of the law from being enforced.

The point of these primaries and caucuses are to see who the GOP would support most in a presidential election and as a result choose them as their candidate. So, if Ron Paul wins the nomination because he accrued enough delegates simply because enough of his supporters stuck around after voting and then decided to vote against who their precinct voted for it would technically be in the rules, but would go against everything the very spirit of these primaries. In other words, he would win on a technicality.

Let me pose to you a question similar to one I posed earlier. Let's say Ron Paul were to get the nomination. Let's say that he not only gets the nomination but he holds his own against Obama. Let's say it comes down to a single state that will determine who wins. Now let's say that Ron Paul wins the state, but it just so happens to be one of the states where electors don't have to vote for who won the popular vote and they decide to vote for Obama because they are Obama supporters. How would you feel if this hypothetical situation occurred?

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

That old man , Ron Paul, has you lieing under your sheets at night in a cold sweat, quivering in fear.

Your posts of negativity towards RP are a sad attempt to convince yourself it will be alright.

This is something that I never get. Why do people think anyone is afraid of Ron Paul? Sure he has some kooky ideas but the fact of the matter is if he was President he could not do any of it without congress. He can, like anyone running, talk all they want but the fact is none of them can really do much to keep those promises unless congress supports them. An we all know how that never happens. People rip on Paul because his supporters are this small group that try to shove him in your face 24/7.

reply to post by Sek82


I haven't really been following Maine, but apparently they have a month long caucus. So it continues for a few more weeks. It's just that enough counties were done today that an accurate projection could be made. There are also apparently a few counties that had to postpone due to snow. So we won't have a 100% count until March 3.

Romney wins Maine caucuses

-- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney squeaked out a tight win over Texas Rep. Ron Paul in Maine's Republican presidential caucuses, taking 39% of the vote to Paul's 36%.

I thought Ron paul already won? Oh I hope they are wrong.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


They would still vote out of a "necessity" to remove Obama from office.