Why Ron Paul isn't worried about winning even one state.

Ron Paul's Delegate Strategy Explained Fairly Well...

I see many threads talking about how Ron Paul is shunned by the media, how they rig the election process so he doesn't get a fair shake....but you don't see Dr Paul getting worried over this. Why is this you may ask.....the reason is the delegates.




Just watch this video, the Paul camp explains how they are going to win without being declared a winner in one state. Basically, we get the straw poll results, which is only one part of the process. After the vote comes the business end of the process - actually picking the delegates. At this point most people are tired and go home and from the people that are left the delegates are chosen. If the people that stay behind are Ron Paul supporter, well then the delegate is for Ron Paul.

He is using the rules to his own advantage, playing by their games.


So Ron Paul supporters out there, don't give up hope - the game is far from over.

reply to post by MidnightTide

At this point most people are tired and go home and from the people that are left the delegates are chosen. If the people that stay behind are Ron Paul supporter, well then the delegate is for Ron Paul.

Why not just do away with delegates and, instead, do the old "last hand on the car wins it" strategy....but instead of a car, let's make it the constitution.




EDIT: by the way, this was posted yesterday: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by MidnightTide


As has been pointed out a few times now, if he wins this way Obama is going to crush him in the actual election. If the man who wins the nomination is the same man who didn't win a single state and has nowhere near the most votes its just going to disenfranchise a large portion of the GOP. If Paul wants to win the presidency he needs the full support of the GOP behind him which he won't get if he wins on a technicality.

I'm going to throw out a hypothetical situation and I want to know how you'd act. Let's sa the roles were reversed. Let's say that Paul was winning state after state and Romeny was consistently coming in third and fourth. But let's say Romeny's supporters were staying behind to be picked as delegates so in the end he wins the nomination. Would you vote for Romney in the actual election?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

I'm going to throw out a hypothetical situation and I want to know how you'd act. Let's sa the roles were reversed. Let's say that Paul was winning state after state and Romeny was consistently coming in third and fourth. But let's say Romeny's supporters were staying behind to be picked as delegates so in the end he wins the nomination. Would you vote for Romney in the actual election?

That's not a real comparison because most of the people voting for Romney are voting for Romney because they think he has the best chance at winning the GOP nomination - not because of what he stands for. I would guess that they will vote for whoever the GOP nomination goes to in the Presidential election. The people voting for Ron Paul are voting for Paul because of what he stands for - BIG difference.

As a matter of fact, I think it will be a VERY big mistake for the GOP to nominate anyone other than Paul for this very reason. Of all of the candidates running for the GOP nomination, Paul's backers are the most likely to NOT vote GOP if he's not on the ticket.

I don't think he needs to worry about winning a state as long as he keeps getting delegates.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman


That's not a real comparison because most of the people voting for Romney are voting for Romney because they think he has the best chance at winning the GOP nomination - not because of what he stands for. I would guess that they will vote for whoever the GOP nomination goes to in the Presidential election. The people voting for Ron Paul are voting for Paul because of what he stands for - BIG difference.

As a matter of fact, I think it will be a VERY big mistake for the GOP to nominate anyone other than Paul for this very reason. Of all of the candidates running for the GOP nomination, Paul's backers are the most likely to NOT vote GOP if he's not on the ticket.

edit on 12/2/2012 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

Interesting point here, I have to agree disagree and agree again here...i think...

When voting in a primary election, caucus, what have you, are people voting for the candidate thatthey want, or who they think has the best chance in an election against the incumbent.

Romney probably has the best chance against Obama, because of his centrist policies and the media attention he is getting. So should the GOP put him in the election.

Paul's supporters do vote for him because of what he stands for and believes in, but don't think about how he might fair in the general election. Paul supporters are too busy thinking that he 'should' win because of hat he stands for.

I like Dr. Paul, alot. What he stands for is good old American values and is a throwback to Conservatism of the past. Not centrist conservatism, but what we were all raised on. With that being said, I am not sure I will be pulling the lever for him in my primary because I want to see Obama ousted and I'm not sure that he is the candidate for the job. Not sure if Romney is either, but I have a few months to see which way things are going before my primary.

That is the irony of the primary, who you like, vs who might win. Sometimes the favorite isnt always the most electable.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

I'm going to throw out a hypothetical situation and I want to know how you'd act. Let's sa the roles were reversed. Let's say that Paul was winning state after state and Romeny was consistently coming in third and fourth. But let's say Romeny's supporters were staying behind to be picked as delegates so in the end he wins the nomination. Would you vote for Romney in the actual election?

That's not a real comparison because most of the people voting for Romney are voting for Romney because they think he has the best chance at winning the GOP nomination - not because of what he stands for. I would guess that they will vote for whoever the GOP nomination goes to in the Presidential election. The people voting for Ron Paul are voting for Paul because of what he stands for - BIG difference.

As a matter of fact, I think it will be a VERY big mistake for the GOP to nominate anyone other than Paul for this very reason. Of all of the candidates running for the GOP nomination, Paul's backers are the most likely to NOT vote GOP if he's not on the ticket.

edit on 12/2/2012 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

So you think the Republican voters who clearly chose 3 other canidates over Paul and then get stuck with him are going to go out and vote for him? The guy has been so irrelevant people have barely wasted any money attacking him. Imagine him as the Republican candidate and the ads blasting "we wants to isolate the nation" "He wants to sell your national parks to developers" "He says if your being sexualy harassed at work you should just quit" He wants to take away your ability to vote for your senate" and "he is your canidate and you did not ever vote for him". Then again if his plan is to take the Republican nomination without anyone voting for him then maybe he has a plan to take the White House without anyone voting for him as well.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Your discounting all the liberals and the people pissed off at Obama's broken promises that generally support Ron Paul. Many of my friends will vote for Ron Paul if he get's the republican nomination, but will refuse to vote for any other republican. If Ron Paul doesn't, they are voting democrat or not voting at all. Ron Paul will crush Obama, because he will take republicans, democrats, and libertarians. It would completely change the way Americans think about elections and the political process, something he has been saying lately.

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
That is the irony of the primary, who you like, vs who might win. Sometimes the favorite isnt always the most electable.

Ah, but see... the point here, and what is being totally neglected, is the fact that Paul is really the most electable of all of the GOP candidates. Think about it...

Romney gets the GOP nomination with, let's say 33% popular GOP support vs. Paul's 25% and Santorum's 22% and Gingrich's 20% (just making up numbers)

Obama vs. Romney - just how much of the base will Romney retain? All of it? VERY doubtful. Probably all of the Romney, Santorum and Gingrich support but certainly not the Paul support. The most Romney could hope for is ~ 80% of the GOP voters and NONE of the democrats.

Obama vs. Paul - how much of the base will Paul retain? All of it? Probably not but almost certainly most of it.

In a Romney vs Obama race, whatever the percentage is of the Paul popular vote is up in the air. In a Paul vs Obama race, the Paul popular vote will be with the GOP for certain.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Nice evasion of the question.

No comparing the two because YOUR Candidate actually cares about the issues...so it implies his underhanded attempt to manipulate the process is more legitimate than if another candidate tried the same thing.

Either way, it is a form of suppression.

Originally posted by madhatr137
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Nice evasion of the question.

No comparing the two because YOUR Candidate actually cares about the issues...so it implies his underhanded attempt to manipulate the process is more legitimate than if another candidate tried the same thing.

Either way, it is a form of suppression.

Dang dude!

I'm not trying to evade the question, it's just that I feel this is absolutely fair. "Underhanded"? Last time I checked, the Paul campaign is openly discussing this as their strategy. If another candidate tried the same thing I'd feel differently? Nope... in fact the rules were changed to give Romney a better chance at winning, did you miss that part? What's wrong with what they are doing?

Why do you see this as a form of suppression?

reply to post by higns07


But you're discounting how many from the GOP simply won't vote if Paul gets the nomination. If Paul gets the nomination on technicality it will disenfranchise the majority of GOP voters. They will feel that their vote doesn't matter if the person with the least amount of votes ends up as the candidate. On top of that I wouldn't be surprised if a portion of Romney voters end up voting for Obama. I agree that Paul could have best chance at ousting Obama, but only if his nomination comes with the numbers to back it up. If Paul wins on a technicality I predict that GOP voter turnout will be extremely low as this year is already predicted to have low voter turnout. Even if every single one of those voters voted for Paul he would still be fighting an uphill battle as the Democrats will have a higher voter turnout with most of them voting for Obama.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


I don't agree. Right now, today, Obama's approval rating is 49% and his disapproval rating is 49%. Now, those numbers are not just democrats obviously but I would venture to say that Paul has more democrat support than any other GOP candidate, wouldn't you?

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Dang dude!

Child of the 80's/early 90's too I see...

In response though, I am not totally sold that Paul will retain any more than say Romney or Gingrich...certainly not Santorum, the D's would demolish him in nothing more than ads if he gets the nom.

Another poster above brought up a good point, many independents and disillusioned D's will be abstaining from the election of coming to the R side in the general election and those are the wild cards. Do we know how many? We can guess by looking at Obama's approval rate among D's, but just because a D isnt happy with the current President doesnt mean that they will pull the lever for the big bad evil R once they enter the booth.

Lie I said before, I lie Dr. Paul alot, probably more so than the other candiddates, I'm just not totally sold on the retention of the base yet, that is more than any other candidate. I hope he has it, just not terribly sure that is the case.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Difficult to say. I'd say he definitely has more Democratic support than Gingrich or Santorum, but I can see Romney gaining a number of Democrats who are dissatisfied with Obama. Paul, while he does have some support among Democrats, the majority of them see him as being crazier than most Republicans see him. I'd say they would probably get about the same number of Democrats voting for them. What gives Paul a better shot is he also has appeal with Independents that Romney doesn't have. However, this won't help him if he's ends up losing a large portion of his Republican base. As I've said in the past if he can actually gain the nomination based on numbers and popularity then he stands the best chance of beating Obama out of all the Republican candidates. However, if he wins on a technicality he's going to be beat by Obama worse than Romney will.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Why do you see this as a form of suppression?

Because the way the system is supposed to work is that the delegates of a state are supposed to be representative of the results of the caucus.

What we have broadcast is a group of people who overtly don't care about the results of the caucus gaming the system in their favor.

Technically, it is legal.

But it would be like supporters of Candidate X becoming the Electoral College delegates of a state ignoring the popular vote that occurs in that state and simply casting their vote for Candidate X. Technically, it is legal. But it is suppressive in the manner that it is ignoring the manner in which the system is "supposed to" work. Essentially, you have a group of people announcing that they intend to ignore the ideals of democracy in order to make their candidate win. To me, that is suppression.

And despite the repetition by Mr. Wead of how the "rules were changed" for Romney's favor, he did not make it clear as for how the shifting of caucus dates, the change, actually benefited Romney.

reply to post by MidnightTide


I can recall at least TWO threads about this very same subject.

Last time I heard, Paul did not have a lot of delegates. I do not think he will win a single state either.

It's time to take the ball and go home, Paulites.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
Ron Paul's Delegate Strategy Explained Fairly Well...

I see many threads talking about how Ron Paul is shunned by the media, how they rig the election process so he doesn't get a fair shake....but you don't see Dr Paul getting worried over this. Why is this you may ask.....the reason is the delegates.

Just watch this video, the Paul camp explains how they are going to win without being declared a winner in one state. Basically, we get the straw poll results, which is only one part of the process. After the vote comes the business end of the process - actually picking the delegates. At this point most people are tired and go home and from the people that are left the delegates are chosen. If the people that stay behind are Ron Paul supporter, well then the delegate is for Ron Paul.

He is using the rules to his own advantage, playing by their games.


So Ron Paul supporters out there, don't give up hope - the game is far from over.

Do you have to post the exact same thread over and over again? We know already.

Well now that the cat is out of the bag I can promise you that all the candidates will be making sure their people stick around till the very end. This will no longer be an advantage for Paul and he should have tried to hide what he was doing a little better.