Ron Paul 2nd in total delegates currently?

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
Paul has won states... it just depends if you count a win as having the most votes in a non-binding straw poll or if you count a win by picking up the most delegates in the state. It is clear that the media has put too much emphasis on the straw polls as they have had little bearing on the delegate selection process in most states.

So if Ron Paul has the most delegates on 3/6/12 but doesn't win a non binding straw poll he should quit while he is winning?

I think you have gotten some things confused.

Straw polls (like polls here on ATS) are not really representative of anything EXCEPT what certain groups want. So the Republicans of Iowa City or the Tea Party of Virginia County can certainly declare "Spots The Tarantual" or whomever the winner.

What counts is binding elections. Ron Paul hasn't won a single state yet, though he did end up second. Although he's #1 on ATS, most of the time he's third or fourth in real elections. His support base is about 10% of the population.

Your friends and people at places you hang out tend to vote like you (so almost all of my friends will probably vote for Obama.) You can't base predictions of "how everyone votes" on "what me and my friends like." And if everyone likes someone else, that isn't a conspiracy against your candidate -- it's just that your candidate isn't as good a match with our beliefs as another person is.

So... I expect Romney will get most of the Mormon vote, right? And Santorum is running strongly in the Ultraconservative Christians (and there's lots of them.) Gingrich is ahead in Georgia and is likely to stay ahead there.

If Paul loses all the states and somehow gets picked to run for President on the basis of what the delegates are voting (which means they're going against the wishes of the people who they're supposed to represent), then I will expect a huge fuss in the Republican Party and another round of reforms.

Which wouldn't be a bad thing.

reply to post by Indellkoffer

I think you have gotten some things confused.

I don't want to argue with you but I feel like you actually have gotten a few things confused. Allow me to demonstrate.

What counts is binding elections.

No, what counts is total delegates.

His support base is about 10% of the population.

How have you come to this conclusion? Can you show me the study that reliably predicts what any candidates support base is as a percentage of the population? There is no way to accurately measure any candidates support among over 300 million people. Only educated guesses made by people. These guesses are proven wrong quite often, so often that it seems rather silly to guess in the first place.

You can't base predictions of "how everyone votes" on "what me and my friends like."

When did I base a prediction on "how everyone votes" on "what me and my friends like" I haven't talked about "what my friends like" I am not sure why you have added this to the conversation.

If Paul loses all the states and somehow gets picked to run for President on the basis of what the delegates are voting (which means they're going against the wishes of the people who they're supposed to represent)

This is partly incorrect. In some states the delegates are bound by the votes, in some states they are not. In the states that they are not, the vote and the delegate selection process are two distinctly different processes. In those states there is no "going against the wishes of the people" as it is a separate process. In some of the states they are bound but only for the first tally at the national convention. If no winner is found they can vote anyway they like. There is a popular misconception that popular vote is the end all be all. This is obviously not the case despite the popularity of peoples failure to understand the process.

So you think I am confused and I think you are confused. I value your contribution to the thread but I bet we could say that about each other for many things huh? I guess we shall see what happens.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Rafe_

 

But don't you think a candidate should rise above ANY hype?

The media was against the idea of Obama winning over Hillary. Hillary was their choice, not the choice of most Democratic voters.

The media dropped Hilary like a rock in favor of obama long before the election ended so no,Hilary was never their choice actually.

reply to post by Rafe_


Still, Ron Paul should rise beyond the hype or else, be doomed to the past like similar candidates.

Right now, his followers have him right up there with Jesus and others.