Will Ron Paul formally clinches the nomination on May 8?

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by digital_desire
Ron Paul delegates strategy has won him delegates and make him the winner in Missouri (152 delegates), Washington, Iowa, Nevada, Minnasota, Colorado and more states are falling in.

My friend's father say Ron Paul will formally clinches the nomination on May 8, I have my fingers crossed.

Your friend's father is an idiot.

Not all delegates from these states have yet been selected, but this is the score so far. Washington's convention isn't until late May. I'm sure Paul will win some delegates there, but it won't be enough. For the record, Missouri has a total of 52 delegates, not "152". Is that important? If you are counting, it's 100 delegates worth of important, so yeah, it's important. This is not a fantasy football league, but that's where a lot of Paulistas live.

Of the states you claim Paul has "won," these are the results so far:

Missouri: Romney: 12 delegates, Santorum: 7 delegates, Paul: 4 delegates
Washington: Romney: 30 delegates, Santorum: 5 delegates, Paul: 5 delegates
Iowa: Romney: 13 delegates, Santorum: 13 delegates, Paul: 1 delegate
Nevada: Romney: 13 delegates, Santorum: 3 delegates, Gingrich: 6 delegates, Paul: 5 delegates
MinnEsota: Romney: 3 delegates, Santorum: 16 delegates, Gingrich: 1 delegate, Paul: 18 delegates
Colorado: Romney: 13 delegates, Santorum: 6 delegates, Paul: 3 delegates

Total so far: Romney: 847 delegates, Santorum: 259 delegates, Gingrich: 137 delegates, Paul: 80 delegates
1144 needed to win.

Romney needs 297 more.
Paul needs 1064 more.

Delegate counts vary depending on the source, but every single one of them shows the same pattern. there are some individual number disagreements, but they are not statistically significant.

Future primaries/caucuses:

May 8th: 132 delegates
May 15th: 63 delegates
May 22nd: 81 delegates
May 29th: 155 delegates
June 5th: 299 delegates
June 26: 40 delegates
-----
Total: 770 delegates yet to be selected via this process. There are also "super delegates" to add into the mix. These tend to be state party chairmen, etc. I deem it unlikely they will flock to Paul.

The ONLY way Paul could win is if he won EVERY SINGLE OUTSTANDING DELEGATE plus earned the delegates of both Santorum and Gingrich, i.e.: Santorum and Gingrich would have to formally endorse Paul and give their delegates to him. That would put him at 1166, 22 votes over.

In the popular vote contests Paul has gotten about 11%. When they get a chance to vote, they don't vote for Paul. Paul does better in the caucuses because of the Paulistas, who don't really care what the popular vote is. Note that many of the upcoming primaries, such as California, are NOT caucus-driven. People actually get to vote, and when that happens, Paul inevitably loses. he doesn't have popular support, as the results so far clearly show.

Does anyone here realistically believe that Ron Paul will win all the remaining delegates? Does anyone here believe that both Santorum and Gingrich will give their delegates to Paul? Does anyone here believe Paul will win the popular vote in the remaining primaries? There is no way Paul will even come close. If you actually believe that can happen, you are delusional.

Here's what is going to happen.

1. Paul will get creamed in the remaining voted primaries.
2. Paul will "do well" in the caucus primaries, but not well enough.
3. Romney will get the nomination on the first ballot.
4. Paulistas will claim their candidate was "cheated" out of the nomination.

edit on 4/27/2012 by schuyler because: spelling errors

You might want to check those delegate counts buddy - and do try not to use those projected count sites where for instance RP only has 1 delegate in IOWA, despite the fact he just walked off with the majority of the delegates in the ACTUAL delegate vote - not projections!

Originally posted by Nucleardoom
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

The vote is all that matters. Why do you think they need to do something more besides vote?

I think you need to brush up on how the delegate system works. The primary vote means next to nothing in all caucus states.

edit on 27-4-2012 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)

I'm fully aware of how the delegate system works.

I'm also fully aware that Ron Paul's delegate game won't win him the nomination. That is all it is...a game...you decide for yourself to what end is Paul playing this game...because it isn't to win the nomination. But those donations keep coming in...don't they???

reply to post by UKTruth


Here are the BOUND DELEGATE counts as of today.


Romney 724
Santorum 217
Gingrich 131
Paul 54
Huntsman 2
Uncommitted 307

Here is the source...they have the "soft counts" and the "hard counts"...the hard counts are only those bound by law or party rules to vote for the candidate.

www.thegreenpapers.com...


Now...please....let's stick to reality instead of fantasy.

I'm fully aware of how the delegate system works. I'm also fully aware that Ron Paul's delegate game won't win him the nomination. That is all it is...a game...you decide for yourself to what end is Paul playing this game...because it isn't to win the nomination. But those donations keep coming in...don't they???

So, the vote IS NOT all that matters then right? U.S. politics in general are a "game" all right a game that's rigged.
From the beginning Paul has been "playing" the system and the "game" to win plain and simple. The donations coming in only underscore the support Paul has, funny how I don't hear about many average joe's contributing to Obama's campaign just corrupt big banks, corporations, and clueless Hollywood types. It speaks volumes about how much trouble the man you so vehemently back, is really in.

reply to post by Nucleardoom


The Caucus game will not win Ron Paul the nomination...you are trying to downplay broad support and promote enthusiastic support. Sorry, but broad support will always win.

And yes, Obama does get a lot of donations from small contributions. In fact him and Ron Paul both get 45% of their contributions from small donations...Obama just gets a hell of a lot more. Facts are a good thing...embrace them.


www.opensecrets.org...

Barack Obama (D)

Source of Funds

Individual Contributions $191,223,028 (100%)
- Small Individual Contributions $85,336,863 (45%)
- Large Individual Contributions $108,294,530 (56%)
PAC Contributions $0 (0%)
Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)
Federal Funds $0 (0%)
Other $445,817 (0%)

www.opensecrets.org...

Ron Paul (R)

Source of Funds

Individual Contributions $35,745,435 (97%)
- Small Individual Contributions $16,395,840 (45%)
- Large Individual Contributions $19,506,728 (53%)
PAC Contributions $2,670 (0%)
Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)
Federal Funds $0 (0%)
Other $1,003,600 (3%)

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


The contribution numbers you posted are misleading. Look a bit farther down the rabbit hole on that website and pull up the breakdown of the individual contributions. I can guarantee you many of those contributors are not what most would consider to be average, in other words earning less than $50,000 a year. Business owners are not considered average otherwise most of us would own a business, correct? You keep setting them up and I'll keep knocking them down.

Originally posted by Nucleardoom
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

The contribution numbers you posted are misleading. Look a bit farther down the rabbit hole on that website and pull up the breakdown of the individual contributions. I can guarantee you many of those contributors are not what most would consider to be average, in other words earning less than $50,000 a year. Business owners are not considered average otherwise most of us would own a business, correct? You keep setting them up and I'll keep knocking them down.

Please provide the source for your claims.

I presented you with facts backed up with a source...and you come back with unsourced opinion.

So please provide a source for whatever it is your are trying to say...I'll wait.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Nucleardoom

 

The Caucus game will not win Ron Paul the nomination...you are trying to downplay broad support and promote enthusiastic support. Sorry, but broad support will always win.

And yes, Obama does get a lot of donations from small contributions. In fact him and Ron Paul both get 45% of their contributions from small donations...Obama just gets a hell of a lot more. Facts are a good thing...embrace them.


www.opensecrets.org...

Barack Obama (D)

Source of Funds

Individual Contributions $191,223,028 (100%)
- Small Individual Contributions $85,336,863 (45%)
- Large Individual Contributions $108,294,530 (56%)
PAC Contributions $0 (0%)
Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)
Federal Funds $0 (0%)
Other $445,817 (0%)

www.opensecrets.org...

Ron Paul (R)

Source of Funds

Individual Contributions $35,745,435 (97%)
- Small Individual Contributions $16,395,840 (45%)
- Large Individual Contributions $19,506,728 (53%)
PAC Contributions $2,670 (0%)
Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)
Federal Funds $0 (0%)
Other $1,003,600 (3%)

Ron Paul has already won the election - we're just playing out time now. He is winning by a land slide. Romney's bound delegates - who are nearly all Paul supporters - are only bound in round one of the 'destined to be' brokered convention. Once it goes to round 2, Paul's delegate strategy wins easily.

What is being reported recently are the Paul wins in caucus states at the delegate level - what is not being reported is that his ground support has planted supporters as Romney delegates, just waiting for round 2.

Romney' only hope is to get enough delegates to secure a round 1 victory. It wont happen because he is going to be at least 30% below his published figures, due to the fact Paul is sweeping the non binding states, and come in 100 or more short.

Then its round 2 - just watch what happens then.

Brokered convention

reply to post by UKTruth


You might want to go check out my thread to see how woefully mis-informed you are.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Please provide the source for your claims. I presented you with facts backed up with a source...and you come back with unsourced opinion. So please provide a source for whatever it is your are trying to say...I'll wait.

What do you mean "provide the source for your claims"? I clearly stated I found the info on the SOURCE YOU PROVIDED for campaign contributions. It's your source not mine so I think you should be familiar with it. You need to look for yourself, because your clearly delusional and will not believe it anyways unless you see it for yourself. On the website you provided you can view all the individual contributors, and their profession or business affiliation. As much as I'd like to post them it's not realistic to post thousands of entries into a thread.
Do some research for yourself like the rest of us and quit relying on everyone to spoon feed you a handout like a typical Democrat.

Here so you don't whine about it:

Your source, different page

Why don't you Ron Paul fanboys put your money where your mouths are if you seriously believe that he has a chance of securing the nomination ?

You can back Ron Paul at 40/1 (4100 in US odds) to be the Republican candidate.

It's no wonder that Paul is making such a small impact in the polls, if the level of delusion which his fanboys on ATS possess is representative of his overall support base.

Why don't you Ron Paul fanboys put your money where your mouths are if you seriously believe that he has a chance of securing the nomination ? You can back Ron Paul at 40/1 (4100 in US odds) to be the Republican candidate. It's no wonder that Paul is making such a small impact in the polls, if the level of delusion which his fanboys on ATS possess is representative of his overall support base.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Well, I guess some people are so used to their politicians being corrupted and lying to them that they will support corruption to the grave. So, if Paul is so bad could you please enlighten us with your wisdom on who we should be voting for?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by UKTruth

 

You might want to go check out my thread to see how woefully mis-informed you are.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am afraid you are my friend. I understand that politics is emotive, and you are clinging to the belief that the most fundamental change to the GOP party ever is in full swing.

Answer me this... can 'bound' Romney delegates abstain from the first round at the GOP? I am not sure, if yes then Romney has zero chance, if no then it will be on a knife edge for the 1144 total.

Originally posted by Nucleardoom
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Please provide the source for your claims. I presented you with facts backed up with a source...and you come back with unsourced opinion. So please provide a source for whatever it is your are trying to say...I'll wait.

What do you mean "provide the source for your claims"? I clearly stated I found the info on the SOURCE YOU PROVIDED for campaign contributions. It's your source not mine so I think you should be familiar with it. You need to look for yourself, because your clearly delusional and will not believe it anyways unless you see it for yourself. On the website you provided you can view all the individual contributors, and their profession or business affiliation. As much as I'd like to post them it's not realistic to post thousands of entries into a thread.
Do some research for yourself like the rest of us and quit relying on everyone to spoon feed you a handout like a typical Democrat.

Here so you don't whine about it:

Your source, different page

edit on 27-4-2012 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)

And what exactly do you think these tell you? This is a list of 1000 donors...and you did what? This shows their employers...not what they do at that employer or how much they make. But even if you did...you are telling me you went through those 1000s of donors, categorized them, and ran statistical analysis on them in just a few minutes??? If you did...I'd love to see your work.

Here is better information for you.

Breakdown of donors by contribution for Ron Paul
www.opensecrets.org...


Breakdown of donors by contribution for Obama
www.opensecrets.org...



Obama has more female donors that donated less than $500 than Ron Paul has in total on that graph.

Your argument is weak and devoid of facts...this is what annoys me about Ron Paul supporters...they don't live in reality. All the data is pointing in the opposite direction, and you just close your eyes and plug your ears and scream so they don't interfere with your own bias.


Here is a very very simple question for you and all other Ron Paul supporters.

IF Ron Paul has soooo many supporters....why aren't they donating to him??? Obama is getting the donors...the small donation donors and the large donation donors...so if Ron Paul is SOOOOOOO popular...where are his donors????

Originally posted by UKTruth

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by UKTruth

 

You might want to go check out my thread to see how woefully mis-informed you are.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am afraid you are my friend. I understand that politics is emotive, and you are clinging to the belief that the most fundamental change to the GOP party ever is in full swing.

Answer me this... can 'bound' Romney delegates abstain from the first round at the GOP?

edit on 27/4/2012 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

No...bound delegates vote for Romney...in fact they don't even vote...one person from that state will give their bound delegate count during roll call. No one can "abstain" from voting.


But you are right...I'm the one that doesn't understand.

Originally posted by Nucleardoom
Well, I guess some people are so used to their politicians being corrupted and lying to them that they will support corruption to the grave. So, if Paul is so bad could you please enlighten us with your wisdom on who we should be voting for?

Firstly, I am pointing out that you can get very long odds on Ron Paul securing the Republican nomination, so I'm wondering how many of his fanboys are that deluded to put their money where their mouths are.

Secondly, criticising Paul's crazy policies and his bizarre wish to drag the US back to the dark ages does not mean that I have to support another candidate; you're creating a false dichotomy there.

However, I'll answer your question by stating that you should vote for anyone who doesn't propose repealing legislation that would facilitate the return to segregation, for starters.

Obama has more female donors that donated less than $500 than Ron Paul has in total on that graph.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


What does this have to do with anything? This has as much relevance to the issue as the price of coffee beans in Bolivia. Are you implying that the female vote is representative of the average joe because they're female? Now that is some badly flawed logic your using. It makes sense when you look at your mood listed under your username: illogical.

You'll need all the help your man can get come election time including the shady situation regarding the vote counting company he basically owns since the real owner is a huge Obama contributor. That's not a conflict of interest at all now, is it?

IF Ron Paul has soooo many supporters....why aren't they donating to him??? Obama is getting the donors...the small donation donors and the large donation donors...so if Ron Paul is SOOOOOOO popular...where are his donors????

Yea, 35 million dollars = no donors, nice deductive reasoning skills you've got there.

That was the figure you provided previously, just so you know.

Originally posted by Nucleardoom

Obama has more female donors that donated less than $500 than Ron Paul has in total on that graph.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

What does this have to do with anything? This has as much relevance to the issue as the price of coffee beans in Bolivia. Are you implying that the female vote is representative of the average joe because they're female? Now that is some badly flawed logic your using. It makes sense when you look at your mood listed under your username: illogical.

You'll need all the help your man can get come election time including the shady situation regarding the vote counting company he basically owns since the real owner is a huge Obama contributor. That's not a conflict of interest at all now, is it?

edit on 27-4-2012 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)

Let me remind you of your claim that started this discussion.

The donations coming in only underscore the support Paul has, funny how I don't hear about many average joe's contributing to Obama's campaign just corrupt big banks, corporations, and clueless Hollywood types. It speaks volumes about how much trouble the man you so vehemently back, is really in.

I have proven you wrong, and now you are trying to act like none of it matters.

The fact that Obama has more female donors that contributed less than $500 than Ron Paul has in total is only an example of how much more popular Obama is with "small donors" than Ron Paul is.

But go ahead and keep acting like you have made some briliant point in this whole thing.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

The brilliant point to be made is:

The only thing you've proved is that you blindly support the man who had the final call on approving the bailouts, increased troop deployment, involved us in additional international "conflicts", signed the NDAA into law, was the brainchild of an atrocious and socialistic "healthcare plan", as well as a trampling of the constitution that rivals or possibly surpasses that of Bush, along with a bunch of other things.

I'm really curious how you can support that? Your probably paid for your support, because I can't see what you find so enamoring about the guy. Also, since you would know Barry better than I, why is it that he is surrounded by the same old retreaded cronies from former administrations and former Goldman Sachs employee's when he clearly stated while campaigning that his cabinet member's would not be composed of the same old story??? This was before we even started hearing about the czars.

However, I'll answer your question by stating that you should vote for anyone who doesn't propose repealing legislation that would facilitate the return to segregation, for starters.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Oh brother, now I've heard it all.

We're done here.

Ugh