Ron Paul Wins Arizona and Oklahoma!!

reply to post by jrmcleod



That map is completely wrong.

It's the same as all of the other maps on MSM websites. They basically give Romney all the delegates he is projected to win and then they fidget with it a bit here and there (like I bet a few days ago it said Paul was 98 but they have added some)

In reality Paul has probably around 140 (it was 108 but Oklahoma and Arizona will change it) or so and Romney has around 300+. The ohter 700+ they are giving to Romney won't actually be awarded to anyone until the state conventions (basically they have been giving all the delegates to Romney based on the popular vote rather than the actual deciding convention meaning the link I am posting is actually a little behind because they havent input the Oklahoma and Arizona data).

The MSM, they are how you say eager beavers jumping the gun and leaping before they look.


thereal2012delegatecount.com...

What EXACTLY did he win? The primary which was held on March 6 where he got 9.6 percent? NO! ALL the delegates at the convention? How many delegates was he 'entitled' to based on the primary results?

If, as replies claim, there were 800 Paul supporters at the convention out of a total of 1400 does that somehow entitle him to more delegates than the primary results.

IF, as I have read, OK delegates are awarded proportionally among ALL primary candidates, IMO he should be entitled to 9.6 percent of the 43 (40 if the 43 include up to the 3 default non elected delegates). I think Paul should receive 4 delegates, to be determined by the 800 who showed up at the convention. Anything, more or less, is SHAMEFUL misconduct.

4 out of 43 is NOT A WIN?

Let us see how many are given passes to enter the national convention? ZERO!

reply to post by oghamxx


I don't think you understand how it works.
The popular vote isn't really what matters. Anyone that ever thought that hasn't heard of the electoral college.

I am actually glad it doesn't in this case because naturally Romney would win and only because he has money and people are voting for him by default. No one actually wants Romney to be the nominee.. they just want who can beat Obama and have been lied to that Ron Paul isn't that person.

I hope the GOP breaks right into. I will dance in the streets if all of this is true and Ron Paul is taking these states and delegates from Romney. I do believe this would put Romney and Paul about even in how many states each have actually taken.

reply to post by NeoVain


Ron Paul 2012!

Someone besides me read this article and tell me I am not crazy in noting how awkwardly they inserted the story about Rand Paul's gayer comments out of nowhere with no segue to add a negative note to the Paul's in this story.

Story Here

Rand's comments have nothing to do with the story they are writing about? And what the hell is "aksi?"

There are so many people out there who do not want to see another 4 years of Obama - there are tons who do, but it seems the majority wants to move in a different direction.

People have been lied to for a long time, regarding the electability of Romney/Paul as presidential candidates opposite Obama. Portraying Romney as the great contender and Dr. Paul as a faint pretender.

I believe all of the recent commotion surrounding the delegate counts and election conversation has given those, sedated by the Romney camp, the opportunity to see the truth about Ron Paul and what he is truly capable of in an election bid for president.

He is electable, he is well positioned, his campaign is unorthodox and successful, his popularity is huge and growing, his ideas & promises are on par with the change that the majority of Americans want - since being promised real changed and realizing they have been lied to.

Ron Paul could be the embodiment of the change we were promised 4 years ago, to benefit all Americans in one way or another. He has the intelligence and composure to provide America with a meaningful change, a return to government where citizens can again be proud they are the foundation supporting this transformation.

I wish there were a way that everyone could just drop the support they have given to whichever candidate they favor.

It seems much of the ongoing discussion is from supporters who are doing their best to prove that they were right with their initial choice. Even though many of them have since realized they may have been wrong in the beliefs, ideas, and assumptions, they vehemently assert their support, in a bid to defend their original choice.

We can also see some individuals adminestering verbal and physical assaults when they are involved in a confrontation with a supporter of the 'other' candidate and are unable to convince them to change. These altercations do nothing more than cause hate for opposing candidate supporters - further closing their mind to ever supporting a different candidate and escalating tactics to higher levels of deceit, corruption, and debauchery.

If we could all just agree that at some point we may have been wrong, then we agree to move forward with an open mind and a commitment to base our new choice off the facts and the direction we want to see our future travel.

If we could then share only the facts about each candidate with one another, with no motivation to convince others to vote for a particular candidate - instead, using factual comparisons to determine who would be the most capable and ground-breaking candidate to achieve what we desire.

We could also compare their track record of honesty and how committed they are to stand behind their original beliefs and assertions.

If we could only do this we could have a real chance to place a candidate who could, not only defeat incumbent Obama, be trusted to give Americans what they need moving forward, who could make the changes that would allow Americans to realistically pursue a better quality of life, with less stress and deception. Keeping us in the loop of our government and the changes, instead of locking us out and force feeding us the choices they have made without accounting for what the public wants or what is best for the American public overall - not what is best for those who have bought and paid for government change to benefit the relative industry.

ramble/rant over

Originally posted by jrmcleod
reply to post by NeoVain

 

Can anyone explain why this MAP shows RP with 0 delegates for both the aforementioned states?

edit on 14/5/12 by jrmcleod because: (no reason given)

The answer is right above the map in the top left corner...it says

GOP Delegate Count
1144 to win the nomination
Associated Press projections

Originally posted by coyotepoet
Compare the Google Map to RT's Map.

Quite a difference isn't it.

I have an honest feeling that Ron Paul is going to walk away with the Office of POTUS... I really do. With Ron Paul's charisma, joined with the momentum he has recently undertaken campaign-wise, as of this moment, he is unstoppable.

Romney's dead, and so is Obama.

Ron Paul 2012

Originally posted by jrmcleod
reply to post by NeoVain

 

Can anyone explain why this MAP shows RP with 0 delegates for both the aforementioned states?

edit on 14/5/12 by jrmcleod because: (no reason given)

That map is showing a "projected delegate count".. it's going off of the straw-poll primary results and assuming that the process will match. Obviously the process is proving to be doing anything but matching

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow


I don't think you understand how it works.
The popular vote isn't really what matters. Anyone that ever thought that hasn't heard of the electoral college.

The electoral college has nothing to do with how the Republicans choose to nominate their candidate. But this does confirm my suspicion that the Paul supporters would tamper with the electoral college to subvert the popular vote if they could figure out a way to do it.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I am actually glad it doesn't in this case because naturally Romney would win and only because he has money and people are voting for him by default. No one actually wants Romney to be the nominee.. they just want who can beat Obama and have been lied to that Ron Paul isn't that person.

Right. Once again, the majority don't know any better so that justifies a smaller group of believers taking over by procedural shenanigans.

Oh, and this:

Chaos erupted at the Oklahoma GOP convention on Saturday when supporters of Ron Paul and Mitt Romney came to blows, necessitating the intervention of the police. ..... Outside the convention hall at Grand Canyon University, Paul supporters could be heard chanting, “Romney is the white Obama.”

communities.washingtontimes.com...

Real classy operation you guys have going there. I guess that one is going straight into the next newsletter, huh?

reply to post by DelMarvel


Hope you know that Romney supporters were the ones who hit the RP supporters first.

That is a MSM spin on the event.

should change their misleading title to 'Romney supporters assault RP supporters.'

and for the race comment thing, I bet it was just a few bad apples in the group... a few people doesn't reflect the whole.

Originally posted by ugie1028

and for the race comment thing, I bet it was just a few bad apples in the group... a few people doesn't reflect the whole.

You've got Ron Paul's name on years' worth of racist writings, he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act, he's supported by skinheads, there are racist remarks from his supporters on this forum and now you have his delegates chanting something like this at a state convention.

I'm beginning to wonder just who the "few bad apples" really are.

Breaking news from CNN says Ron Paul is ending his active campaigning. I dont like this. Anyone know why this would be a good move? Or should I be pissed?

CNN: Ron Paul Ends Campaign

reply to post by DelMarvel


You were just talking about the group and then you pivot about something completely different from the 80's!

You missed my point... no wonder you don't get it.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Hold on a second before you start declaring Ron Paul a winner, before even the MSM has reported
on this.

I just finished a search of Yahoo, Google, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC....and there is no mention
of Ron Paul winning these states on any of those websites I can find.

The only source I can find comes from YouTube videos of regular people at the Arizona and Oklahoma
site........or Ron Paul's OWN site.

So can anybody find a MAINstream news source reporting on this??? It seems like this would be
big enough news that they should report it, and until them, I'm withholding judgement.

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by DelMarvel

 

You were just talking about the group and then you pivot about something completely different from the 80's!

You missed my point... no wonder you don't get it.

Your point? That the racist undertones among Paul supporters represent "a few bad apples"? And I'm saying it seems like there is more of a pattern than that.

reply to post by DelMarvel


They weren't saying the "white Obama", they were saying "Obama lite". The uninformed dinosaur Romney supporters need to get their hearing aids checked.

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by DelMarvel

 

They weren't saying the "white Obama", they were saying "Obama lite". .

Right. Then why are Paul supporters defending a chant that never happened:

I understand saying that a convention is not how we want to represent ourselves....But honestly, how is saying "Romney is the white Obama" Racist? .

www.dailypaul.com...

reply to post by PatriotGames2


I suppose you could see this 2 ways.

First, suspending the active campaign in states who have yet to vote will save much need resources, used to continue campaign.

Second, it could be bad in way of losing favorability to those who are not actively researching the campaigns of each candidate, respectively. Allowing the candidate, with the most exposure in those regions, to secure many more votes than the candidate who has not saturated those area with their rally's or other public venues, designed to increase popularity of the candidate.

This could also mean something else too;

Could the Ron Paul camp have such huge confidence in their strategy that they are comfortable with suspending the campaign in those regions? Maybe they believe it is an acceptable loss. They are budgeting funds to make sure enough are available to continue his campaign in areas required to sustain and complete his campaign strategy.

Also, maybe this suspension of active campaign will light a fire under his supporters and drive them to make substantial donations, ensuring the Paul campaign has done everything in it's power to secure the nomination.

It sucks for anyone who has ever seen through hind-sight that they could have done more, given more effort, and possibly made the outcome radically different than what was produced.