The Gaping Hole in Paul's Delegate Strategy:

I keep hearing from the Ron Paul supporters about how he will use a federal mandate to use rule 38 as a way to break all state laws and allow the delegates to abstain from voting for Mitt Romney, when in reality as ron paul supporters say, they are just [stupid] Ron Paul delegates who were forced or tricked to vote for Mitt Romney. Or incredibly cunningly smart ron paul delegates who are secretly waiting in hiding so that they can "shake up" the party and steal the election!

There's one problem though: Why not just vote for Paul in the first place?Why don't delegates pledge to vote for Ron Paul during their state primaries?

I have asked this question countless times in the political section and nobody has directly answered this very simple question when it relates to the Ron Paul revolution conspiracy apparently happening behind the scenes in the GOP

So can any Ron Paul supporter answer this question?

A lot of people don't know much about him because he doesn't get air time on the TV box.

reply to post by jjf3rd77
Could you clarify your question a bit so all sides can better understand? What do you mean "Why not vote for Paul in the first place"? Do you mean the delegates at the convention, on the first ballot, or what exactly?

This is like a story problem in math class without enough information given...so I'll have to pick answer D at the moment.

EDIT:
Oh, do you mean the popular votes, on primary day?

Originally posted by satron
A lot of people don't know much about him because he doesn't get air time on the TV box.

but this is about the delegates, you would think the delegates who pay $300+ to support someone would know who they are supporting...

Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Could you clarify your question a bit so all sides can better understand? What do you mean "Why not vote for Paul in the first place"? Do you mean the delegates at the convention, on the first ballot, or what exactly?

Yes. Why don't delegates pledge to vote for Ron Paul during their state primaries?

Edit: I fixed it and made it as clear as possible.

reply to post by jjf3rd77
I'll go ahead and apologize as I apparently didn't take my smart pill today, so I'm struggling through this.

First thing, there are various levels of conventions - precinct, district, state, and whatnot, the delegates selected at each going on to the next level to vote for delegate on that next tier. I would imagine Paul supporters are playing their delegate cards as close to the chest as possible in attempt to avoid the "witchhunt" scenario I've seen some people mention playing out in some places, as the RNC wants Romney and the convention to go as smoothly as possible.

Am I following what you're getting at, at all? Let me know how far off-track as I am as its been a bear of a day.

Why do the delegates have to convince the chairmen that they support Romney to vote?

It might be because

Person 1 hears about a candidate "A" from tv, friends and such so they go and cast a vote to him. then
days/weeks later they find out that the candidate they chose didn't really fit what they want. So since it's not official or mandatory to keep the vote yet .More information comes out about candidate "B" they want to change their vote to them. Yet the tv , newspaper and some friends still go on and on about candidate "A" .

Person 2 reads about all the candidates before casting a vote. Heads down to cast his vote on "B" other people
at the table for the local area also cast a vote for "B". They choose a person to represent them "the people at the table" and that person goes up and votes "A" going against what the people want. In which they did vote for "B" but got "A" Onto why people will want the vote changed to the way they did vote.

reply to post by PeterWiggin


Please note my response is purely a result of me being a Delegate in Minnesota this year.

I went to the county, congressional district, and state conventions here. It is a bit complicated (and I know that it is different form state to state) but what I witnessed was that the Ron Paul campaign organized known Ron Paul supporters at both the Congressional District and State levels. 27 Delegates to the National Convetion were picked from the CD conventions state wide. The remaining 13 available were picked at the state convention. Thus basically prior to either convetion you proclaim your desire to go to the National Convention in Tampa to the MN GOP. You then have to basically prove who you are, say a quick (around 1 minute) speech at said convention, and agree to pay your way to Tampa (est. ~$3,000) for 5 days and attend all required meetings in Tampa. Once everyone has had thier speech the delegation at the convention vote on who they want to represent MN in Tampa.
This is where the campaign organization part comes in; upon voting campaign slates are distributed by each campaign basically stating the group of people who support Romney and the group that supports Ron Paul. You vote for who you want and the results are the winners go to Tampa. This process resulted in 32 of the total 40 MN delegates going to Tampa being Ron Paul supporters.

That's it from MN...

reply to post by CORN IS NUTS
Thanks for that as I was a bit off.

Since you've got an inside view on this, can you address the OP? It sounds to me as though (given the delegate slates per candidate), the delegates essentially ARE pledging to Ron Paul, even if they're "bound" based on the state votes.

Basically it all just comes down to the reality of the delegate binding process, and its implications at the convention then?

(and with that, I'll probably just go back to watching the thread as I am making less and less sense to myself)

Originally posted by CORN IS NUTS
reply to post by PeterWiggin

 

Please note my response is purely a result of me being a Delegate in Minnesota this year.

I went to the county, congressional district, and state conventions here. It is a bit complicated (and I know that it is different form state to state) but what I witnessed was that the Ron Paul campaign organized known Ron Paul supporters at both the Congressional District and State levels. 27 Delegates to the National Convetion were picked from the CD conventions state wide. The remaining 13 available were picked at the state convention. Thus basically prior to either convetion you proclaim your desire to go to the National Convention in Tampa to the MN GOP. You then have to basically prove who you are, say a quick (around 1 minute) speech at said convention, and agree to pay your way to Tampa (est. ~$3,000) for 5 days and attend all required meetings in Tampa. Once everyone has had thier speech the delegation at the convention vote on who they want to represent MN in Tampa.
This is where the campaign organization part comes in; upon voting campaign slates are distributed by each campaign basically stating the group of people who support Romney and the group that supports Ron Paul. You vote for who you want and the results are the winners go to Tampa. This process resulted in 32 of the total 40 MN delegates going to Tampa being Ron Paul supporters.

That's it from MN...

Thank you for that outline of how you saw it work. However, you failed to address my question or really anything in my post. Why do the Ron Paul people need this conspiracy I keep hearing about. If there are really that many delegates pledging support for Ron Paul, then why don't they just pledge to vote for him in the first place! Wouldn't they want to give speeches about how great Ron Paul is?

Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by CORN IS NUTS

 

Since you've got an inside view on this, can you address the OP? It sounds to me as though (given the delegate slates per candidate), the delegates essentially ARE pledging to Ron Paul, even if they're "bound" based on the state votes.

Basically it all just comes down to the reality of the delegate binding process, and its implications at the convention then?

As far as I am aware, as I have learned more and more about the delegate process is that yes. At first its a pledge its a promise. Then, you have to promise to vote for the candidate you claim to support. if you do not you can be held liable by state law and whatnot. There will be no federal charges, but the state can definitely charge you with fraud or something, if you go back on your promise as a delegate.

I still see no reason why a Paul delegate would do that to himself or herself.

They do vote for him during primaries and two things happen. The first is not pleasant to hear:vote fraud. The second is that while Mitt Romney has a million tv drones going out to vote for him because fox news tells them to, Ron Paul has a hundred thousand plus DEDICATED supporters who will do more than just vote but willing to take over the conventions and possibly arrested while following the rules to do so.

Hope this answer helps.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

I still see no reason why a Paul delegate would do that to himself or herself.

I don't know what possibly breaking a delegate binding may actually result in when it all comes down to final facts, but I suppose it boils down to people possibly being willing to offer themselves up for what they see as a greater purpose, consequences be damned - much like the founders of the US found themselves looking at very likely execution if unsuccessful in their rebellion against the crown.

Originally posted by Lord Jules
They do vote for him during primaries and two things happen. The first is not pleasant to hear:vote fraud. The second is that while Mitt Romney has a million tv drones going out to vote for him because fox news tells them to, Ron Paul has a hundred thousand plus DEDICATED supporters who will do more than just vote but willing to take over the conventions and possibly arrested while following the rules to do so.

This is not about the popular vote this is about the delegates!!!! Delegates are not your everyday average voters, they actually pay money to go to the convention and support their candidate by giving speeches as you can see with a previous poster's outline of what he did in MN.

I don't think everyone who voted for Huntsman, Cain, Bauchmann, Santorum, and Gingrich all support Paul more than Romney! It's probably the reverse They support Romney way more than Paul. They are willing to sacrifice their religious morals to vote for Romney so they can help get rid of Obama, because they have just as much faith as the Ron Paul people that Romney will be somewhat better than Obama! They may just not be as vocal about it.

And how come everyone who doesn't support Ron Paul is brainwashed?

Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

I still see no reason why a Paul delegate would do that to himself or herself.

I don't know what possibly breaking a delegate binding may actually result in when it all comes down to final facts, but I suppose it boils down to people possibly being willing to offer themselves up for what they see as a greater purpose, consequences be damned - much like the founders of the US found themselves looking at very likely execution if unsuccessful in their rebellion against the crown.

And I don't realistically see any delegates doing that! RNC is thinking about allowing the Ron Paul people to have their separate rally at the convention so that they can control the crowd easier. To make things as smooth as possible.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


It's the same principle, they will not be allowed to have the popular vote because of voter fraud, so they focus on delegates, from every state, because those positions are chosen and harder to vote fraud or so we will see, that way they can nominate Ron Paul through the Republican National Convention.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

And I don't realistically see any delegates doing that!

I suppose only time will tell.

I'll admit I never understood the binding thing anyway, as I have to agree with the comments others have made - what's the point of even having a convention, in that case? How many times have we actually had brokered conventions on either side where no one had a majority of delegates first?

I'm just tired of the whole thing, anyway. It all keeps moving the same direction, regardless of which team wins. Government keeps getting bigger and more powerful, our little boxes keep getting smaller and more subservient. Injustice goes on.

Signs of the times, I guess. Just so tired of it...

It's all smoke and mirrors. For example, when Washington held its caucus it was widely reported, including here, that Paul had "won" Washington. They claimed to have "won" all the county conventions. Well, they certainly disrupted mine by being their usual loud obnoxious selves, but the fact is when Washington held their state convention, 34 of 40 delegates are Romney supporters, Paul gets six, and the three super delegates (Party chairman Kirby Wilbur and a couple of other bigwigs) will also go to Romney. So...so much for Paul "winning" Washington. Washington's so-called "Unity Ballot" contains only Romney supporters.

Now just what is this "Unity Ballot"? Frankly, I'm not sure. Four years ago I was a state delegate and in our precinct caucus people, including me, got up and had 60 seconds or so to state their case for why they wanted to be a delegate at the national convention. I stood with maybe 30 other people and, of course, was lost in the crowd. It was really a mess, organization wise.

The very next day out came the "Unity Ballot" with pre-printed names on it and party leaders "urging" us to vote the Unity Ballot. I asked a few questions and was told that people only got to go to the national convention if it was their turn as a reward for being loyal party regulars over many years. In other words, the ballot described in the paragraph above was apparently just for show. The people going had been picked elsewhere, perhaps behind closed doors.

As it stands you would have to believe that these people were secret stealth Paul supporters who would bolt for Paul at any excuse at the national convention. I just don't see that as reality and I'm willing to bet that those 37 people all vote for Romney on the first ballot. Paul will get his six and that's just fine.

What I also see happening is the tune is beginning to change. It goes something like this: "Paul may have lost the nomination, but he won anyway because he galvanized so many young people into supporting him. Since young people are the future of the party, the change has started and will continue into the future."

So Paul "wins" by changing the definition of "win" to "lose." It's kind of like the Special Olympics. Everyone gets to win simply by participating, so everyone gets a medal and a hug and we'll call them "special" instead of just retarded.