Ron Paul wins Iowa, Minnesota. . . . and Texas.

[babe]

The current delegate tally

I'm going to comb through the net today and compile, for entry here, the prospects for Ron Paul delegates so far as information can show. Then let's discuss why the media won't do this. . . . .

Alabama: popular vote 4.98% for Paul; Romney placed third after Newt and Santorum. Ron Paul delegates got 15 %, a very confusing result since by the rules voters had to vote for a delegate supporting the candidate they voted for. Questions the accuracy of the reported popular vote tally. The "establishment" in favor of Mitt has subsequently violated their own rules to add appointed Mitt alternates. . . . Stuff like this makes real people just get mad at stupid "elite" or "insider" actions which rob them of their influence in their government. No actual delegate slate has been advanced yet. 50 total delegates at stake, 3 automatic, 26 at-large, 21 congressional district. Failing of anyone getting a majority of the vote, the non-automatic 47 will be proportionally split between candidates getting over 20%. This appears to make the glaring inconsistency in the reported vote significant and might deny Paul any delegates.

Alaska: 6 delegates for Paul, including the two state party top leadership posts. Out of 24 total.

Arizona: Arizona violated the party rules to push it's election up this year, trading half of their original number of assigned delegates for the privilege of one day in the media sun, derogating the importance of their own voter's say in Tampa convention. 0 for Paul, all 29 for Romney. . . . . could have been 58 but the Romney establishment state folks thought 29 in the bank early would be more of a help to Romney than 58 in Tampa.

No information on actual sentiments of actual delegates. . . . some discussion of changing the rules to allow Florida and Arizona to vote differently than the rules now require. considered/reported to be a remote possiblity. But my personal impression of Arizona is that within the Republican ranks, Ron Paul has very dedicated supporters and probably some who will vote to change the rule.

Arkansas: May 22 Primary. Paul is on the ballot, Mitt has 3 "soft pledged" party insider delegates already. 36 delegate total. The rules are complicated, and while not directly allocating delegates bound per the primary, do give a premium to a candidate gaining more than 50% of the vote, and guarantee a delegate to every candidate with 15%. Potential for a Ron Paul revolution because of way delegates are selected. Southern state with active animosity against Mitt.

 

[Stoked]

With our first amendment rights on the line, I'm not going to concede the point until the race is won. And I won't quit even then. If Romney or Obama win the Presidency, the message still needs to be asserted, and persuasively won. And that is what our form of government is supposed to be. . . . responsive to the people who are supposed to be running the government, and acting to protect their rights. People who get into office who fail to understand that just need to be removed from office, sooner than later. We have been asleep while our rights have been violated by our government. Now is the time we must speak up, and make our voices and our votes count in protecting our freedom and human dignity.

I do not expect any Ron Paul supporters to quit. Question though, let's say that down the road you have a candidate with a legitimate shot. Then the people reject him and choose another. Would that satisfy you as to the voice of the people?

Yes Paul is winning a bunch of these delegates now but some of them are "bound" to for Romney (ex Nevada. Paul won 22 of 25 delegates. Yet 20 of Pauls delegates are bound to Romney and have to vote for him on the first ballot.). So regardless of Ron Paul "winning" them Romney will wint he nomination.

As I said before, and you appear to agree with, this is not about winning hte nomination. This is about who is holding the positions that matter and what the party platform will be. Hopefully Paul will get some of his ideas into the platform. That would be a major victory for him. It could lay the ground work for years.

 

[babe]

I do not expect any Ron Paul supporters to quit. Question though, let's say that down the road you have a candidate with a legitimate shot. Then the people reject him and choose another. Would that satisfy you as to the voice of the people?

Yes Paul is winning a bunch of these delegates now but some of them are "bound" to for Romney (ex Nevada. Paul won 22 of 25 delegates. Yet 20 of Pauls delegates are bound to Romney and have to vote for him on the first ballot.). So regardless of Ron Paul "winning" them Romney will wint he nomination.

As I said before, and you appear to agree with, this is not about winning hte nomination. This is about who is holding the positions that matter and what the party platform will be. Hopefully Paul will get some of his ideas into the platform. That would be a major victory for him. It could lay the ground work for years.

As I've said before, media reports can't be relied upon very well. Sources I've seen since your reply here show that Nevada's delegates are bound: 8 for Romney, 6 for Paul, unless the convention changed the old rule and now give Paul the result I saw in today's news. Either way, it's not what the media has run up for Mitt in their reports hyping Mitt as the "presumptive" nominee. Not, as you say, 20 votes for Romney on the first ballot.

 

[Stoked]

As I've said before, media reports can't be relied upon very well. Sources I've seen since your reply here show that Nevada's delegates are bound: 8 for Romney, 6 for Paul, unless the convention changed the old rule and now give Paul the result I saw in today's news. Either way, it's not what the media has run up for Mitt in their reports hyping Mitt as the "presumptive" nominee. Not, as you say, 20 votes for Romney on the first ballot.

What I had read said 20. I believe it was CNN...either way it shows some of Paul's delegates will actually vote for Romney. But either way the result he wanted will be acheived. A speaking spot and inclusion of some of his ideas in the party platform.

 

[babe]

What I had read said 20. I believe it was CNN...either way it shows some of Paul's delegates will actually vote for Romney. But either way the result he wanted will be acheived. A speaking spot and inclusion of some of his ideas in the party platform.

Let's put Washington on the list for Paul. Paul supporters have taken control of the Nevada GOP, as well as Louisiana, with their people going to Tampa. With Iowa, Maine, and Minnesota also controlled now from the inside by Paul supporters. Alaska is also staffed now by Paul people. Colorado is as well sending key Paul supporters to the national convention. It takes five states to nominate Paul at the convention. It is now certain that the republican convention in Tampa will not just be a pretty little informercial programmed by the old elite Party bosses. There's enough ferment going on to make this become an actual democratic proceeding. .. . . . ?????

https://www.dailypaul.com/231498/ma...toppable-momentum-in-battle-for-gop-delegates

 

[Stoked]

Let's put Washington on the list for Paul. Paul supporters have taken control of the Nevada GOP, as well as Louisiana, with their people going to Tampa. With Iowa, Maine, and Minnesota also controlled now from the inside by Paul supporters. Alaska is also staffed now by Paul people. Colorado is as well sending key Paul supporters to the national convention. It takes five states to nominate Paul at the convention. It is now certain that the republican convention in Tampa will not just be a pretty little informercial programmed by the old elite Party bosses. There's enough ferment going on to make this become an actual democratic proceeding. .. . . . ?????

https://www.dailypaul.com/231498/ma...toppable-momentum-in-battle-for-gop-delegates

Interesting to see where this will lead. Also I wonder if anything similar will occur on the left.

 

[babe]

Interesting to see where this will lead. Also I wonder if anything similar will occur on the left.

I've been a Lyndon LaRouche supporter for years. . . . well, not a groupie laying the big bucks out for every hysterical crisis in their view. But more or less on the same page about the necessity for technology, the rejection of MSM/Brit Orbit population and environmental doctrine, and their more populist brand of socialism. We need to expand our population and improve our concept of education to enable people to address the need to create the conditions necessary to sustain life, improving on our good earth and colonizing whatever niches we can in the universe. The LaRouche folks are calling for the impeachment of Obama even while they claim the mantle of FDR and the New Deal. They say Obama is practically a genocidal British agent crazed with militarism and leading us into a nuclear holocaust. They also claim the Constitution as their own, with expansive views of what government can/should do for people under the "general welfare" clause. . . . .

While conservatives like Joel Skousen call him an owned communist (Russian) operative, I've never heard him use marxist rhetoric, and I believe he views Marx as a British asset who was paid to set up a tool for manipulating world politics, a classic Brit (and Machiavellian) political tactic of creating a useful division among the people that can be exploited to leverage your own power.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is just an honest, independent man with sound principles for preserving some human liberties/rights/values in the face of an out-of-control ideological fascism denominated in elitism claiming the power of governance over the interests of the general people. There is a lot of crossover thinking going on between democrats of the LaRouche mindset and republicans with an emphasis on preserving human liberty.

Lyndon LaRouche has probably been an inspiration to Ron Paul in regards to political tactics. LaRouche people have routinely scored minor upsets around the country, and they have some viable democratic candidates in some national races, including one Texas congressional race. They just have never been able to energize a very large base. What the LaRouche people have is a strong black base, including the ear of some national level elected officeholders in both the Senate and the House. Some of the Martin Luther King legacy people have found a home with the LaRouche movement.

What Ron Paul has is a positively spotless personal history, and character beyond reproach, and he's standing in front of a very significant sector of American political ideals. He was practically the instigator/organizer of the Tea Party folks, before the mainstream Republican party moved in to compromise it.

Ron Paul has also succeeded in creating an organization/movement that will move right on without him, since it is solidly based on basic principles and not on his personality. And Ron Paul does draw democratic folks into his camp precisely because he is standing for principles that once formed the central idea of the Democratic Party, before it became the subordinated elitist tool it is today. Ron Paul has found a message that will unite thinking democrats and republicans who remain basic Americans in their values.

 

[babe]

California straw poll announced by Republican Party

Ron Paul got 45%, Romney placed a distant third place.

https://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-17...ll_1_straw-poll-ron-paul-votes?_s=PM:POLITICS

Paul has been speaking to thousands of energetic supporters in many places in this state with 172 delegates at stake.

The poll was last September, granted. But I have friends in California who point out that Romney voters are not motivated, and hardly care about anything. It will be a protest statement. And Paul will sweep this state.

 

[babe]

Colorado: With the issues already tried and decided, Colorado sends mixed delegation to Tampa:
Paul takes 18, Romney 16, and Santorum 2 with leanings to Paul.

Major media sources say 14 for Romney and only 6 for Paul, or a split between Santorum and Romney. God only knows why.

Connecticut has 28 delegates: 25 pledged and 3 super all for Romney.

However, Paul has a pretty strong appeal to many New England voters and is viewed more as a national candidate than a regional one. Paul would have had to have pulled 20% to get any delegates, just missed it.

 

[Stoked]

https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/14/breaking-ron-paul-to-end-active-campaigning/

Interesting. Supports my theory that Paul has no shot at the nomination but will try to get a speaking spot, affect the party platform and try and get people with his beliefs in as many posts in as many locations as possible to set the stage for down the road.

 

[babe]

https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/14/breaking-ron-paul-to-end-active-campaigning/

Interesting. Supports my theory that Paul has no shot at the nomination but will try to get a speaking spot, affect the party platform and try and get people with his beliefs in as many posts in as many locations as possible to set the stage for down the road.

Paul has disappointed me on a number of decisions. This one.

And his statement about two weeks ago that he wouldn't just end the Fed, since so many contracts are specifically tied to Fed decisions on interest rates, etc. He loses a lot of support from the most conservative Christians on his position that unorthodox "marriage" is none of the government's business, since most of those people want the government to protect the special recognition that is given heterosexual monogamous marriage, and feel the government has a duty to do so. . . . mostly for moral reasons but some also argue because of the special place fertile marriages have in producing future taxpayers, soldiers, and voters. In short, the system depends on reproduction. Especially "social securtiy".

But I'm rambling. . . .

Ron Paul is actually right that the government should not be the enforcer of private relations of any kind. Well, maybe contract law/courts.

Paul has an organization now in existence that will continue his full scale program to support liberty through action within the Republican Party. I wonder if he shouldn't have chosen the Democratic Party, the party of the People, instead of the party of Business, as his platform. They are organizing locally everywhere, and doing analysis of legislation everywhere, and lobbying for their concepts on every level of decision/legislation. And that is the only way this job can be done. . . .

Look for more congressmen and senators standing up for liberty getting elected, nationwide and locally.

 

[Stoked]

Paul has disappointed me on a number of decisions. This one.

And his statement about two weeks ago that he wouldn't just end the Fed, since so many contracts are specifically tied to Fed decisions on interest rates, etc. He loses a lot of support from the most conservative Christians on his position that unorthodox "marriage" is none of the government's business, since most of those people want the government to protect the special recognition that is given heterosexual monogamous marriage, and feel the government has a duty to do so. . . . mostly for moral reasons but some also argue because of the special place fertile marriages have in producing future taxpayers, soldiers, and voters. In short, the system depends on reproduction. Especially "social securtiy".

But I'm rambling. . . .

Ron Paul is actually right that the government should not be the enforcer of private relations of any kind. Well, maybe contract law/courts.

Paul has an organization now in existence that will continue his full scale program to support liberty through action within the Republican Party. I wonder if he shouldn't have chosen the Democratic Party, the party of the People, instead of the party of Business, as his platform. They are organizing locally everywhere, and doing analysis of legislation everywhere, and lobbying for their concepts on every level of decision/legislation. And that is the only way this job can be done. . . .

Look for more congressmen and senators standing up for liberty getting elected, nationwide and locally.

Only thing I would point out is that the Dems are the party of Government while the repubs are the party of Business.

 

[babe]

Only thing I would point out is that the Dems are the party of Government while the repubs are the party of Business.

Truth.

The Dem Party has been co-opted by the blue-haired ladies and other elitists who have indeed made it their tool. The operative mantra of all Dem slogans is "Government should. . . . .", totally abdicating the whole concept of government of the people, by the people, and reducing it to statist nannyism.

But since the Dems and Reps are pretty near the same thing, ruled from the top, I think nothing that is run on the Republican Party platform is going to actually fix it.

I guess I'm going back to the third party hinterlands.

Interesting to see how Paul gets shut out of his own party. And since the large majority of Republicans will always be voting their pocketbook and interests, saying to hell with the people and their rights, I wondered why Paul ever went back there. Does he, with his supporters, really have a chance to make a difference? Ten percent of the voters? Can that become twenty percent, or twenty five? With our Public Education system??? With a totally hijacked mainstream media????

Would the nannystate dems ever give a Ron Paul a chance to represent them??? About the only demographic that has gone with the dems is the element that is just really fundamentally unstable with any governance. Call them the Mayhem bunch, unprincipled self-absorbed irresponsibles who are just annoyed with any authority.

We're in a world of hurt, and it's going to get worse under Romney or moreObama, but who is going to be able to get a clear message on the table, and who is going to vote for let alone support real change. I think what has happened this year sends a clear signal that it's a huge mistake to think the Republican Party can be turned into answer.

 

[Stoked]

Perhaps Paul decided he could create more change from within than without. The Dems would be even harder against him in my opinion. Because they want all these government agencies and programs and Paul does not want them. There is a faction, small but there, in the GOP that his message resonates with. I do not see that happening at all in the Dem party.

If only the moderate Republicans and moderate Dems would break away into a thrid party. But it wont happen and things will continue to get worse.