Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul supporters capture majority of Nevada’s national delegates
Las Vegas Sun ^ | 05/06/2012 | By Anjeanette Damon

Posted on 05/06/2012 5:07:18 PM PDT by redreno

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul captured the majority of Nevada’s national delegates early Sunday, overwhelming likely nominee Mitt Romney with an organized contingent who easily took control of the state convention.

Paul’s supporters won 22 of the 25 national delegate slots up for election at the state convention in Sparks on Saturday. Romney won three.

Another three automatic delegates are expected to support Romney, meaning Romney will have six supporters in the delegation and Paul will have 22.

(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: larouchies; nevada; paulestinians; ronpaul; spammonkeys
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

1 posted on 05/06/2012 5:07:23 PM PDT by redreno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: redreno

What does this mean - anything significant?
They’ve been putting a lot of effort into doing this in several places, it seems.


2 posted on 05/06/2012 5:12:52 PM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

It means all of Nevada’s delegation is now disqualified.


3 posted on 05/06/2012 5:18:14 PM PDT by RightFighter (It was all for nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: redreno

big whup...


4 posted on 05/06/2012 5:20:52 PM PDT by dps.inspect (the system is rigged...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redreno

Alaska Ron Paul Delegates and Alternates,

We have 48 hours left until the state convention. We have 3 goals over the next 48 hours:

1. Make sure all of Dr. Paul’s delegates and alternates show up at convention.

2. Educate all of our first timers on how to outmaneuver and confuse the Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney delegates.

3. Elect Ron Paul supporters to fill ALL 24 of Alaska’s national convention delegate slots.

There are 3 keys to success

1. This is a numbers game. If more of Dr. Paul’s supporters turn out than any other candidate’s delegates, we control them. If more of our people show up, we take over the state convention, we change the rules, and we take over the Republican Party. Turnout is key.

2. We vote as a block and never deviate from the voting instructions dispensed by our command center. On every vote, we vote together. We will be informing you via text message on how you need to vote on every vote that comes up. If you have not sent us your cell phone number you will have with you on Saturday, please do so right away. The Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney supporters will be splitting their votes because they will not be communicating with each other like we will be doing. Our internal numbers show that if Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney delegates vote as a block, they have a majority at the state convention. So it is absolutely crucial that we use whatever tactics necessary to promote division and confusion amongst their supporters. We promote confusion and division by:

a. Gaining the trust of our opponents’ supporters and taking advantage of their ignorance so that we can gain control of them and tell them how they have to vote. For example if you are talking to Santorum supporters, tell them you are also pro-life and agree with a lot of what he has to say. Tell them you used to support him but now that he is out of the race you are supporting the only constitutional conservative remaining in the race. Tell them whatever they need to hear so that you gain their trust and establish credibility with them. Once you’ve done that you will control them.

b. Deception and Misinformation - use any means necessary to divide and conquer our opponents.

c. Prolonging the convention through parliamentary maneuvers. The longer the convention goes, the better for us. Our opposition will have a majority at the start of the convention but as the day goes on their delegates will have to leave because their baby sitter is only scheduled to watch the kids until 3pm or because they have dinner reservations, or because they just get too frustrated because the convention is taking so long. We will wait them out. We are disciplined and organized while they are weak willed and lazy. So the longer the convention goes, more and more of them will leave. All of a sudden what started out as a majority for them dwindles away and the balance of power shifts to us. We will use every parliamentary tactic in the book to prolong the meeting. Dr. Paul’s campaign has sent national lawyers who will run circles over the local Alaska lawyers. Our lawyers are ready to sue anyone who tries to get in our way.

After we take over the Alaska convention, we will be able to nominate Dr. Paul from the floor at the Republican National Convention. We will have a floor fight at the national convention and when it’s all said and done, Dr. Paul will be the nominee. Despite what the Republican Party wants us to believe, this election is not about beating Obama. This election is about cleansing the Republican Party. The poor excuse for Americans that support Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney need to be run out of the Republican Party. Once we have cleansed the Republican Party and President Paul is elected, we will end America’s wars of aggression, we will put an end to American imperialism, and we will end the Fed!

DO NOT FORWARD THIS EMAIL. The element of surprise is critical. Our opponents don’t know what is about to hit them so they will not be able to defend themselves against our superior convention organization. By the end of the day Saturday, the Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney elements within the Republican Party will be cleansed from the Republican Party and we will deliver all 24 of Alaska’s national delegates to Dr. Paul!

In Liberty,

Mike


5 posted on 05/06/2012 5:23:13 PM PDT by RaceBannon (Romney would surrender to Islam as fast as Obama promotes it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Their strategy won’t work. Reince Priebus has made it clear that state delegations will be disqualified if shenanigans like what happened in Nevada happen.


6 posted on 05/06/2012 5:28:59 PM PDT by RightFighter (It was all for nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: redreno

Normally, this would piss me off. But, since they’re milt’s problem now -— LOL!!!


7 posted on 05/06/2012 5:30:45 PM PDT by rhinohunter (Not voting for etchamitt...no way...no how)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redreno

Flush them out,neutralize them...they’re Rat plants.


8 posted on 05/06/2012 5:45:45 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Julia: a casualty of the "War on Poverty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redreno

NOT an accurate account!
I was there for the entire convention.

The Paul-%#@%! did NOT “Take control” of the convention.
They did disrupt, delay, annoy, insult the membership, attempt to hijack every committee report, and generally make asses of themselves.

They forced the convention into a second day in an UNSUCCESSFUL effort to take control.

Two-day conventions used to be the norm.
It was decided to go to a single day convention so that MORE people could AFFORD to participate!

Apparently the RP zealots still have daddy’s credit card to rely on, and do not care about disenfranchising their fellow citizens so long as it serves their own goals.
They clearly do not accept “One Man - One Vote”, insisting on only their own voices being heard, by any means available.
This all seems familiar, a vocal band of zealots determined to force their own view on their fellows, as “They” know best!
Now what was that absurd tripe about a “Liberty movement”?

They did take the majority of national convention delegates, for the SECOND round, but ARE “Bound” for the first round.
I’m not wild about Romney, but after seeing the RP zealots in action, Mitt is clearly preferable to RP and his “True Believers”.

Mitt needs to tie up the nomination up BEFORE Florida.
Unless Newt can step in and wrest the nomination away (unlikely) the RP folk are determined to hand this election to the Obomination as RP will never win the general election!


Keep the letter below in mind.

Republican National Committee

Counsel’s Office
May 2, 2012
Chairman Michael McDonald
Nevada Republican Party
6330 McLeod Drive, Suite 1
Las Vegas, NV 89120

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Dear Chairman McDonald:

On April 30, 2012, I provided you with an opinion letter explaining why any action to “un-bind” Nevada’s delegates to the 2012 Republican National Convention would be impermissible under the national party rules (The Rules of the Republican Party). Specifically, I explained that “[a]ny action taken at the Nevada Republican Convention to alter the method in which delegates are elected, selected, allocated, or bound for the 2012 Republican National Convention from the method described in the [Nevada Republican Party] plan that was timely filed with the Republican National Committee prior to
October 1, 2011, in accordance with Rule 15(e)(1), would be in conflict with of The Rules of the Republican Party.”

I provide this supplemental letter to emphasize that my opinion applies equally to the binding of delegates and to the allocation of delegates. In its Rule 15(e) submission, the Nevada Republican Party made clear that “[p]ursuant to § 15(b) of the Rules of the National Republican Committee, in Presidential election years, National Delegates and Alternates shall be allocated proportionally based on the final results of the Nevada Presidential Preference Poll . . . .” Nevada Republican Party Delegate Binding Rules for 2012 at section 1 (emphasis added). That is, each candidate is entitled to have delegates supporting him elected to the delegate slots that he earned in the Presidential Preference Poll. See id. (“National delegates shall be chosen at the Nevada Republican Convention by election. Any candidate who receives less than the percentage required for one Delegate will receive no Delegates.”)

Based on my review of the Nevada Republican Party’s 15(e) filing, in particular Sections 1, 4.2, 4.3., and 4.4 of the Delegate Binding Rules for 2012, it appears the slots should be allocated as follows:

1. The three RNC members, who are automatic delegates, should each be allocated and bound to their preferred presidential candidate.

2. Congressional district delegates should be elected to fill delegate slots allocated to each candidate but only to the extent a candidate has slots available. A nomination to fill a Congressional district delegate slot shall only be in order if the person’s preferred candidate has available delegate slots to fill. The preferred means to ensure that no presidential
candidate receives more than his allocated slots is to conduct the congressional district delegate selections sequentially, and if a candidate has reached his allocation, no further nominations for delegate candidates who support said presidential candidate shall be in order.

3. At-large (statewide) prospective delegates should be elected by determining how many delegate slots each presidential candidate has available after processes 1 and 2 above have been completed, and allocating to each available slot the highest vote-receiving prospective delegate that supports the candidate with an available slot. So, for example, if Ron Paul has 2 slots available after processes 1 and 2 above, the two highest vote-getters that support Ron Paul should be allocated to him. And if Mitt Romney has 4 slots available after processes 1 and 2 above have been completed, the 4 highest vote-getters that support Mitt Romney should be allocated to him.

In order to effectuate this process and ensure that a delegate or prospective delegate actually supports the presidential candidate he professes to support, an authorized representative of the presidential campaign that the delegate or prospective delegate professes to support should be allowed to confirm whether or not the delegate is an actual supporter. If a prospective delegate’s name is certified to the RNC but has not been approved by an authorized representative of the candidate he or she professes to support, grounds for
a contest may exist. In any case, to the extent a prospective delegate is purportedly elected in excess of the number of slots allocated to his or her preferred candidate, such delegate will be bound to vote at the national convention for the candidate to whom that delegate was allocated.

As I explained in my last letter, while this opinion is purely advisory and not binding on any committee of the Republican National Committee or of the Republican National Convention, I believe it is highly likely that any committee with jurisdiction over the matter would find improper any change to the election, selection, allocation, or binding of delegates, thus jeopardizing the seating of Nevada’s entire delegation to the National Convention.

Sincerely,
John R. Phillippe Jr.
Chief Counsel


9 posted on 05/06/2012 5:49:57 PM PDT by Loyal Sedition
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

“What does this mean - anything significant?”

If this continues in other primaries, it could jeopardize Romneys chance at getting the required delegates for the nomination.

Paul can’t win the nomination with his lack of delegates, but he could throw a wrench in Mitt’s plans for the nomination.


10 posted on 05/06/2012 5:50:59 PM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rhinohunter

I’m laughing too, but don’t tell any Mitt fans.


11 posted on 05/06/2012 5:50:59 PM PDT by LuvFreeRepublic ( (#withNewt))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: redreno

Gee, the Paul faction versus the Romney GOP-e. Can’t say I have a dog in that fight. Romney has pretty much rendered the whole campaign season moot for me. Maybe it’s a good thing the Paulians give the GOP-e some well-deserved heartburn. Or better yet, take the Paul crowd and the Romney crowd and give them swords, and lock them in an arena for a fight to the death. With luck, no one comes out.


12 posted on 05/06/2012 5:51:29 PM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redreno; writer33; EternalVigilance; SoConPubbie; cripplecreek; traviskicks; Impy

I’ve been resigned to Romney’s nomination, but who knows? Ron Paul is causing him a lot of trouble with regard to delegates.


13 posted on 05/06/2012 5:56:35 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (A liberal's compassion is limited to the size of other peoples' paychecks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.


14 posted on 05/06/2012 6:01:01 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Act in faith, not out of fear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

lol

I might just vote for the nut Paul when the voting gets to Texas.

Who known maybe this crazy guy can stop Romney.


15 posted on 05/06/2012 6:19:59 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: redreno

The paulbottes might have a case if it were not for so-called “Blue Republicans”. These folks are self-proclaimed Independents and Demo’rats. NOT republicans, although some have recently registered R to take a role in this mischief making (they are asked to become ‘R’ JUST for one year, during which they are doing this. Over the past week, it seems to me there are like a dozen states where the electorate voted for whomever EXCEPT RP, and now, is faced with a disenfranchising situation where they are represented by paul delegates.


16 posted on 05/06/2012 6:26:35 PM PDT by C210N (Wanted: Tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redreno

I don’t understand this. If it is such a brilliant idea, why were the paul supporters not doing this from the beginning?


17 posted on 05/06/2012 6:37:28 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

Reminds me of MAD.

Mutually Assured Destruction.


18 posted on 05/06/2012 6:38:00 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Act in faith, not out of fear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

lol

I might just vote for the nut Paul when the voting gets to Texas.

Who known maybe this crazy guy can stop Romney.

Same for me here in Kalifornistan.

19 posted on 05/06/2012 6:39:07 PM PDT by CarmichaelPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
. Reince Priebus has made it clear that state delegations will be disqualified if shenanigans like what happened in Nevada happen.

From the reports last week, if this and the story from Nevada are true, that makes four or five states disqualified. Does that lower the number of delegates ORomney needs?

20 posted on 05/06/2012 7:04:01 PM PDT by Ingtar ("As the light begins to fade in the city on the hill")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

They could not start it until the conventions began... about the time that Santorum and Gingrich dropped out.


21 posted on 05/06/2012 7:06:22 PM PDT by Ingtar ("As the light begins to fade in the city on the hill")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
Ho-hum. It means Romney will win with 20 fewer delegate votes than the reporter thought.
22 posted on 05/06/2012 7:13:40 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: redreno

What happens to all the delegates that were assigned to candidates no longer in the race like Santorum?


23 posted on 05/06/2012 7:13:40 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

They are re-assigned in proportion according to the caucus/primary results.


24 posted on 05/06/2012 7:25:51 PM PDT by Loyal Sedition
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Loyal Sedition

That’s just great. Now we have the lawyers taking control of the party’s delegates and floor action. Nope, can’t let the delegates work it out themselves.


25 posted on 05/06/2012 7:35:21 PM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Loyal Sedition

Then Romney has it easily.


26 posted on 05/06/2012 8:58:43 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; Impy; GOPsterinMA; randita; Sun; LdSentinal

Ron Paul’s supporters are making some serious trouble for Romney and Company. Wouldn’t be ironic if he were the only one who could stop Romney’s nomination.


27 posted on 05/06/2012 9:27:27 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (A liberal's compassion is limited to the size of other peoples' paychecks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Based on what? The state parties have the right to handle their own business and elect their own delegates. With what standing would Priebus have to remove all state delegates that aren’t for Romney?

With that said, how excited and big can Romney’s base be when they can’t even muster enough people to get their own delegates in place? Romney won in states where voter turnout was depressed. It’s not much of a victory when your campaign strategy was to simply discourage people from voting.


28 posted on 05/06/2012 9:36:20 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

I have NEVER laughed so much. Paultards actually think he has a chance? (Welcome to Nazi germany cica 1931)

In all fairness, it is hard to fault the Paultards. They may be little liberal Nazi thugs, but man, have they got nerve! Now they try hard to play on the arguement that “what are you going to do, elect Mitt”. No I am not. But I would not vote for “Dr. Paul” on a bet. I will not vote for either retard. And neither will most of the GOP base.

Perhaps I am old fashioned, but I love Paultards. How the heck can you not like someone that full of shat?


29 posted on 05/06/2012 11:20:49 PM PDT by Mtner77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ngat

They held a primary preference poll. The people voted. The Nevada rules state that the delegates are bound to the candidates for whom the people voted.

But since there is a convention to go to, people get to run to go to the convention. It’s fun, and there’s also a lot of work to do there, and people consider it an honor to get selected. That’s what the conventions are for, to select the people to go.

A “saner” approach would be the one some states use, where candidates offer a slate of delegates in the primary. But this allows party faithful to take part in the process.

Unfortunately, there is one candidate who believes it is OK to send delegates who will lie about who they support, to gain election at state conventions under false pretenses. They think they can then go to the convention, and break the rules and the binding of the state voters. They are trying to disenfranchise the primary voters.

This is different than where actual candidate support is determined in caucuses, where the people who show up are given the right to choose the candidates. Except usually there Paul also got beat soundly — and like in Iowa, had supporters assigned to pretend to be for other candidates where Paul couldn’t win a precinct; the idea being when they got to the next level, they would all vote for Paul delegates, again packing the convention.

Of course, in many instances those delegates are also bound for the first round, and unless they break the rules, this won’t bother Romney a bit. If they made it to a 2nd round, they might cause more trouble.

The bigger problem will be if they get enough to screw up the party platform. Imagine a foreign policy plank written by Ron Paul zealots — who generally are even more nuts when it comes to our military than Ron Paul himself.


30 posted on 05/06/2012 11:34:00 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: redreno

LOL!

“Commanding”

“Inevitable”

And punked by Ron Paul in NEVADA!


31 posted on 05/07/2012 3:00:42 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (Obama's record is an open charnel pit. Romney's too, but under a whitened sepulchre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhinohunter

Precisely.


32 posted on 05/07/2012 3:16:31 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (Obama's record is an open charnel pit. Romney's too, but under a whitened sepulchre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Unfortunantely, your polemic is too full of groundless assertions, name-calling, and a slavish devotion to the arcana of party rules to merit a response in detail.

Either a person sees the society in crisis, or he doesn’t.

If he does, he is willing to take action personally.

If he does not, he will hide behind archaic party rules and regulations developed by past power-brokers and would-be aristocrats to keep themselves in power, and take potshots at those who do see the necessity for real change.


33 posted on 05/07/2012 6:08:42 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ngat

thanks


34 posted on 05/07/2012 6:59:13 AM PDT by freedommom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ngat

thanks


35 posted on 05/07/2012 6:59:31 AM PDT by freedommom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
I’ve been resigned to Romney’s nomination, but who knows? Ron Paul is causing him a lot of trouble with regard to delegates.

If it forces a brokered convention, more power to Ron Paul
36 posted on 05/07/2012 7:57:00 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ngat
... to merit a response in detail.

You seemed to be able to put together some sort of response, it would have been nice if you could have explained what specific items in my post you disagreed with.

slavish devosion to the arcana of party rules

I happen to like the idea of not stealing people's votes. So when a state holds a primary, and people show up and cast votes for the candidate they want, I would not consider it "arcana" that the delegates sent to the national convention would vote for the candidate picked in the primary. I'm sorry that you, as a conservative, see that principle so negatively that you call it "slavish devotion", but yes, I am slavishly devoted to the idea that my vote matters, and that a political candidate shouldn't use backroom manuevering to negate my vote.

groundless assertions

My comments on delegate selection are based on reading party documents from several states, and I believe it to be accurate. My comments about goings-on in Iowa and elsewhere are from news reports posted in freeper threads, and the ongoing discussion, and I believe them to be accurate but am willing to entertain the notion that the reports are incorrect, if you have any evidence to the contrary. But without some information from you about which things I said you believe are groundless, I can't really provide you links showing my evidence.

Name-calling

I apologize for calling Ron Paul supporters "nuts" when it comes to foreign policy. There are people who support Ron Paul who have dangerous notions about our position in the world, and he draws support from a crowd that includes poeple considerably more anti-military than he is (I wouldn't call him anti-military, but peaceniks are a regular feature among the crowds of Ron Paul supporters). But I shouldn't have labelled them "nuts", because name-calling isn't helpful.

37 posted on 05/07/2012 9:20:36 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

If only Ron Paul weren’t such a Blame America First nut.


38 posted on 05/07/2012 10:21:56 AM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

What point contained in my intentionally brief post on the specific subject matter being discussed on this thread did you not understand?

I guess you just can’t face the reality that people in the party really do understand that it’s just other interested people, vested interests, who have been writing and interpreting the rules and have their thumb on the scale, and they are not going to put up with it any longer.

Your sort-of apology about the name calling intentionally misses the point. Your entire post was loaded with name-calling that went far beyond what you admit “wasn’t helpful”. In fact, your multiple name-calling and baseless attacks are designed to marginalize and run off people participants in the convention system, and deny them a voice.

If you can accomplish that with your tactics, you then will not have to sit down and discuss the issues, and your own “backroom manuevering” can proceed unchallenged.

What has worked for the insiders for a long time is breaking down.


39 posted on 05/07/2012 10:22:25 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ngat
namecalling

I don't think that word means what you seem to think it means. "nuts" is a name. Expressing opinions about another person's ideas is not "name-calling", I can say your opinion is stupid, and that is not "name-calling". Saying that someone lied about who they supported is not "name-calling". If you want to accuse me of something, figure out what the correct word is and have at it.

designed to marginalize and run off people participants in the convention system, and deny them a voice.

Nothing I said would run off well-meaning, honest people from the participants in the convention system. Nor would I want to do so; so my words could hardly be "designed" to do so. If they do any such thing, and I assert they do not, it is by error, not design. I do mean to discourage people who want to usurp the will of the voters, and abuse the rules and the system to their own ends after the rest of us have followed the rules and consider the matter closed.

Most of us have a desire to have our votes properly cast for the candidate we collectively chose in our primary. We have little interest in WHICH PERSON is chosen to go to the convention to cast those votes. Paul is using our disinterest to pack the convention with delegates who don't actually support the candidate for whom they are bound to cast their ballots; at one point this was a not-irrational strategy, hoping a 2nd or subsequent ballot was called in which the delegates would be free to cast their own choice and would pick Paul. Now it is more likely just to get him on the convention floor (if they can "hold majority in 5 states"), and to maybe influence the party platform.

And to the degree these people are honest at the conventions, and abide by the rules at the convention, it is their right, and that's how the process works. To the degree they misrepresent their intentions, or decide they will violate their oath or binding, or use their "victory" to falsely claim a "change in the 1st ballot" so as to keep interest in their candidate, it is deserving of ridicule and concern by those of us who respect the intent of the voters.

Since I'm not involved in party politics, conventions, or any other "manuevering", I find it hilarious that you suggest otherwise. And I'm more than happy to discuss issues -- but that is what the political primary was for. That's what Ron Paul did on the stage month after month. And the voters cast their votes with that in mind, and made their choice of which ideas they liked, and Ron Paul mostly lost big, and now you seem to support using a backroom, obscure, misunderstood process to subvert that choice -- which seems the opposite of sitting down and discussing the issues openly and honestly.

40 posted on 05/07/2012 12:10:17 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Since you are not involved in party politics and the convention system, I can cut you some slack. Here’s one link that will educate and give you a bit more realistic view of the system, and it was just posted today.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2880885/posts

I am surprised a person as meticulous as you seem to be, plainly does not recognize how corrupt and rigged the presidential nominating system is, just by keeping up with what happened in Iowa, Virginia, and Florida alone.

Your oblique disparaging references accusing people of which you have no personal knowledge of dishonesty, nuttiness, etc. regarding a subject you have admitted you have no personal experience in, marks you broadly as a name-caller and certainly as a character assassin.

So, just educate yourself on the convention system, and take it from me, participation is the only way to gain real understanding of how the process really works.

Only then will you realize how badly you misunderstand our system of party politics, and how the delegate selection process and convention system, far from being obscure and “backroom” as you think, is in reality a strong, vibrant, exciting, open place for the people who care enough to actually participate to get together and iron out their differences for the purpose of selecting the party’s nominee.


41 posted on 05/07/2012 12:47:38 PM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ngat

Virginia was not corrupt or rigged, and I resent the slander against my own state’s representatives. A lot of people were upset that their candidates couldn’t do the simple task of collecting signatures, and decided it was part of some nefarious plot.

I will note that we just picked senate candidates for a primary using the identical process, and every candidate was able to meet the thresholds, even those who entered the contest late. The guy I’m supporting had over 17,000 signatures.

I was only upset that Rick Perry’s campaign never sent an e-mail asking for supporters in the state to collect signatures. We had a statewide election during the signature process, all they needed was 100 dedicated volunteers scattered at precincts throughout the state; if each collected 200 signatures from voters showing up at the precinct, that would be 20,000 signatures, well above the 15,000 needed.

Worse, the party already staffs most polling places at election day — so you really just needed to drop off signature forms. We had ONE signature form at my precinct table, and it was for Herman Cain. He already had over 25 signatures when I showed up at 7:15am to vote, he probably ended up with a couple hundred from our precinct alone, since we had almost 1000 people vote republican there.

I can’t speak to what happened in other states, but politics is about organization, and a good organization would have little trouble getting 15,000 signatures in Virginia; we have solid republican committees throughout the state, the state party is ready to help, and we have plenty of republicans.

Heck, Rick Perry actually came to the state RPV meeting in September, DURING the signature collection process. All his die-hard supporters came out for lunch and to hear him speak (I was there with my daughter as well). And guess what — NO signature pages were available, and no request was made to the people there to go collect signatures.

I sent e-mails to Perry, Santorum and Gingrich’s campaigns, asking them if they wanted help collecting signatures, and no campaign ever responded. I think they all thought they had it taken care of.

The process isn’t easy, but it is easy to understand, and the rules were clear and easy to follow. Collect 10,000 valid signatures, and you are on the ballot. Collect 15,000 signatures and we’ll assume you won’t get more than 1/3rd rejected, so you’ll be on the ballot (we’ve NEVER had more than 1/3rd of the signatures found to be bad, so the rule makes sense).

As to your general concern about the process being rigged, I don’t see how, even if true, it would make what is being discussed in this thread any more palatable.

I’ll discuss Nevada specifically in another post.


42 posted on 05/07/2012 1:42:12 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ngat
Nevada picks it's delegates by convention. The critical conventions are the local nominating conventions, held February 4, 2012. The state delegates eventually chosen for the RNConvention are bound by rule to vote as specified at this first round of caucuses

These were certified by the state party. :

Nevada Caucus - February 4, 2012 -100% reporting (1800/1800)
 Romney   50.0% 16,486
 Gingrich 21.1%  6,956
 Paul     18.7%  6,175 
 Santorum  9.9%  3,277
The state party rules indicate that for the 1st ballot at the RNConvention, the delegates are bound by the presidential preference vote taken at the precincts, calculated proportionally based on the votes for the candidates still in the race. That is key, because it means that at the state convention, they re-calculated the delegate selection with only the Romney and Paul votes.

The personal preferences of the selected delegates does not matter for the 1st ballot. The Paul state director insists that their delegates will follow the rules, which means that for the 1st ballot, they will cast 20 votes for Romney, and 8 for Paul (proportional results). The previous numbers were Romney 14, Gingrich 6, Paul 5, Santorum 3.

The suggestion of this article is that somehow Paul now has 22 votes at the convention -- that is clearly not true, at least not for the 1st ballot.

However, you have to ask how, given that at each step, the delegates are chosen by winners at the previous step, Paul people managed to do so well. Partly, I'm sure it's just that they kept showing up. But it is also clear that at the original precinct level, a lot of paul supporters got elected to the next level by people who supported other candidates, and thought they were picking delegates who supported the same candidate. That is where the "misleading" comes in.

We have reports from other caucuses where sample ballots were circulated with the names of candidates (Romney, Santorum) listed, but which actually had mostly Ron Paul delegates on the ballot. Some have been so blatant that the state committees are seriously considering throwing out the results because of the misleading nature. In Nevada, it simply appears that they took over all the party positions, which gave them the ability to vote their own people into the delegate slots

Since they have to vote for Romney anyway, Romney didn't care. It sucks for the supporters of Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich who were active in state politics, who wanted a chance to go to a convention, who showed up at all the caucuses, got elected at the precinct level, and then got shut out at the state by the Ron Paul folks. But if they don't like it, they should take back their party from the Paul people.

43 posted on 05/07/2012 2:14:00 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; GOPsterinMA; randita; Sun; campaignPete R-CT

Interesting. I heard Paulbots “took over” the Alaska GOP last month. Obviously these people are well organized.

There aren’t enough caucus states to manipulate though. Unless Paul wins the vast majority of the outstanding delegates it means nothing vis-a-vis “stopping Romney” which ended as a plausible outcome when Santorum left the race.

I think the aim of the Paul people is to influence the GOP platforms, state and national.


44 posted on 05/07/2012 3:18:22 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Impy

what contributed to the Maine victory ... rural dominance of state politics ... decentralizes things. Not many places like that left. The Maine GOP in-crowd struggles to keep control.


45 posted on 05/07/2012 6:12:48 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (and we are still campaigning for local conservatives in central CT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

only 2 caucuses remain.

Everything else is primaries .... such as TX CA NJ
see how the Paulsters do tomorrow in W-VA NC IN.
will not do well.


46 posted on 05/07/2012 6:28:42 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (and we are still campaigning for local conservatives in central CT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

Romney is still about 300 delegates short of the nomination. I can only hope for the best.


47 posted on 05/07/2012 6:34:28 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (A liberal's compassion is limited to the size of other peoples' paychecks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ngat
Your posts are interesting - you seem to be trying to disenfranchise everyone - but are very subtle about it.

You use terms like Romneybot and Santorium broadly yet spouse no allegiance to anyone. You want people to “educate” themselves yet offer no real constructive critique.

You offer sparingly criticism of Obama.... and you are member of a little of a year. Your facts are slanted and the perception could be made that either you are not conservative - or just obnoxious

48 posted on 05/07/2012 6:40:29 PM PDT by mike_9958
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

We have reports from other caucuses where sample ballots were circulated with the names of candidates (Romney, Santorum) listed, but which actually had mostly Ron Paul delegates on the ballot. Some have been so blatant that the state committees are seriously considering throwing out the results because of the misleading nature. In Nevada, it simply appears that they took over all the party positions, which gave them the ability to vote their own people into the delegate slots

Since they have to vote for Romney anyway, Romney didn’t care. It sucks for the supporters of Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich who were active in state politics, who wanted a chance to go to a convention, who showed up at all the caucuses, got elected at the precinct level, and then got shut out at the state by the Ron Paul folks. But if they don’t like it, they should take back their party from the Paul people.


Apparently in Nevada and Maine, there were Romney people with Paul pins handing out fake delegate slates instructing Paul supporters to vote for those delegates. It has the Ron Paul logo on it, and a smattering of better known Paul delegates, but with the rest being for Romney. This is backed up with video evidence and photographs. They also, apparently, smuggled in a bunch of guests to add to the voice votes.

As for Paulite tactics, I think the simple truth of the matter is that a majority of Paul supporters are more enthusiastic and better organized to go caucus for their candidate than are the Romney people.


49 posted on 05/07/2012 8:33:25 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“Virginia was not corrupt or rigged, and I resent the slander against my own state’s representatives. A lot of people were upset that their candidates couldn’t do the simple task of collecting signatures, and decided it was part of some nefarious plot.”


Of course it’s corrupt and rigged. In Texas you just need 300 signatures to get on a ballot and maybe a fee. The fact that Virginia rules basically disenfranchised a huge amount of voters by keeping almost every major candidate, except for the two most despised, off the ballot is proof enough of that. It’s a system that obviously supports the big money candidate who can buy the organization he needs to do it. So where exactly can the Herman Cains of the world, or the Joe the Plumbers, ever hope to run for President when the system is dominated by our version of the Roman aristocracy?

And as for the caucus system in general. This IS a Republic, after all. I don’t like Paul’s foreign policy either, but if he can throw a wrench in the system and get us into a brokered convention, that could be a godsend to save us from the clutches of the GOPe and Mittens. Even if it fails, I’d rather Mitt be severely damaged than to have to deal with him for 4 years, and have to campaign for him again after that since we wouldn’t even have the option to nominate a conservative. Better to let Obama have the Presidency and focus all our effort in taking the Senate. Besides, as a common enemy, he’ll do a lot more to unify conservatives than Mitt “pathological liar” Romney.


50 posted on 05/07/2012 8:49:22 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson