Skip to comments.Ron Paul Could Still Win Enough Delegates To Deny Mitt Romney The Republican Nomination
Posted on 05/07/2012 7:45:57 AM PDT by IbJensen
Despite what you may have heard from the mainstream media, Mitt Romney does not have the Republican nomination locked up. In fact, he is rapidly losing delegates that almost everyone assumed that he already had in the bag.
To understand why this is happening, you have to understand the delegate selection process. Each state has different rules for selecting delegates to the Republican national convention, and in many states the "voting" done by the public does not determine the allocation of delegates to particular candidates at all. And the truth is that delegates are the only thing that really matters in this race.
In state after state, the Ron Paul campaign is focusing on the delegate selection process with laser-like precision, and it is paying off big time. At this point, there is still a legitimate chance that Ron Paul will be able to win enough delegates to deny Mitt Romney the nomination on the first ballot at the Republican national convention in Tampa. If Romney does not have the 1,144 delegates that he needs on the first ballot, then it becomes a brokered convention and anything becomes possible at that point.
Sadly, most Americans have no idea how this process really works.
For example, originally we were all told that Mitt Romney won Iowa.
Then, later on we were told that a mistake was made and that Rick Santorum actually won Iowa.
Well, it turns out that Ron Paul actually won 20 out of the 28 delegates in Iowa. That is because the process of actually selecting the delegates occurred long after the voting by the public was over.
So what happens if the Ron Paul campaign is able to produce similar results in state after state?
The Ron Paul campaign is very organized, very motivated and they understand the rules of the game. As a recent Politico article detailed, there are huge amounts of unbound delegates out there that are still up for grabs....
There are roughly 30 states and territories where delegates arent bound to a particular candidate. The majority of the other states, according to a number of party officials, call for delegates to be bound for a first round of balloting but not the ensuing rounds.
The dirty little secret is: At the end of the day, these guys and gals can vote any way they want, said a Republican who has attended national conventions for decades. Each state has different (laws) on pledged delegates. In many states, the "official" results of voting done by the public mean next to nothing. The talking heads on television often tell us how many delegates are "projected" to go to a particular candidate, but as we have seen in Iowa and in so many other states, those "projections" are basically meaningless.
A recent Salon article discussed how the delegate selection process really works and how the Ron Paul campaign is using these rules to shake up the game....
In many caucus states, the official results that most people saw this winter were from nonbinding straw polls conducted in conjunction with precinct-level caucuses. But when it comes to choosing national convention delegates, the real action is at district caucuses and state conventions. In the past, this distinction hasnt mattered much, but for the Paul forces who lack the numbers to win statewide primaries but have the devotion to pack any room, anywhere, at any time it has offered an inviting loophole. When turnout is small and no one is looking, the Paul folks can win, and thats whats been happening in a number of states.
To Paul die-hards, this will all culminate in a surprise for the ages in Tampa, with the political world suddenly realizing that Romney actually doesnt have the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination, thereby allowing Paul to extract major concessions or even steal the nomination for himself. So could Ron Paul really deny Mitt Romney the Republican nomination?
At this point, nobody really seems to know what the real delegate count is.
Websites such as The Real 2012 Delegate Count are more accurate than most sources in the mainstream media, but even that site has been underestimating the true number of Ron Paul delegates.
Right now, Mitt Romney is not anywhere close to having the number of delegates that he needs for the nomination and Ron Paul just keeps picking up more delegates with each passing week.
For example, a Washington Post article that was posted on Sunday reported that Ron Paul just achieved a stunning delegate victory in Nevada....
Despite former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romneys overwhelming victory in the Nevada caucuses, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has won a majority of the states delegates to the partys national convention later this year in Tampa, Florida.
Thanks to organized Paul supporters, who have been working to increase their candidates support at state conventions around the country, 22 of the 25 Nevada delegates up for grabs will be Paul supporters. (Another three are automatic delegates.) That was a state that Romney supposedly "won".
It looks like Romney has a real problem.
In state after state, Ron Paul is gobbling up delegates. The following are quotes from a recent Huffington Post article about what the Ron Paul campaign has been able to achieve in the past few weeks....
-"Sure enough, Paul has already won 20 out of the 24 delegates allocated in Minnesota, by winning a majority of the congressional district contests."
-"In Louisiana, Paulites "dominated" the congressional district caucuses this past Saturday, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune. Paul's supporters carried four of the state's congressional districts, and are guaranteed at least 17 of 46 delegates in the Bayou State, with the potential to pick up more at the state convention on June 2."
-"The other state that Benton likely has his eye on is Colorado, where the Denver Post reported in mid-April that Paul supporters and Santorum backers combined forces to win a "stunning upset" at the state convention, guaranteeing that about half of the state's 33 delegates will be for Paul in August."
And look what just happened in Maine according to USA Today....
In votes leading to the close of the two-day Maine convention, Paul supporters were elected to 21 of the 24 delegate spots from Maine to the GOP national convention in Tampa, Fla.
So Ron Paul is definitely accumulating a huge pile of his own delegates, but even many so-called "pledged delegates" for Romney could end up playing a huge role for Ron Paul.
In some states, Ron Paul supporters have been getting elected into delegate slots that are supposed to go to Romney. This is highly unusual, and it could really shake things up at the national convention. As a Salon article recently explained there will be quite a few Ron Paul supporters that will actually be going to Tampa "disguised" as Romney delegates....
Besides the pledged delegates hes won so far and the extras hes collecting through caucuses and state conventions, Paul will also have some supporters disguised as Romney delegates.
To understand how this works, just consider his campaigns mischief in Massachusetts, where Romney won 72 percent of the primary vote and with it, a monopoly on the states pledged convention delegates. But to determine who would fill those pledged delegate slots, the state GOP held caucuses recently, and the Paul crowd came out in force, gobbling up 16 of the 19 available positions. In how many other states will this happen, or has it already happened?
But those delegates are required to vote for Romney, right?
Not so fast.
The Ron Paul campaign could actually ask those "disguised" Romney delegates to abstain during the first round of voting in Tampa. If Romney did not win on the first ballot, those delegates would then become unbound and would be able to support Ron Paul.
In fact, Ronald Reagan considered using this tactic against Gerald Ford in 1976. The following is from a 1976 article entitled "Reagan Forces May Steal Ford Votes"....
In secret strategy sessions, Reagan aides have toyed with the idea of asking delegates to abstain as long as their state laws require them to honor the primary verdicts.
This would prevent the President from riding up an early-ballot victory. Then, in subsequent ballots, they could legally switch to Reagan.
Delegates have abstained from voting before. Back in 2008, at least 14 delegates abstained from voting at the Republican national convention.
So what would happen if the Ron Paul campaign was able to get 100 or 150 "Romney delegates" to abstain from voting during the first ballot in Tampa?
That is a very intriguing question.
And remember, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich also have significant numbers of delegates pledged to each of them.
So Ron Paul does not need to accumulate 1,144 delegates himself to deny Mitt Romney the nomination on the first ballot. He just needs to keep Romney from getting to 1,144.
The race for the Republican nomination is not over.
You can find a state by state breakdown of delegate voting rules right here.
It is not too late to get involved.
If nobody gets to 1,144 on the first ballot in Tampa, it becomes a "brokered convention" and anyone can become the nominee - even someone that is not running right now.
So if you are not satisfied with Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee, don't lose hope yet.
The game is still being played.
It would be a challenge, but if his supporters get energized enough, it certainly is possible that Ron Paul could still win enough delegates to deny Mitt Romney the Republican nomination on the first ballot in Tampa.
And if that happens, anything is possible.
I’m a Romneybot ? Are you serious ? I’m being lectured by the a supporter of the homosexual agenda pushing traitor Ron Paul ?
Read this post very, very carefully. Oh, by the way, I’m the author.
“He Was The Governor Of A Bright Blue State! What Do You Expect ?!”
My Utter Disdain For Mitt Trotsky | 3/26/12 | Alan Levy
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2012 11:22:29 PM by Absolutely Nobama
Every time I decide to waste my valuable time on God’s green and cooling Earth talking to a Mittiot (A rabid follower of former Taxachusetts governor Mitt Trotsky), the following intellectually dishonest and lazy argument always comes up, especially when discussing Romneycare(less).
“He was the governor of a bright blue state! What do you expect ?!”
To me, the above statement is just as annoying as hearing a Paultard whine “Ron Paul is the only....” or “Only Dr. Paul....”. It’s like Wolverine’s claws on Glenn Beck’s chalkboard. Use of a statement like that shows that person using it is utterly incapable of doing any deep thinking. (Yes, Ann Coulter and Matt Drudge, that means you, too.)
See ladies and gentlemen, being a Conservative is not just talking the talk, it’s also, more importantly, about walking the walk. It doesn’t do anyone any good to give a speech at CPAC and call yourself “severely Conservative”. You have to live it and breathe it everyday. It has to be who you are. The values of Conservatism must guide your every action, from the mundane arguing with liberals to vetoing a piece of legislation like Romneycare(less).
A true Conservative would have vetoed Romneycare(less) without giving it a second thought. A true Conservative wouldn’t have cared about being re-elected or what the slobs in the arrogant and lazy media thought or said. Principles must come first. In other words, one must do their best Ronald Reagan or Scott Walker imitation at all times when elected to office, especially in a “bright blue state”.
Another reason why the “He was the governor of a bright blue state! What do you expect ?!” statement should make you grind your teeth is the fact that it is a blatant admission that Mitt Trotsky is not a fighter. Oh sure, he’ll team up with Jew hater Ron Paul and viciously tear into Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum (The media hates them anyway), but will he do that to the popular with the media Chairman Obama ? Will he fight if he loses the Senate and the House two years into his term, as many first term Presidents do ? Will he go ahead and repeal Obamacare(less) with Katie Couric interviewing the folks it supposedly helped ?
“He was the governor of a bright blue state! What do you expect ?!”
A Conservative. Not an “Etch-A-Sketch” Conservative, not an “independent Progressive”, not a paintywaist who kisses the rear ends of every special interest group with some sort of problem or gripe, but a real, live, Founding Father quoting, non-politicallycorrectthink, in-your-face, LOUD AND PROUD Conservative.
Really, it’s not too much to ask, is it ?
By the way, I’m not the one supporting a favorite of Occupy Wall Street and Code Pinko. You are. So if anyone’s Conservatism should be questioned it’s yours, definitely not mine.
The point I was trying to make is that Ron Paul and the bottom-feeders who follow him seem to believe that abortion is a 10th Amendment issue, which it is NOT. Abortion is murder, plain and simple.
You might want to keep the following in mind before you call me a troll and hit the abuse button:
“Ron Paul and his legions of flaming paultard spam monkeys can KMA!!
43 posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2011 2:24:37 PM by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]”
Like I said earlier, if you want to support a favorite of Occupy Wall Street and Code Pinko, that’s your business. If you want to throw your support behind someone who thinks abortion is a States Rights issue, go right ahead. But don’t go around calling yourself a Conservative while doing so. At that point, you’re lying.
Two choices left on the GOP ticket. RP and Willard. Third Parties will not gain enough traction to beat Zero and the GOP nominee both. So who is your top dog newbie? Willard or RP?
The choice will be between the Big 0 and Romney. Period.
People are free to throw away their vote on some “third party” endeavor, but if the Big 0 wins, it (the final death-blow to America) will be ON THEIR HEAD.
There’s no way in hell I’m throwing ANY support to a 9/11 Truther like Paul who trashes America on a daily basis. I will not, for any reason, give the least bit of support to anyone who calls this country imperialist. I will not give the least bit of support to man who slandered two stalwart Conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
If it wasn’t for Jew hater Ron Paul we wouldn’t be in this position. If Ron Paul didn’t team up with Romney to trash every Conservative in the Primary, perhaps one of them would have won. That’s not my opinion, that’s reality.
Ron Paul is dangerous.
Ron Paul, Soros and Defense
Before everyone gets their panties in a wad. Obama is already starting to make the moves to destroy our military.
Ron Paul will just drive the knife into their backs.
I thought it was clever how the Obama military haters are going to cut Benefits for veterans and wounded soldiers.
Wonder how far enlistment will drop on that one.
One of Ron Pauls best friends is George Soros..
“The choice will be between the Big 0 and Romney. Period.
People are free to throw away their vote on some ‘third party’ endeavor, but if the Big 0 wins, it (the final death-blow to America) will be ON THEIR HEAD.”
Dead on. Whether we like it or not, this is the corner we’ve been backed into. I can’t stand Romney. I didn’t vote for him, I proudly voted for Newt Gingrich. But it does us no good to look to idiots like Ron Paul and hope for some sort of miracle.
Why we’re wasting time on MoRon Paul and his dead campaign is beyond me.
The choice will be between the Big 0 and Romney. Period.
People are free to throw away their vote on some third party endeavor, but if the Big 0 wins, it (the final death-blow to America) will be ON THEIR HEAD.
I’m not referring to 3rd party. I’m referring to a convention that has an upset and the anointed POS Robomeny doesn’t get the “nod” and neither does drooling raving nutcase Ron Paul.
I had to smoke a few bowls to finally believe this article.
Then, you are going to get Romney. You’d probably get him anyhow, but the Ron Paul strategy offers at least a faint hope at avoiding Romney, and throwing things open.
You have a head full of rabid mice...
Having military bases in 137 Countries out of 179 and playing globo-cop is "not" being Imperialist? We've exceeded our mandate. Unless you think helping the Muslim Brotherhood over throw Egypt and Libya was a good thing?
Newt and Rick are "moderate" conservatives at best. They only shine as "stalwarts" when you compare them to the likes of McCain and Romney.
RP isn't a Jew hater. That has been hashed and rehashed a thousand times over the last decade. FR has all the various conversations of it.
As for RP trashing anyone... Put up an article or we'll just chalk it up to you being wrong... Again.
As I have said over the last 13 years... RP has warts. His stance on isolationism, his foreign policy stance, his stance on gays in the military, his stance on open borders, some of the crazy crap he's pulled like standing on an anti-war podium next to the likes of Douglas Kucinich...
These are REAL issues with him as a candidate. Not this made up hyperbole you keep spewing.
Compared to Willard, Paul looks downright sane.
Now for some facts..........
on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”
The 14th Amendment says: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It also says: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Thus, if an unborn child is a person from the moment of conception, as Paul pledged was his position, states must protect the life of the unborn child just as they protect the life of any other person and Congress has the explicit authority under the Constitution to make laws to ensure that is the case.
In signing the Personhood Pledge, however, Paul issued an “addendum” in which he reiterated his position that life begins at conception, said he supported a human life amendment to the Constitution, but at the same time argued that the federal government should not interfere with the states in passing laws on abortion.
“Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents,” said Paul.
“While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you cant have Liberty without Life,” Paul continued. “I don’t just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law.”
In the same statement, Paul went on to say: “A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does—through state laws.
“To summarize my views—I believe the federal government has a role to play,” said Paul. “I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.”
“I don’t see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues,” Paul said. “The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I cant agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a ‘Federal Department of Abortion.’ Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.
“As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” said Paul. “This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state.”
In the same addedum to his Personhood Pledge, Paul vowed to stop enforcement of all Obamacare regulations, including the one that would force Catholic employers to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients.
“I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans,” said Paul.
On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, however, Paul criticized Santorum for talking about “who is going to pay for birth control pills”—an apparent reference to Santorum’s statements in opposition to the Obamacare regulation Paul said in December he would stop if he were elected president.
“Do you believe from what you see today that Rick Santorum can beat President Obama in November?” Crowley asked Paul.
“Well, I don’t see how that’s possible,” said Paul. “And this whole idea about that talking about the social issues and who is going to pay for birth control pills, I’m worried about undermining our civil liberties, the constant wars going on, the debt of $16 trillion and they are worried about birth control pills and here he wants to, you know, control people’s social lives. At the same time, he voted for Planned Parenthood.”
Ron Paul a President who actually has a plan to stop the killing of children in the womb. Dr. Ron Paul is the most pro life candidate who has ever run for the GOP nomination, stop falling for the bs on this issue and all the bs on other issues being spun by the left with the help of Rino’s and Cino’s.
A further clarification and discussion:
Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USA's goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.
I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.
As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Court's misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.
It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.
What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.
Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.
This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.
Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.
no problem.... we need more people here dispelling the bull about the only constitutionalist running for President who will actually tackle the deficit and run away spending that is the NUMBER ONE PROBLEM that needs to be fixed.
Far too many Freepers repeat what someone else has said about Ron Paul instead of actually finding out what Ron Paul has actually said. While I don’t agree 100% with all his policies and views I favor his policies far above anyone else running and was stunned how many Freepers were supporting and still supporting in the case of Romney conmen who have no conservative credentials . Talk about selling out conservatism, it is like the world has been turned up side down...along comes someone who proposes real sound policies that should be supported by conservatives and a bunch of them turn on him like a pack of rabid dogs.
“I had to smoke a few bowls to finally believe this article.”
POST OF THE YEAR!!
“Im not referring to 3rd party. Im referring to a convention that has an upset and the anointed POS Robomeny doesnt get the ‘nod’ and neither does drooling raving nutcase Ron Paul.”
Whew! I’m glad that was sorted out! I was afraid ya went all loopy on me!
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.