Ron Paul Could Still Win Enough Delegates To Deny Mitt Romney The Republican Nomination

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.

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 aren’t 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 hasn’t 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 that’s what’s 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 doesn’t 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?

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 Romney’s overwhelming victory in the Nevada caucuses, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has won a majority of the state’s delegates to the party’s national convention later this year in Tampa, Florida.

Thanks to organized Paul supporters, who have been working to increase their candidate’s 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".

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."

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 he’s won so far and the extras he’s collecting through caucuses and state conventions, Paul will also have some supporters disguised as Romney delegates.

To understand how this works, just consider his campaign’s mischief in Massachusetts, where Romney won 72 percent of the primary vote – and with it, a monopoly on the state’s 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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Let me say right from the outset that I cannot support Ron Paul based on his views of national defense.

Period.

The fact, however, is that Ron Paul **HAS** managed to take control of a number of district and state conventions and has racked up a bunch of delegates. His people are well-organized and now that everyone else has suspended their campaigns, he could possibly conduct an under-the-radar campaign that successfully causes serious trouble.

It shows just how bad things have gotten that Ron Paul — who is the Lyndon LaRouche of the Republican Party in 2012, not Ronald Reagan in 1976 or George McGovern in 1972 — has more ability to damage Romney right now than any credible Republican candidate.

The main thing this would do would be to de-legitimize the Republican Party by making us look like the chaos of the last national convention of the Reform Party when Pat Buchanan managed to get the nomination.

Some people may think total chaos at the convention with national media wall-to-wall coverage is a good thing. As long as a parliamentary brawler like Newt Gingrich with a legitimate record of parlaying backbench politics into top leadership as Speaker was in charge, I was willing to go along with the argument that a chaotic convention could be defended as “democracy in action.” After all, while I wasn't a Gingrich supporter, he had more than two decades of legitimate leadership work, knows his American political history up one side and down the other, and could make a case for a brokered convention.

At this late date, show me how utter chaos caused by Ron Paul supporters would help anyone except Barack Obama and I'll listen. I don't see it.

“His States Rights stance is exactly correct.”

No, it’s a 1000% WRONG. States cannot use the 10th Amendment to skirt the Contitution, and they damn well do NOT have the power to snuff out innocent babies.

Ron Paul isn’t exactly pro-life, either.

“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.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-social-conservatism-i-think-its-losing-position

Ron Paul also earmarks like a stoned liberal:

“
NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Speaking of a lot of money, the battle about the money they’re spending on Capitol Hill and, ironically, this guy is being targeted as maybe spending the most or at least earmarking the most for his constituents. He says it isn’t fair.

But we thought it only fair to give him his due and explain what is going on. I’m talking about Texas congressman and former presidential candidate, Ron Paul.

Congressman, the rap is that you’re a porker, that — that a lot of pork, $73 million-plus, went to your district. Is that true?

REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be.

But I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that’s the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don’t save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.

CAVUTO: Well, then, who — who — who proposes the bridge or the highway or the school? How does that even get in there?

PAUL: I have no idea. But the most important thing is to have transparency.

If you don’t earmark something, then somebody else spends it and there’s no transparency. So, the principle of the earmark is very crucial. But we need more earmarks.

The reason that we don’t have — didn’t have earmarks, you know, in that $350 billion on TARP funds...

CAVUTO: Right.

PAUL: We needed to earmark every single thing. We need to earmark every single thing the Fed does. So, this whole thing, this charade — this is a charade.

CAVUTO: No, no, I understand.

But you know what? It just strikes people as a little weird, Congressman, because, you know, you champion and rail against government waste. And I know you rejected and voted against this package. But, yet, your constituents are going to benefit to the tune of more than $73 million in various projects from this package.

So, it’s kind of like you’re having your cake and eating it, too.

PAUL: But — but, Neil — Neil, you’re — you’re missing the whole point.

The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We’re supposed to — it’s like a — a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that.

But, because the budget is out of control, I haven’t voted for an appropriation in years — if ever.

CAVUTO: But would you argue, then, sir, that, when John McCain was here saying the whole earmark thing itself is what’s out of control?

PAUL: Oh, no, no. He — he — he totally misunderstands that. That’s grandstanding.

If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don’t cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We’re talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?

I’m saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: You’re right about...

PAUL: OK. But then I’m right about the whole issue.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But are you saying, then — are you saying, then, Congressman, that the moneys that you appropriated, whether for the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the Texas City Channel, Wallisville Lake, the City of Bay City, that rehab center — that that’s money in the aggregate that you would have called waste?

PAUL: It’s the kind I don’t vote for, because I don’t think the federal government should be doing it. But, if they’re going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people.

If they say, hey, look, put in a highway for the district, I put it in. I put in all their requests, because I’m their representative.

But, if you put an earmark for a bridge in Iraq, it’s not called an earmark. If you build military equipment in somebody’s city...

CAVUTO: So, you don’t think their requests are wastes? You don’t think their requests are wastes?

PAUL: Well, no, it’s — it’s — it shouldn’t be done. There’s a better way to do it.

CAVUTO: Right.

PAUL: But, if you’re going to spend the money, the Congress has the responsibility. It’s better to spend it on a bridge here than spend it on a bridge in Iraq, and blow it up, and then build it up again.

Those are the kind of earmarks they don’t count.

CAVUTO: All right.

PAUL: So, you have to count...

CAVUTO: All right, Congressman.”

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2009/03/11/rep-ron-paul-defends-his-earmarks-spending-bill#ixzz1Wg9BNOZX

Ron Paul is to Conservative like kitten is defensive tackle.

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.