I think people are getting too hung up on “bound” and “unbound”, because of a lack of understanding, or a willful desire to minimize, the truth of the delegate selection process.
For example, in Ohio the delegates are not legally bound. So here they are called “unbound”.
But they were selected by the candidates to be on the ballots. Does anybody REALLY think that a Romney-selected delegate is a target for switching? As Ohio rules say, the delegates are “morally bound” — do you think that Rick Santorum has imoral delegates, or Gingrich has picked delegates that are secretly wanting to switch to Ron Paul?
It would be like one of the well-known freepers here suddenly switching allegiance in midstream. Yes, it happens on rare occasions, so theoretically you could have a couple of delegates move around.
But only if the candidate did a poor job of picking delegates can you count on any movement — and of all the campaigns, it is LEAST LIKELY that Romney, who does have the organization, would have been half-hearted in picking delegates.
So it is actually MORE likely that Santorum or Gingrich would lose their “morally bound” delegates to Romney, than the other way around.
Someone who has since been banned was chosen at a caucus as a Santorum delegate to the county level. He was bragging that he was going to vote for Romney. You never know.