CELEBRATE!
Submitted by Ah Hey Hardie on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 03:35Someone smarter than me should feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, but what happened tonight is even better than a narrow Paul victory over Romney. Santorum does not take delegates from us, he takes them from Romney. And since we were never going to win the presidency in the first round of voting in Tampa anyway, this Santorum momentum is going to keep him in the race much longer, taking away even more delegates from Romney. Our only chance is a brokered convention. So don't even worry about winning a single state. (EDIT: OK, let's win a few) Just keep quietly dominating the delegate selection, and hope the establishment doesn't realize what's happening until it's too late. Rick Santorum just put Ron Paul in the White House.
YOUR ALL WRONG :)
lol yes it is possible - not its not likely!! thats from paul's mouth and wead. IT IS technically possible FOR INSTANCE lets say paul racks up delegates like to the tune of 400-800...... anyone who endorses him EVEN GINGRICH OR SANTORUM would put paul as our pres and i dont care what any of you say - it would quell the anger from reps to see even ROMNY AS VP - and again i dont care what any of you say - your not selling out by saying sure ill put u my vp AND HAVE MORE AUTHORITY THAN U if it makes me win - period. I also actually am predicting a paul/romney ticket right here right now - romney cant win as president. BUT hes young. his VP would say (i can win and didnt lose 2) and hed also be vp for the thomas jefferson of our era - propelling him like it or not - this is politics ppl - the chances arent as slim as they think - WE WILL NOT BE BOUGHT - but that doesnt mean we wont buy - and there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. :) here and now febr 12 PRESIDENT PAUL VICE PRESIDENT ROMNEY - only way the reps can win is with paul - only way paul can win is w/ romney. :) thoughts?
Freedom.
The five state rule
So if this applies then how could the GOP bring in another candidate like Mitch Daniels if there is a brokered convention?
explain.
There's supposedly a GOP rule that makes this impossible
I read somewhere that even at a brokered convention anyone not winning at least 5 states cannot be nominated.
I don't know where to even begin looking to verify.
I've heard this before
but I've never seen it in writing. I'd like to understand where this is coming from as well.
What is in writing
Rule 40 (b) Each candidate for nomination for
President of the United States and Vice President of the
United States shall demonstrate the support of a
plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more
states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of
that candidate for nomination.
http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf
rule 40(b) shouldn't be a problem
I expect RP will indeed have the support of a plurality of 5 or more states' DELEGATES. Maine, Iowa, maybe Nevada, Minnesota, maybe Washington... probably at least a few more; that much is probably going to happen.
The problem remains that he needs to show ability to WIN PRIMARIES. Absent that, the perception is that he "can't win" and (IMO as a 20-year Republican) a "stealth delegates" approach won't alter that for most Republicans, especially those who start out being hostile to his candidacy.
The first step in changing this is to WIN MAINE. Make sure you do everything you can to finish BIG in all the remaining processes there. Yeah, Romney gets his bump from yesterday, but we'll get one once all the counting is finally done. ;-)
To give RP a chance at the convention, we need to send him in there with as strong a showing of support as possible, including wins in multiple states. That will take out the electability objection, at least for reasonable delegates (and there will be some who we can never reach). Then it's a matter of winning their opinions over, either on principle or through political strategic reasoning or some sort of "horse trading" or whatever. (Those with weak stomachs may want to avert their eyes at that stage; no telling what might ensue.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.
So by that definition...
Ron has to have a plurality of delegates from 5 states and NOT have to win the popular vote in 5 states.
By the way Doug Wead spoke on Maddow's show the other night, this shouldn't be a problem provided our delegates make it through to the National convention.
Is what I just said accurate to everyone's understanding?
"Criticizing Ron Paul for not passing bills in Congress is like criticizing a nun in a whore house for not turning tricks. He was there to stop the "whoring," not become one!" ~ Blake Buffington
Wrong. We need to win some
Wrong. We need to win some states. Ron Paul will do horribly at a brokered convention if he wins no states. He needs to be seen as electable.
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Show your support for Ron Paul and inspire others at new grassroots site:
★ http://www.ronpaulpatriotnation.com ★
( Consider uploading a picture or video of your sign or event, etc .)
Let's Win Maine!
( :
A.Hansen
I think that it will now be
I think that it will now be much easier for Ron Paul to win upcoming caucuses and primaries. When Mitt was seen as the "inevitable" candidate, there was this need to manufacture the anti-Romney-but-not-Paul candidate to thwart the "Establishment". With the rise of Santorum here, Republican voters now have the luxury of time to listen to what these guys are all saying, without the desperate need to stop Romney by voting for Gingrich, or to stop Gingrich by voting for Romney. This works in Paul's favor: before we had the one "perceived" liberal (Romney) against two "perceived" conservatives (Gingrich and Santorum) and Paul. From now on, the correct perception will be the one peace-and-sound-money-and-personal-liberty candidate (Paul) versus the three statists. This redefinition of the race works in our favor! A win in Maine will be huge toward redefining the primary race. It'd be nice to have that redefinition of this race well understood in time for Texas, California, and New York! I'm betting we'll take Idaho and Alaska, too...
you're partly right and partly quite wrong
Winning states does matter. Ron just said so himself, for those of you who just don't want to engage your own gray matter.
I'm getting tired of explaining this; it seems so doggone intuitive: If a candidate can't win the majority of his OWN PARTY's votes in any state, the party will never believe he will be able to win a majority of ALL the voters in any state. Hence, that candidate is a non-starter. Even if that candidate had a bunch of "stealth delegates" and claimed the nomination, the party infrastructure would balk. The result would be the political equivalent of a transplanted organ being rejected by the host body.
Honestly, some of you people badly need to settle down and think for a minute.
We need to win states, and we need to win over more of the party base. That's how you win a nomination, not by sneaking in the back door and stealing it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.
True
The last time such a victory took place was in the 19th century. I believe it was (however, correct me if I'm wrong) Franklin Pierce who was in 4th place and arose to first place and thus victory because he had the majority delegates after the third or fourth round of voting. Franklin Pierce is the like great, great, great grandfather of Barbara Bush (formerly Barbara Pierce) the wife of George Herbert Walker Bush. If I am incorrect on any of the specifics of the aforementioned, please forgive me.
Exactly...
...we're going to lose if we peg our hopes on technicalities carrying us through all the way.
The biggest factor for winning over the base is message on foreign policy. Somebody needs to get through to the campaign and say, no Dr. Paul, don't change your foreign policy, just start communicating a detailed POSITIVE vision of what you believe will take the place of empire-building and give us a strong defense, rather than leaving it vague and for us in the trenches to imagine while trying to convince others to buy into our guesswork.
I've tried e-mailing the campaign on this, but I'm sure it just gets lost in the noise. A little Reaganesque communication would be just the recipe for success.
Keep pushing never give up!
The only way to win states is to inform the supporters that have no clue they need to be voting!
The majority of Paul supporters are researching politics for the first time guys and girls who have no clue how the primary's and caucus's work!
The campaign is going against a media blackout they are getting pushed down every step of the way so we have to counter that also!
If he is to win states he needs to keep giving speeches and speaking the truth and common sense!
The base needs to bring Ron Paul a victory! Bottom up style we can do it! We are his only chance they can't keep us all out of the local news converge we, need to be flooding positive well informative articles everywhere!
We share our ideas on dailypaul and use them to spread it to supportes who dont know enough about the peocess and non Ron Paul supporters!
Maybe Ron Paul Needs to Start Telling People at These Town Hall
meetings and rallys that we are up against the media and the establishment. That they are doing everything possible to stop him from winning. That he is a threat to the establishment because he wants to cut 1 Trillion dollars in his first year as president. I want to stop policing the world, etc. That is why it is important that we go to the polls and vote and bring everyone you know with you to the polls. We need to reach out to middle age and seniors because we can count on them to go vote or at least vote absentee. We are in a three way race, the media, the establishment and last but not least the other candidates. I noticed that Ron is coming across more aggressive when he talks. It is what Rick has been doing and I think it is very effective in getting people energized to support a candidate.
A.Hansen
Thanks for the clarification.
The 'must win 5 states' rule was also just brought to my attention. And I understand the sentiment that it would not seem proper, but if those are the rules, those are the rules. So please elaborate on exactly what you mean by 'the party infrastructure would balk' and 'the result would be the political equivalent of a transplanted organ being rejected by the host body'. Again, I understand the intuitive thought process of needing to win somewhere, and I may be taking it a little far imagining the nomination without winning a single state, but how exactly would it play out? Also, is it out of the question for the delegates to simply vote to change rules such as the 5 state requirement? Not trying to preach, just looking for clarification.
organ transplant analogy explained
I just addressed the rule 40(b) situation in a different comment within this thread, so in this one I'll respond to your question about my organ transplant analogy.
4 years ago, McCain won the nomination. Support for him was extremely tepid; I was amazed at how unenthused my local Republicans were about him. (Most of us RPers didn't even care if he beat Obama, since he was pro-bailouts and no conservative anyway. So we mostly didn't volunteer to help.) I'm talking county and state officials here; the people who "make the party work" at all levels. Then Sarah Palin was named as VP candidate and presto! Instant excitement (at least for most Republicans; RPers were only a little bit warmer than before since she is still a far cry from RP).
I'm not sure exactly what would have happened had McCain names another RINO as his VP instead of Palin, but it would have been pretty ugly. I'm thinking about all the "little things" which go on in campaigning, at the state and county levels: sign distribution, LTTEs, phone banking, doorbelling, etc., and just simple word-of-mouth campaigning. The energy was not there for McCain, per se, at all.
If Ron (or anyone else, for that matter) were to "win" the nomination without appealing to the party infrastructure to at least some extent, all those ordinary functions would perhaps still be performed, but only as a matter of required duty, without any enthusiasm, and if the candidacy was actually *resisted* by the infrastructure, we might see actions taken to thwart the general election campaign in behind-the-scenes ways, even if only passively: phone calls not made, letters not sent, deadlines missed, endorsements either not given or worded uninspiringly, etc. etc. etc..
It would be bad. It would be like a body rejecting a transplanted organ. Instead of working together with the new organ, the body would attack it as a foreign intrusion, seeking to destroy and/or expel it. Essentially, the same thing we're seeing right now!
To *really* win, Ron -- with us -- needs to win over the "hearts and minds" of at least most of the infrastructure, so that the "body" of the GOP will function effectively with him as the nominee. That might seem like a tall order, but it's necessary; without that, our job becomes staggeringly tough. Imagine what we're up against now but with Obama joining the fight on the Establishment side, and with the money levels going way up. Are you ready & able to quadruple your donations and volunteer work? Yeah, me neither. Nope, we gotta WIN states and WIN broad Republican party support, somehow. If not, we'll be left to take some lesser crumbs as our political reward here, no matter how many delegates we amass -- and even if we get the nomination by "stealth".
KEEP CAMPAIGNING.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.
IT would be a disaster. plain
IT would be a disaster. plain and simple. And NOT just for Ron Paul in the 2012 Presidential race. IF the Ron Paul movement was seen as trying to steal a nomination againstthe CLEAR will of the voters, every single person that assoicates with Ron Paul who runs for office for the foreseeable future will lose. You know all those gains the tea party got in 2010? Well, say goodbye to them in 2014 (those that will be left after 2012) and 2016. And it wouldn't matter at all to Ron aul since Obama would get a clean sweep in the general election. His campaign would write itself. "My opponent didn't even win a single state from his own party. Even THEY don't want him! So why wouldanyone vote for him now?" And he would be right.
Yeah Boy!
Brokered Convention! This just keeps getting gooder and gooder!
Yup! I agree...this avoids a
Yup! I agree...this avoids a Romney "too early" clean sweep, ends his "inevitability"...Furthermore, with four candidates reaching Tampa with delegates, there's really lots of room to trade and negotiate...Read about the improbable nomination of Harding in 1920, who arrived to the convention with a handful of pledged delegates and left with the GOP nomination. We're in good shape here!
Read about the changes in the
Read about the changes in the nomination process between now and then and stop embarrassing yourself.
...
...