The Problem with a Delegate Victory
Submitted by Khomar on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 13:53Let us just assume that what we are hearing from the ground is correct: that while Ron Paul is not getting the popular vote, he is getting the majority of actual delegates for the convention. This will present a big problem when it comes time for the convention that we would do well to ponder.
Consider the scenario: Romney and Santorum both come into the convention in a virtual tie (or at least the top two candidates). Then suddenly, from out of nowhere, Ron Paul gets all of the votes and wins. To those who are not savvy to the way the election works, this will come with quite a shock, and not a small number of people will be very upset. They will see it as "Ron Paul cheated", and we know the mainstream media will be more than happy to foster this attitude. They will not be educating them on how the primary system actually works. This would be a huge PR issue that could sink his chances against Obama before he even started campaigning.
We need to consider how we can prepare people for this eventuality. One thought -- especially in those states that have already voted -- is to encourage people to at least consider Ron Paul as a valid option, even if he is not their first choice. Second, we should start to educate people on how the primary process actually works and that delegates do not necessarily reflect the results of the vote.
This also shows the need for the campaign to win at least a few states. Perception is huge, and people need to see that Ron Paul is a valid contender with real support in numbers. With these things in place, people might be more willing to fall in behind the movement if/when we spring our attack.
Do you really think that people so ignorant and apathetic
that they believe everything the MSM says, would actually "revolt" against anything? These are the same people who don't mind being groped by the TSA. If they were the type of people who would "revolt", then they would have done the research necessary to understand the delegate process. If they're too lazy to do that, I don't think we'll have to worry about them resisting anything WE do. Of course the neocons in the GOP will do everything they can to change the rules, but there's not enough of them to resist us. We don't have to win the hearts and minds of the masses, we just have to win the hearts and minds of the people who care enough to act.
Poorly-Educated vs Most-Educated
For years the baby boomers could say: "How were we supposed to know what the candidates were really like? All we had was the newspaper and television broadcasts."
Today the Internet exists. Those excuses are invalid. If someone is too lazy to research the records of these candidates and then makes an uneducated decision during the primary, it's not our job to then educate them as to how the election process has been working for centuries.
It's THEIR responsibility to learn the candidates. It's THEIR responsibility to understand the process.
Yeah I can understand why people might be surprised if Paul wins ... Ignorance: The SOLE reason we have such poor representatives, poor levels of accountability, and a mostly free country that has turned into an empirical police state in the making.
I just don't buy the premise of this post: that so many people are so completely oblivious to the process that they would somehow be SHOCKED into not voting for Paul in the general. We don't need to waste our time here. If paul wins the delegates and the nomination - all baby boomer republicans will be onboard having been spoon-fed the republican slogan "Anyone but Obama" from the establishment cheerleaders, being Rush, Sean, Glenn, etc....
Lets just keep scraping up delegates and continue being the MOST WELL-INFORMED voting block in our nation's history! And then teach the people we come across bit by bit.
Only Ron Paul in 2012 my friends.
Cheers.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
- George Washington
Who cares?
If Ron can actually win that way, then we should be happy. He's probably not going to win the more traditional way.
Sorry but that's your take on it.
I think you're off your rockers.
He's not rivaling Obama in National polls for nothing.. Republicraps will get in line like the good little sheep they are. Don't worry about them and for fucks sake.. Don't bring it to their attention to what we're doing..
Only a moron who lacks strategic sense would wave a flag here we come to kick your ass!
Get ready!
Some of you people are thick.
Delegates win.. Here's how.
www.ronpaul2012.com/delegate/
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
It isn't like the campaign isn't transparent.
So, yeah. Tell people the strategy. Get them jazzed up that Ron Paul might take the nomination without winning primaries because his voter base is jazzed up enough to take the caucuses. I've been trying to say this for a while, but nobody wanted to listen because all they could think about was winning on the surface. Well, now that those dreams have been dashed, lets focus on what is really going on. Inform people that Ron Paul is winning delegates, and that the popular vote doesn't matter if you don't get boots on the ground to be delegates. But at the end of the day, we cannot account for the ignorance of everyone. So this post is a little silly to assume that winning the nomination will somehow be a bad thing. Just tell the truth and let the cards fall where they do. Nothing is going to change that.
Good topic
Good topic - I wish people wouldn't vote this topic down and instead discuss the ramifications of the RP game plan.
I've been considering the blowback from this strategy for awhile now. I think that most of the Republican base that didn't vote for RP will feel disenfranchised and cheated if he somehow gets the nomination without winning some states.
I would understand their anger and think it would legitimately undermine RPs credibility as a candidate, regardless what the rules and process dictate. This is why winning is critical.
The arguement I use against those people that would be upset, would be to ask them if someone that wasn't running and someone they liked (like Jeb or Christie) was awarded the nomination at the convention, would they feel the same way. I'm guessing they wouldn't.
There is no problem! It's Fair! That's the game!
That's the good Doctors strategy! The American people are, I'm sorry to say it, TOO dumb to know what's good for them. We have to do it this way to save this country and it's lawful and fair. They will be thanking us in the long run.
There is no other type of victory
This is the gist of it.
When past candidates have won by a landslide in the popular vote, they still had to have the number of delegates as the process dictated at that time.
FIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!
If our "strategy" pays off without any outright state wins
Prepare for either a "change in the rules" at the last minute to prevent Paul from winning even with delegates, or they allow him to win and then throw a ringer in as an "Independent" in the general election (hello, Donald Chump, anyone?).
At that point it is a brokered convention
NONE of the candidates are going to have enough delegates even on the second vote to win.
Normally they throw someone in, that everyone can rally around.
Probably Palin (thats why she wants the primaries not to end), Jeb Bush (neocon choice) and maybe a Rand Paul.
None of the current candidates will get the nomination.
Even if Santorum and Romney combine forces for a Pres/VP combo, they will not have enough votes because gingrich and Paul people will say no.
So you will have a person who was not one of the candidates be chosen.
I think it could very well be Rand Paul. With the exception of Romney delegates, there are enough defectors from Santorum and Newt to give Rand Paul the win. Obviously, Ron Paul would back that.
I can't imagine someone from
I can't imagine someone from outside winning the nomination. A big part of the primary season is supposed to be a vetting process; it is too big of a risk to throw someone in against Obama who hasn't been vetted very well (if at all) by the GOP.
I would guess that one of the current candidates will get the nomination in the case of a brokered convention, and I would go so far as to say that it would have to be either Romney or Paul, because I can't imagine other delegates rallying around Santorum or Gingrich.
"The principle can be established that for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action."
-- Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus
Why are we discussing this...
Just become a precinct delegate. and stop talking about anything further than that...
Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
In The LORD Jesus Christ;
Dave
"where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty." 2 Cor. 3:17
http://www.lionandlambministry.com
Yes Yes Yes
...We have to get delegates to have a delegate strategy.
The campaign knows what it's doing. Do a little research on how the process works and you'll see that this isn't some kind of "loophole" or "trick," it's the way the GOP set up its own primary system a long time ago.
Remember that brokered conventions were once the norm. Only in recent decades has it become normal for someone to lock up the nomination months before the convention - and that's only because they all play for the same team and so no one exploits the system to force a brokered convention. Well, we are, because we don't play for their team, and we want to win.
So, again, I say don't think of the delegate strategy as some kind of long-shot or weirdo trick. This is how GOP primaries SHOULD BE, and how they always were until fairly recently. The alternative is the weirdo trick, not what we're doing.
The way I understand it is
The way I understand it is that, we're not planning to surprise everyone with delegates in the FIRST round of voting, but rather we want a brokered convention in which ALL the delegates are unbound in the second round. It wouldn't seem like an underhanded approach if Ron Paul won a majority of delegate votes there.
"The principle can be established that for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action."
-- Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus
Not enough unpledged
delegates to cause such a giant stir. While the Campaign may have taken tons more delegates than the average fox news zombie is currently aware off...Paul needs to start winning states to remain in the race to get to that point.
WITH OUT A BIG DAY ON SUPER TUESDAY WE CANT WIN ANYTHING
Alaska (27)
Georgia (76)
Idaho (32)
Massachusetts (41)
North Dakota (28)
Ohio (66)
Oklahoma (43)
Tennessee (58)
Vermont (17)
Virginia (49)
437 delegates
Let's win Texas and California.
http://www.ronpaulvotecount.org/voting/voting%20affidavit.pdf
IMO...
...we have a very good shot at winning Alaska, Idaho, and N. Dakota outright. And a good chance at winning Virginia if we get some momentum from a win in either Washington or Michigan before Super Tuesday. And then a good shot at placing well in some of the others.
Agree on those states
What about Vermont? I haven't heard much but if its anything like New Hampshire or Maine we could be in good shape there as well.
Hopefully the Newt and Santorum leaders will push their followers to vote for Paul in Virginia.
It will be just like in Nevada in 2008
That's why they shut down the Nevada convention in 2008. We had the delegates but then they said that it wouldn't be fair to end up going against the majority of the voters who didn't pick Ron Paul.
It's a double edge sword though. We don't want to let too many people understand the process because then we can't use it to our advantage. But if it's a foreign concept to most people, we will not have the mandate that we will need. People will feel that Ron Paul won by a technicality and he isn't the legitimate candidate for the Republicans. We just need to win the votes and the delegates then there is no second guessing.
so...
vote fraud and blackouts aren't considered cheating?
No, they most certainly are
No, they most certainly are cheating. That is entirely the point. We know that winning by delegates is not cheating, but do you really believe that the press will not try to paint it as such anyway? They have already seen that facts and right-and-wrong mean nothing to them; they will lie, cheat, and steal to keep Ron Paul out. Accusing their opponents of the very sins they are committing is standard practice for them.
I am just saying that we need to consider what comes after the primaries. It will do us no good if we win the nomination only to lose the national election because the Republican voters did not buy in.
Actual delegate allocation
Actual delegate allocation from the state conventions should make it in the news at least somewhere, so just point doubters to those articles.
that won't work
The delegates will be pledged to other candidates, and Maine's (among others) are unpledged. RP's delegate count per the media will be the pledged delegates, and that count will be very low all the way to the convention unless we WIN SOME STATES.
Although Maine's delegates are unpledged, and thus won't give RP's media delegate count a bump, the psychological effect of winning there should not be underestimated. It will sow the seeds of future votes won, and hopefully additional states -- some with pledged delegates.
This is an important thread; I hope everyone will give it some real thought. Apply the Golden Rule. Imagine you're a longtime GOP activist and not a die-hard RPer. How would YOU react to an RP "stealth delegates" win?
The average Republican voter might not care all that much, but the party infrastructure will. I know a lot of them personally. We need to show that RP2012 is a winner before they'll buy in -- and our job in the general will be incredibly hard if they aren't at least tepidly on our side.
KEEP CAMPAIGNING!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.
And what if Jeb Bush or Chris
And what if Jeb Bush or Chris Christie were nominated at the convention? It's totally possible. No, the fact of the matter is that the convention delegates will be made up of hardcore party insiders (as seen by Joe Sixpack), and they (us) know what they are doing, picking the best candidate to beat Obama! There will be a small splattering of discontent, but it will QUICKLY be forgotten about and the attention will be turned to beating Obama! This will NOT be an issue, except to a few hundred hardcore NeoCons that NEED their walking papers handing to them!
Good thought.
Good thought.
It doesn't matter what people
It doesn't matter what people understand or not. Have you not been watching the elections thus far hahah.
As long as we continue to vote without losing our enthusiasm, and continue to become delegates, Ron Paul will win.
You are not understanding
You are not understanding what I am saying. Let us say that Ron Paul wins the nomination -- a distinct possibility with the delegate strategy. What then? We will need the support of the Republican voting base to defeat Obama in the final election. We need to consider that a surprise victory at the convention -- especially knowing that the media will not be kind to Dr. Paul -- could likely backfire when it comes to the final election unless we prepare the ground before it. We need to get people ready for a Ron Paul candidacy to overcome all of the attacks the establishment will throw in our way.
The whole "Republican base"
thing will not be a problem. They will get behind Paul if he is the nominee.
How about the Democrats and
How about the Democrats and Independent voters ?
I think they will make up a very important voting block, which should compensate for any "Republican" revolt ?
RP will win
If you understand the delegate process then everyone will be able to see he is a winner. What is happening with Newt and Santorum staying in the race is actually a good thing we are hoping for a broker convention.
Absolutely, I agree, but do
Absolutely, I agree, but do the Republicans at large understand that? That is the thrust of my point. We need to consider the hearts and minds of the rest of the party and make the transition to support for Ron Paul easier for them.
I mention this because of my own experience with my parents. My dad is somewhat anti-Paul right now (I have been slowly chipping away at this), so if there is even the appearance of "a cheat", it will only make him completely against Ron Paul. You and I know that Ron Paul is doing everything completely by the book, but perception does not always match up with reality, and the media will do everything they can to make it look illegitimate. We need to be aware of this possibility.