38 votes

Tell The Truth ~ You've Doubted Ron Paul's Delegate Strategy ~ Haven't You? >VIDEO Awaiting Embed<

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5Sfgd4gxqw&feature=related

Doug Wead on The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC 2/10/12. Ron Paul will be the winner on the correct delegate counts. The Establishment have to realize and appreciate his achievement.

******************************************************

Common Misconception About GOP Primary Delegate Counts - Ron Paul's Real Counts
"Delegates are assigned according to how people voted." is a common misconception about the primary delegate selection process.

In some states, yes, that is true. In others, it's a bunch of crap. I keep seeing Ron Paul's delegate counts on various main stream media station that have it all wrong. Fox has it at 23 and CNN has it at about 30. These numbers are completely inaccurate and show that the main stream media doesn't have a clue about how to calculate delegate counts.

Even though we didn't win the straw poll vote, Ron Paul is probably getting most of the delegates from IA, MN, CO, MA, and WA. In NV, they can vote to unbind the delegates are the state convention, so there is a possibility he could get most of those as well. There is also a strong possibility that he could pick up quite a few from WY.

In IA there are 28 possible delegates. It sounds like the organization was good, so Ron Paul could get around 20..

In NH, there are 10 possible BOUND delegates, Ron Paul got 3. Huntsman got 1. Since he dropped out that delegate is UNBOUND. We may get that one. NH has BOUND delegates, so the only way Ron Paul could get some of these is if it goes to a brokered convention and there are multiple rounds of voting..

In SC, Ron Paul didn't get any delegates. Grinch got 23 BOUND delegates. If Grinch drops out soon they become UNBOUND. If Ron Paul supporters are organized they could end up picking up some/most of them.

http://the-opinionated-fool.blogspot.com/2012/03/misconcepti...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I haven't doubted but I have

I haven't doubted but I have not understood. politically I am a nooblet and I admit it freely. Up until June 30 of last year I had my father to discuss issues with and he was a stand up guy with little tolerance for bs so I trusted his view. I realize now I should have been digging into issues more myself because I find myself sadly lacking in political savvy and the willingness to tolerate bs just like my good father. The bad should be exposed and the good should prevail.

This election feel different from any I remember. This time I actually feel like I am fighting for my life not just choosing a president.

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

Don't just vote this

Don't just vote this up...
Don't just bump this...
Forward the link to your list...
Thanks!

Doug WEEEEEEEEEEEEEED

Doug WEEEEEEEEEEEEEED

I haven't doubted it... Of

I haven't doubted it... Of course, I realize that the establishment is willing to cheat and lie and do whatever it takes to ensure Romney is secured in the nomination, and the media acts as if the general election has already started. But I knew they were going to do that, so it isnt just about that. I think the campaign is doing a great job pulling this delegate strategy off, growing the movement, and spreading the message.

Ron will support his Delegates. In it to win.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD88NpcvWf0&feature=youtu.be

Party on!

Free includes debt-free!

No doubt here

I've contributed quite a bit of money to Ron Paul's 2012 campaign post Super-Tuesday, and I plan to continue those contributions through Tampa. The greater the odds, the greater my optimism.

Ron Paul or no one at all.

Ron Paul's word is like gold

Ron Paul's word is like gold

—"Criticizing Ron Paul for

—"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

Ron Paul Never Got Any Bills Passed? Good.
Here’s an interesting attack that some have been using against Ron Paul lately: Ron Paul was only able to get 1 out of 600+ bills passed in the thirty years he’s been in congress. This shows, they say, that while some of Ron Paul’s ideas are good, the man cannot get people to work with him and get behind those ideas. He just wouldn’t be able to get anything done.

Hmmm. Let’s take a look at some of the ideas that congress has been able to get behind: The Patriot Act, bailouts, the continual raising of the debt ceiling, No Child Left Behind, illegal wars, the NDAA (indefinite detention of Americans without a trial), etc. With this kind of people in congress, I think I would be suspicious of Paul’s bills if congress had gotten behind them.
Somehow, Ron Paul is to blame for congress not voting for any of his good ideas. Perhaps Ron Paul should have mixed it up a bit. If every once in a while he would have written some big government bills with patriotic-sounding names, he could have gotten some of those passed, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. After all, it’s all about getting things done, right?

the user "lib"

have the rest of you had enough of his lib's lip? see his comments in this thread (and just about every other thread), that are nothing but negative crap.

if you've had enough of lib, then go to his comment list here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/mycomments/42086

use the mouse-wheel button to click on each of the last 20 or 30 comments of his (or more)

which will open up a new browser tab for each.

then go to each tab, and vote down his comments.

Well lib isn't a Paul

Well lib isn't a Paul supporter, from what I can tell, and he/she hates Rand too...

poor lib

poor lib

BMWJIM's picture

Government Pawn!

It is what it is! It felt quite good to give all the thumbs down I could. I'll give the rest tomorrow!

Jim

1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

I've seen plenty of doubt on

I've seen plenty of doubt on these pages... most apparent in the 'Run Third Party' type threads. As for me personally, it depends on what is meant by doubting it.

If 'doubting it' means thinking that it may not garner the nomination for RP, then count me among the doubters - though not among the skeptics since I believe it very likely will work, especially at getting the convention to a brokered state. If that happens, I think RP stands the best chance of anyone. If he doesn't come out of a brokered convention as the nominee, the GOP is going to have some very, very bad publicity arise from such a convention. It will be quite clear that the establishment pulled strings, dirty dealt, and rigged their supposedly democratic convention system. The RP delegates will walk out in mass... and there will be a lot of them for the photo-op if there is a hijacked brokered convention.

But if 'doubting it' means that it is a bad strategy and that there are other better strategies to be employed, then there is not a fiber in my body that is a doubter. I believe this strategy is brilliant, playing to the Liberty Movement's strength (passionate, motivated and exceedingly active supporters) and not to its weaknesses (outnumbered by passionless, unmotivated and barely active brain dead numbskulls).

No more doubt, it is fact as said by his own son.

i think paul just holding rallies until Gary Johnson is offically the lp nominee, then he will drop out though it is as good as him dropping out because everyone is paying attention to romney and obama anyway.

it is foolish to think otherwise.

jj

Funny on how I am getting downvoted for what Rand

is saying as well - no more race and no chance of brokered convention. Essentially, a done deal.

jj

Maybe...

Rand is playing the devil's advocate card that the neocons want to believe and it just might make them put there guns down, so to speak, if they think the opposition (Paul camp) might believe (but not really) that they can't win.
Maybe it's some stealth war subconscious intelligence manuever???
(I am not in the military so there might be an actual term for this)

Rand doesn't play politics on his own.

So he has no gameplan of his own. So, you are thinking too much into this looking for some reasoning to explain that his actions are meant to be anti-establishment.

Unfortunately, I don't think Rand is wanting any cards of his own or playing any political games with the neocons as he should. I think he is just going with the flow of the current leaders.

jj

If it means anything...

I haven't voted down any of your posts here. And I'm still discussing this with you... though I'm not entirely sure why you would continue to discuss any issues here in light of what you write.

He's just holding rallies?

He's just holding rallies? That is all he is doing? Just going here and there and standing in front of crowds for a quick rush... ah... ok.

Well, I think you are wrong. And I think this because I have been involved in these processes and have seen the activity of both his campaign and the grass roots activists. Furthermore, I have seen him winning my home state (Missouri) based on that very same delegate strategy.

And your evidence for the counter point of view is.... ?

Yes, it is just rallies and nothing more.

Good he won one state, he didn't win others and won't win much more, especially when you see his polls in gop are approx 10%, while 20% if he was an independent.

The evidence is in the facts, polls, and just plain common sense.
And the campaign doing nothign to get media attention, while folllowers wasting time emailing to general media emails that media does not read.
So, since the campaign dropped it with media, you should take the hint and get what that means. No, the campaign is not poor and to be called out as victims.

jj

Interesting Response

I point out that the campaign was very active where I live... and you call this an exception. Okay, but it certainly challenges your contention that they are doing "nothing". The delegate strategy (which is what this thread is about) was not to win states, but delegates. Furthermore, it was to send RP supporters to conventions, regardless of their bound or unbound status.

In addition, polls are not the 'end all, be all' of the delegate strategy. In fact, they are little better than meaningless to the strategy. The idea wasn't to gain delegates in order to get media attention. The idea was to get delegates and thus place ever mounting pressure on the GOP. Of course the ultimate goal was to to overthrow the establishment and get RP the nomination. That may not happen, and (by the way) I haven't been able to watch the Rand Paul interview because my media player is all jacked up. So I haven't any idea whether he said something earth shaking.

But what is rather interesting here to me is that you seem to want RP to run as an independent.. as if he will fare better with the media at this point as an independent. If anyone is living in a fantasy world about the political realities we face, it is you. Independents are nearly universally ignored by the media, cycle after cycle... why would RP fare any better?

As for this, "No, the campaign is not poor and to be called out as victims."
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Could you rephrase the point?

BMWJIM's picture

LoL! I've NEVER

Doubted. I'm just tired of the NEWBIES sowing doubt amongst the faithful. Luckily , the faithful have told the newbies to suck a big one. LoL!!!

Jim

1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

Initially I was doubtful but

Initially I was doubtful but the more I hear of the successes its had the more optimistic I get about his chances.

I've always doubted this strategy

and still do. But I am still supporting and still optimistic.

h-daddy

I think the delegate strategy won it for Reagan

Dr. Paul was a Texas delegate for Reagan in 1980.

The delegate process requires popular support. It depends on us, not the Campaign.

Free includes debt-free!

We can only wait and see, but

We can only wait and see, but why count on it?

Would it not be wise to have some sort of back-up strategy in place if the unknown future doesn't go our way? In other words, all our eggs should not be in the same basket.

Why not put Dr. Paul on a third party, just in case?

" Doth not wisdom cry?" Proverbs 8:1

but you won't hear the MSM mentioning it .

Many people I speak to about the Ron Paul campaign think I am a NUT . " How could Ron Paul possibly win the 2012 GOP nomination when he only has 61 delegates ? "

These are the ' Zombie-Parrot Puppets ' that I run into all the time when I tell them why I support Ron Paul for president . They have NO IDEA on how the political process works EXCEPT for what their Liberal Lamestream Media tells them to believe as being the Truth . I Truely believe that Congressman Paul will be our next President of these United States simply because politics today has failed as it has for the last 100 years . The Liberal Media won't tell you this , because their 'handliers' won't permit it .

You can get 100 to 1 odds on it right now on Intrade

3000 shares available at $0.10 per share. If Ron Paul loses, then you're out the $300. If Ron Paul becomes President, you get $30,000. Since Ron Paul is going to be President, this seems to be a safe bet.