32 votes

Great delegate news! (brokered convention)

Please go read some of my other posts on delegates before you read this.

By my count, Romney currently has 849 delegates. This includes Paul supporters who are bound to Romney, and the delegates won from last nights primary. In the remaining primaries there are a total of 556 BOUND delegates that are awarded proportionally or through winner take all. Nebraska and Montana are non-binding Caucus States. This means that if Romney wins every single primary from here on, he will have more than 1144 delegates at the convention. However, If you exclude TX and CA there are only 225 delegates left to be awarded.

Oregon - 25

Arkansas - 30

Kentucky - 42

Texas - 152

California - 169

N. Jersey - 50

N. Mexico - 20

S. Dakota - 25

Utah - 40

Current Romney delegate count: 849

849 + 25 + 30 + 42 + 50 + 20 + 25 + 40 = 1081

So if Romney wins every State except for Texas and California he will only have 1081 delegates!!

Also keep in mind that if Romney comes in second place in TX or California he will still get a small number of delegates but that would raise this number by only slightly more.

So right now, the goal should be to win Texas and California and to pick up all of the delegates in Montana and Nebraska.

But there is also another obstacle to a brokered convention. There are a total of 120 RNC delegates who are unbound at the convention. If enough of these vote for Romney this will bring his 1081 above 1144.

apparently I did the math wrong a few weeks ago and I was saying that Ron Paul will need to win the majority of the remaining primaries. I officially withdraw that statement but I still think it won't hurt to try to win states like Kentucky and N. Dakota.

So in conclusion: The best way for Ron Paul to win is to

1. Focus on winning TX and California.

2. Continue picking up as many delegates as possible in the remaining non-binding States, especially Montana and Nebraska.

3. Try to sway over the RNC delegates.

In case this method fails:

1. Get as many Ron Paul supporters elected as delegates who are bound to Romney. If we 2/3 of the delegate positions we can suspend the rules and unbind the delegates.

2. If we don't have the 2/3 required, then delegates must abstain.

Please give your thoughts.

Comment viewing options

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

I've figured out the real

I've figured out the real delegate count, guys! I've based my calculations based on:

- States that have already allocated all their delegates
- States that have allocated only delegates at the district conventions, with the rest to be allocated at state conventions (if any)
- Inside info from Paulite delegates

So, you keep on hearing the real delegate count being Romney with about 900 and Ron with a little over 100, correct?

Well, I'm about to inform you on the current situation of the delegate allocation. Romney has 562 delegates, Ron has 204 and 886 delegates are either unbound (Santorum and Gingrich delegates) or have yet to be allocated. 886 DELEGATES HAVEN'T BEEN ALLOCATED YET!

Sure, we are expecting Ron to win states like Iowa, Washington, Minnesota, Missouri, Louisiana and others big but the delegate count I calculated is the most realistic scoreboard until the multiple State Conventions to happen on Saturday and should we do well as projected in the states I mentioned, obviously, the delegate count will be even better for Ron, but we can't get ahead of ourselves and be hasty.

After Tuesday's contests...

I had expected West Virginia would offer a good chance for Ron Paul since the delegates were elected directly and Paul had exactly the same number of people running as spots available, whereas Romney had many more (and thus splitting the vote -- same reason why Paul won popular vote in Virgin Islands but Romney dominated the delegate count). Combine that with the fact that Paul voters are very motivated and Romney voters should have almost no reason to show up if they think he is the presumptive nominee, and the conclusion floored me -- Paul actually got less votes than Rick Santorum, a guy who dropped out weeks ago! What gives to the lack of Paul support when he is the *only* non-Romney candidate left (and please don't say voter fraud -- this was not even remotely a close race)?

3 days you've been here

And you don't want us to think vote fraud.. SERIOUSLY. It's so damn obvious it hurts. If they don't make it seem like Romney is hands down the candidate, then the whole illusion is lost. Not only do the media have to completely ignore Ron they have to make it seem like nobody votes for him. The same damn people behind the great illusion of 9/11 are the same Neo Con power players in the GOP who will do everything in their power to retain control. They can make people think buildings of steel can be imploded by fire.. and have the resources to pull it off. Rigging a few machines over the whole system and controlling the news coverage is child's play.

Drop the elitist attitude asap

First off - You think it's smart to attack people who are new to the site? How elitist are you that you qualify people who were part of the movement back in 2008, or before 2012? That kind of attitude really turns people off from the movement when you don't make newcomers welcomed. How do you expect Paul's support to get above 11% when you bash those who are part of it?

Voter fraud allegations need hard proof, and it may be suspect if the difference is hundreds or thousands of votes, or something that is within a few percentage points. West Virginia reports had Romney at 77,477 (69.6%) to Paul's 12,263 (11.0%) -- that's a 58.6 percentage point gap! It'd be pretty obvious if those were flipped.

Elitist attitude. I'm sorry

What brought you here again, Mr. 4 days. Most people who have been here for years know the games. Also most new people don't come here and start playing moderator of thoughts. Myself, Hell I read for months before becoming a member. Then I didn't comment like I knew everything for a long time. I took my bumps. Even left and came back. See it's not a matter of this or that. It's the presentation, and believe me most don't waste time with fakers like yourself. Me on the other hand have free time to point out the bull crap.

I'm glad you apologized, but

When you apologize you should think about the posts that are alienating several people who have asked questions that are serious, thought-out, and reasonable. You yourself have been a member for only a few months, not even since the 2012 Iowa Caucus.

I hold realistic expectations and some people cannot accept that not everything is sunshine and rainbows. "Yes men" never did anyone any good.

For what it's worth, I don't hold it against you that you took a long time to get engaged in the community once you registered. Though when you do comment, personal attacks are not in any way helpful to you, Ron Paul, or this community.

Not a single person has addressed my original comments -- why were more Ron Paul supporters not mobilized in West Virginia? If Romney keeps winning states by large margins, the math becomes insurmountable. If Ron Paul is to ever be the nominee then NOW is the time he needs his supporters to be showing up to vote -- Texas has a ton of delegates and is his home state, plus not a natural state for Romney.

But AP has Romney at 966 delegates... not 849. Thus he wins.

"The AP Updated 05-09-2012. At 7:10 pm, after May 8th's contests in IN, NC, and WV, the AP delegate projections were Romney 966, Paul 104, Gingrich 130, and Santorum 264."

If noone is correcting the AP now, and everyone is going by AP's numbers, why then should we expect that they will back Romney's numbers down to your 849?

Next, by your own math above, Romney stands to win 553 delegate. Add that to the 849 = 1402, Romney wins. If Romney does not win texas and california (not likely), He still wins because the AP is not using your 849, they are using 966

(232+966=1198 Romney wins without Cal and Tex)

I wish and hope that you are right, that there is no way that Romney can get the 1143 before the GOP convention... so please explain it to me if I am wrong.... Its clear to me, thanks to you, he will be voted in on the 1st round. Its done.

In Arizona, the "presumptive nominee has the ability to decide if he wants to seat all of Arizona's 58 delegates at the National convention, not just the 29. See my other post on this.


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

The AP delegate count is

The AP delegate count is wrong. Please see my total delegate count for Romney and Paul in my earlier posts. The AP is using projections based on how many unbound delegates they think will vote for him. My count is only the 100% confirmed delegates. The only thing that can raise his 849 number is the RNC delegates that currently plan on voting for him and that is a problem I addressed in this post and that is why the campaign should try to sway them.

Please keep in mind that reaching the goal stated above is not as simple as I made it sound. If Romney loses TX and CA and gets 1081 there are many factors that could raise this number to 1144. Here are a few:

1. The RNC delegates.

2. The few delegates that he will pick up from TX and CA even if he comes in second.

3. In the remaining Stated conventions where delegates will be allocated, even if Ron Paul picks up the majority (Which he will), Romney will still pick up a few.

These factors, unless we work hard to stop them, will likely raise Romney's number beyond 1144. But if we achieve the goal stated in the OP, his delegate number won't be very much over 1144. At that point something like abstaining will be necessary.


It doesn't matter how many delegates AP says he has

It only matters how many delegates vote for Romney at the convention. We (Ron Paul supporters) have a lot of his delegates, so his number is likely well less than the 850 some are claiming. We probably do need to take Texas and/or California though in order to keep Romney from getting the votes, and that will be extremely difficult - so let's get on this.

Here I go again, brokered vs,open

we will not have a Ron Paul nomination if the convention is brokered. Romney, maybe. Gingrich, maybe. Jeb Bush, maybe. They are all supported by the power brokers in the RNC. That is what a brokered convention will give us.

But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15


Oh, heavens

Word nazis... gotta love them. Just a quick linguistics lesson. Words are defined by 1. society, and 2. their users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention . In the contested/open/brokered convention that will result when Romney doesn't win... Ron Paul and all of his delegates will be "power brokers". Problem solved.

What exactly is a "power broker in the RNC" ?

Can you break it down nicely for me.?

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

a 'power broker' in the RNC is...

one who pushes the agenda of the establishment candidates, so that we continue to have the same dynasties,(Bush, Clinton, Roosevelt) or some offshoot of them. If the convention degrades into backroom deals,brokered by the PTB instead of an 'out in the open' process, we will not get justice, we will get injustice.

(Thank you for asking the question, Treg. No intent to throw stones or carry out Nazi tactics here, just a deep concern for the truth that sets us free) The PTB brokers are the same sort that practically shut Ron Paul out of the convention hall just last election.

But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15





for the math and encouragement!

Very nice

We still have our work cut out for us (what with the rigged election machines and all. Is there ANY way how we can get an honest tech in there to correct any built-in fraud?), but it is our best bet. We'd better put our hearts, energy, and prayers into this.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

that won't work

what we need to do is restraining orders and lawsuits to make the state go back to old fashioned paper ballots. Make the judges simply say HEY, there is a lot of evidence here and I can't rule on this now but at least I can protect the integrity of the election. The only way is to remedy the situation legally. We need to do that in california and texas to have a real chance. We know they are rigging all the primary states with the electronic vote fraud, we just need an injunction to stop it from happening in these upcoming contests.

Sounds good!

Let's lawyer up and file suits in both states. As you say, looks like this maybe a necessary to winning TX and CA. Can any other campaign expenditure be as important? So LET'S DO IT!! Doug Wead, are you listening?

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Forget about abstaining

Just vote for Paul at the first ballot. Why this is not an option? After all you are the delegate and the reason you went to Tampa was to voice YOUR vote.

Do not do this! They will

Do not do this! They will replace you.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Can you show me the rule

that says you will be replaced? I am just curious, because maybe I am wrong and if that is the case then just abstain.

Do not do this! They will

Do not do this! They will replace you.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Do not do this! They will

Do not do this! They will replace you.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

I wonder about that because

I wonder about that because wouldn't that mean that Santorum and Gingrich delegates would do the same thing and potentially win it for Romney?

"I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove."

you do NOT need to change the

you do NOT need to change the rules, abstains carry one full vote strength, PLEASE review the information i provided here http://www.dailypaul.com/230735/doug-wead-joins-stossel-in-p... see UPDATE III concerning abstaining rules

That was a great post. But I

That was a great post. But I never ruled out abstaining in this post. I think abstaining will be necessary. But if Romney wins TX and Ca he may have about 1400 delegates, which means a lot of delegates would need to abstain to deny him the nomination. If we can stop him from getting the 1144 in the first place, abstaining won't be necessary. But if we can at least not let his delegate count go very much above 1144 (lets say 1190), this will make the abstaining method a whole lot easier.