25 votes

Don't we already have five states?

Hey guys, been seeing a lot of things saying that we NEED to win Nebraska in order to have a five state plurality for the convention in August. Now, I do agree that we should win as many delegates as possible at Nebraska (obviously) but don't we already have five states with pluralities?

According to the real delegate count 2012, we have pluralities in:

Colorado
Iowa
Maine
Minnesota
Louisiana

With possible pluralities in:
Oklahoma
Nevada

Am I missing something?

Comment viewing options

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

We DON'T Have Colorado.

We have 13-14 of the 36 delegates. The campaign sometimes includes Santorum people in their counts, but they're just being polyannish. Especially as some of these Santorum people have told me they'd vote for Obama over Paul (because of foreign policy).

SteveMT's picture

The Capitol Column 7/10: Ron Paul ALREADY HAS 5 STATES!!!

[Is this already a done deal? Where is the official word from the GOP or the campaign on this?]

Ron Paul faithful: Nebraska or bust
Paul supporters are prepping for a big showdown in Nebraska. A lot is at stake, as the Texas congressman could qualify for a presidential nomination at the GOP convention in August.
Natalie Littlefield - Tuesday, July 10, 2012

This weekend will be Ron Paul’s last opportunity to get the delegates he needs to qualify for a presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in August.

Mr. Paul already has a plurality of delegates from Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Iowa and Louisiana. Now Mr. Paul needs a plurality of support from Nebraska’s 32 delegates in the last state to hold its convention for delegates.

Accordingly, Ron Paul supporters are planning their grassroots efforts to make sure this weekend’s convention goes as well as possible for their candidate. According to The Daily Paul, Mr. Paul’s supporters have laid out a three-step plan that uses their successful planning in Maine as a template.

Read more: http://www.capitolcolumn.com/news/ron-paul-faithful-nebraska...

Read more: http://www.capitolcolumn.com/news/ron-paul-faithful-nebraska...

Denise B's picture

Don't forget Texas also...

I know that the campaign is being very quiet about Texas, but that fact alone leads me to believe we did very well there...several different accounts have implied the same thing...Lets hope we get Nebraska and it is the 6th or 7th state (after Louisiana gets corrected)!

Mass?

Didn't Ron Paul get plurality in Massachusetts?

no

He had a majority of the CD delegates, but there were still several other at-large delegates and they were all for Romney. Even if the ousted delegates get reinstated, Romney has a majority.

SteveMT's picture

Right. Like Nevada 22 of 25 delegates are for Ron Paul!

Paul takes 22 Nevada GOP delegates; Romney gets three
By LAURA MYERS - Posted: May 6, 2012 | 8:32 a.m.
Updated: May 6, 2012 | 12:48 p.m.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/paul-takes-22-neveda-gop-delegates-...

We have pluralities in

We have pluralities in numerous states, even in states where our delegates are "bound" to Mitt Romney. For example, Nevada and Virginia.

Iowa, Minnesota, Maine, and Louisiana are definitely ours. Nevada and Virginia, however, are supposedly "bound" to Romney, so they aren't considered to be a state where we can use to nominate Ron as President. Now if delegates are not really bound to certain candidates, then it is a whole different story as we'll have plenty of states lined up to nominate Ron, and that should be our main focus hear.

If you live in Nebraska, the final state to hold its state convention, PLEASE tell your friends to attend and support the good doctor. To guarantee our 5th and final state needed to nominate Ron as a presidential nominee, Nebraska liberty delegates need to prevail.

Don't sit at home and think that delegates are all unbound for some reason, let's make it a guarantee so that there are no complaints.

Plurality vs. majority

A plurality simply means you have more than the other guys. If there are thirty at stake, and you have only 14 while two others have 8 each, then YOU have the plurality.

No 50%+1 needed.

To answer the question, yes, we have those, and some others as well. If you haven't figured out which ones by now, I'm not going to tell you. We have delegates at stake and we don't need to lose them.

Nomination to be the Nominee

Has anyone checked to see what the process is for determining a plurality? I assume, given the huge numbers of unbound delegates, that each state delegation has to vote for whom to enter into nomination because no one knows what that count would be.

No one I've read ever talks about this process as having any issues with binding. All the references to binding have to do with voting for the nominee from among the already nominated candidates for the nomination, not for who to nominate as candidates for the nomination. Complicated.

In other words, anyone who is anti-Romney, or mad at the GOP for the way it treated delegates, or who supports Ron Paul, could see this as a chance to make sure Ron Paul is on the ballot for the nomination. It would put them in a better bargaining position, too, as the Romney camp would probably feel the need to negotiate.

Somebody check the bylaws.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

I've asked

I've asked the same question. 'Neverquit' was going to post an explanation a couple of weeks ago, but either I missed it or he/she hasn't posted it.

It's confusing, and I'm hoping that confusion isn't going to be something the GOP can use to wrest control back of the plurality states that Ron Paul has.

Virginia is a possible plurality

It's another state like Colorado, we won't know until they get on the floor because a couple of the delegates, it is unclear how they would vote.

In the most optimistic scenario, there could be pluralities in 10 states. That would have to include Arizona in addition to the other states mentioned. But I don't even know if there is a formal challenge to the RNC on the AZ delegation.

With 10 states plurality, I believe a roll-call vote can be requested.

Is it true we have

the plurality of delegates from Nevada. But they are bound to vote for Romney? Is this why no one mentions Nevada as the fifth state?

It's time! Rand Paul 2016!

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way!"

yes

22 of their 28 delegates are Ron Paul supporters. The other 6 are Romney supporters. 14 of the Ron Paul supporters are bound to Romney.

too early to say about Colorado

The "real delegate count" website isn't a good source of information. Colorado is undecided so far. There is a split between Romney, Paul, and Santorum delegates. Technically right now, Romney has more than any of the other candidates. But if most of Santorum's delegates end up voting for Ron Paul, then Paul would have a plurality (and even possibly a majority). If they go to Romney, then he easily gets a majority. One would think there's a chance some of them vote for Ron Paul, since they did a little bit of teaming up at the state convention against Romney. But that was just a few days after Santorum had dropped out and they were still bitter about losing to Romney, so their attitudes at the national convention will (or at least may) be quite different. This should be counted as a possibility, but I'm pretty confident that at least 1 or 2 of Santorum's are already planning to vote Romney, so Ron Paul would probably need a sweep of the rest of them, and that may be tough to do.

Louisiana and Oklahoma are still technically in doubt due to the competing slates being offered. My bet is that the Ron Paul side wins the dispute in Louisiana but loses the dispute in Oklahoma.

Nevada will depend on how the binding rules work. Ron Paul has the majority of delegates, but most are bound to Romney. If they're still allowed to nominate Ron Paul, then he easily hits the 5 state threshold (Oregon would also be a state in this category). If they're not allowed to nominate him since they're bound to another candidate, then Nebraska may very well be necessary as the 5th state. People have put forward arguments on both sides of the question as to whether Nevada will count, but no one knows for 100% certain what the RNC interpretation will be.

I'm sure whichever favors Romney

Response to Shazad and ecard71...

Shazad, your analysis is, as usual, thoughtful and persuasive. I do think that, if Oklahoma is needed for Dr. Paul's 5th state (in other words, if we lose Nebraska, and if Colorado and Nevada don't work out), some accommodation will be reached so that we wind up with a plurality there. The solution might be to discredential both the "inside" and "parking lot" delegations, for that would leave us controlling 9 of the 15 delegates chosen at the CD level if Santorum and Gingrich release their delegates (and I think that Gov. Romney has sufficient leverage over them to make it happen).

Gov. Romney knows that it will be difficult to prevail over President Obama in November without significant Liberty Movement support. He is also aware (because he is an intelligent and perceptive man) that it is important to us that our delegates be allowed to vote for Dr. Paul, and to hear him speak to us in his own words, in Tampa. Rand Paul's endorsement did not happen in a vacuum; rather, it indicates that the two campaigns have been discussing the 2012 endgame, and that "understandings" have been reached. If Dr. Paul is one state short going into Tampa (and I am already putting Louisiana in our column), Gov. Romney will use his influence to extend an olive branch in the form of the 5th state.

Speaking for myself, I would see this olive branch as a gracious, classy move that would make me more inclined to support Gov. Romney in November, especially when combined with a prominent, uncensored speech for Dr. Paul (which will happen) and a VP selection of Rand Paul (which might happen). I suspect that many Liberty movement supporters would feel likewise, and I think that capturing the bulk of our support for November is a major strategic goal of the Romney campaign.

I agree with you, ecard71, that Gov. Romney will effectively control the Credentials and Rules Committees in Tampa. However, as I discuss above, the interpretation that "favors Romney" is, from Romney's point of view, the one that allows us to place Dr. Paul's name into nomination.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

I was thinking somewhat similarly

If Ron Paul doesn't get 5 states, Romney wins and Ron Paul supporters are mad. If Ron Paul does get 5 states, Romney wins, and Ron Paul supporters are somewhat or even significantly less upset with him. There's an argument that the latter is better for Romney.

One tough thing for this scenario is that we may not know how Colorado will vote (for nomination purposes) until well after the Oklahoma issue would have been decided. They will know how binding affects the nomination process though, and if that is not decided in Ron Paul's favor, then Oklahoma becomes extremely important. From Ron Paul's recent comments, it's clear (in my opinion) that he believes the binding rules will not allow states like Nevada and Oregon to count toward getting his name in nomination. But he could be wrong. Many people have made good arguments that his interpretation is incorrect.

I think Rand Paul's chances of getting a VP nod are going down. I keep hearing Pawlenty and Jindal - and there's always a lot of talk about Portman and Rubio. Paul's name really isn't mentioned much in these discussions anymore.

As for a speech, I still don't know what to expect at this point. The schedule for the convention is going to be planned out well in advance, and Ron Paul's participation in it will obviously be a big point of discussion. Will he get an official speaking slot? If he gets his name into nomination, he's allowed to speak for 15 minutes (separate from the rest of the planned program). I can't personally imagine him getting up to speak twice at the convention. Maybe they'll ensure he gets his name in nomination, and that 15 minute speech will be his only appearance. Or maybe they'd have a trade where he doesn't get nominated but he gets a longer speech in a better slot (and maybe a Rand speech along with his, if that's not already planned). Whether he gets his name in nomination or not, unbound delegates and delegates who are bound to him are allowed to vote for him - it just doesn't count in the official total if he's not nominated. No one is going to suddenly be allowed to vote for him if he is nominated that wouldn't if he wasn't nominated. I wonder what he would prefer if these options were presented.

Also, I'm confident that the RNC is going to hold strong to the binding rules, and that delegates bound to Romney will be required to vote for him. If Ron Paul's side is hoping for an olive branch from the Romney side, but his delegates aren't going to reciprocate and vote for Romney when required, that doesn't seem like a very good deal. The RNC and Romney's team don't want an argument in every state delegate caucus at the convention with Ron Paul supporters refusing to vote for Romney. If they get the sense that Ron Paul supporters who are bound to Romney are not going to be cooperative, it will hurt Ron Paul's chances of getting to share his message at the convention.

Another thing that will hurt his chances of getting to share his message is suing the RNC. For as much as the Lawyers for Ron Paul (I know they're not officially affiliated with him but they reflect incredibly poorly on him and the movement) say that there are no possible negative ramifications for their lawsuit, they are wrong. No, the RNC is not going to strip the plaintiffs of their spots as delegates (very few of the plaintiffs are delegates in the first place, but that's beside the point). But for every dollar and every minute that is spent by the RNC defending themselves against this lawsuit, chances of them being conciliatory toward Ron Paul and allowing him to give a grand speech go down. I don't know by how much, or what the exchange rate is on energy expended on this lawsuit versus probability of Ron Paul speaking at the convention, but it's not zero.

That was longer than I expected it to be, but oh well. Any thoughts or comments?

Too Charitable ........

I think you may be being too charitable to those who Ron Paul is up against. I have no doubt that Romney's forces completely, unreasonably, single-mindedly want nothing less than to humiliate Ron Paul. They can't be trusted (we surely know that much already??). I've no doubt they will do everything to smooth-talk/suggest/deceive Ron Paul people into believing that somehow being "nice" to Romney may result in some small concession. It's a strategic "goes-without-saying" - of course they'll try it on! Don't fall for it! Ron Paul supporters must fight every inch of the way to get any real concessions - and in doing so, whether by lawyers, rules, weight of delegate numbers, sheer people power or whatever - Ron Paul could still take this nomination. Going for anything less is a council of despair, guaranteeing nothing will change. For those who may consider Romney as bad as, if not worse than, Obama, going for less than full effort is not an option.

I give them the benefit of the doubt

since I'm in that camp and I know they're not nearly as malignant as they're often made out to be here.

I can see an argument that you may not get a ton of concessions even if you play nice, though I don't really agree with it. But one thing that I am extremely confident of is that the more people try to turn the convention into a fight about who will win the nomination, the fewer concessions will be gained and the harder Republicans will fight against this movement in the future (also, the more you will get blamed if Romney loses in November, whether fairly or unfairly). I don't want that to be the case, because I think it will be bad for both you and the Republican party.

The delegate numbers just don't come close to adding up. Ron Paul supporters will likely be in the range of 20% of the total voting delegation. About 1/4 to 1/3 of them will also be bound to vote for Romney. No matter who they vote for (and even if they break the rules and the RNC allows them to), Romney is going to win. The final margin of victory in the delegate count is almost surely going to require 4 digits to represent. If the situation on the ground was different, a different strategy might be advisable. Accepting this is not defeatism.

Some responses, Shazad...

You are right about Colorado; I suspect that, if there is doubt about the outcome, Oklahoma will become state #5, as no harm is done if Colorado winds up being state #6.

Concerning the Convention schedule, I suspect that Dr. Paul will get a prominent slot, and that the 15 minute "nominating" slot will be filled by one or more supporters.

I don't know what Gov. Romney will do for the VP pick; what he should do, however, is select someone who can help him with both the Liberty Movement and the Social Conservatives. Only two names come to my mind: Sen. Rand Paul, and Sen. Tom Coburn.

I agree about the binding rules, and I think that the Paul campaign itself will do what it can to pressure our pro-Paul "Romney" delegates to honor their obligation. However, I think that the point of the olive branch is not to have the Liberty delegates vote for Gov. Romney in August, but to have the Liberty supporters vote for him in November.

I agree that the lawsuit is an unmitigated bad idea. At best, it will be a waste of time, money, and energy that will only antagonize the state and national GOP organizations; at worst, it will allow the Federal Government to gain further control over our political parties.

For possibly the first time, Shazad, my response to your post is shorter than your post. Thanks.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

I can not believe this

I am reading things here that I can not believe. Things like if they break the rules and the RNC lets them get by with it. Break what rules? Rule 38 and 37(section b) says we are not bound. Then we have "pressure our pro-Paul "Romney" delegates to honor their obligation". I am a National Delegate and as far as I am concerned the only obligation I have is to myself. I am the one that worked his read end off to become a delegate, I am the one who will spend $4000 plus just to be in Tampa and I am the one who will vote for who he darn well pleases because I am a free American. Sure go ahead and trust Romney and the Republican Party and see where it gets you. Have you people not learned anything? Have you not seen the in your face voter fraud and intimidation? You people sound like Romney plants to me. Come to Tampa and see how I vote.

...

You may be right about the nominating speech slot going to someone else (just like Romney would do in that situation). If Ron Paul does have a scheduled speech and has 5 states, that's what they'd do.

I think having delegates vote for Romney in August would be a symbolic gesture that would make them feel more comfortable that they could get support in November. If someone is unwilling to support him even at a time when they are bound to do so by laws or rules, then the RNC isn't going to exactly be feeling the love. That would make it more likely for relations to be strained going forward. This is an area where Paul supporters can reverse some of the progress that Ron Paul has made if they don't listen to his advice, which we both agree will be to honor their obligation.

That entire lawsuit is bad news and really makes me laugh. I don't know what their end game is. If they succeeded in getting delegates unbound (which they won't), then Ron Paul still loses by a huge margin at the convention. The next thing that happens will be that 90% of the state GOP organizations will change their delegate selection rules as soon as possible so that all delegates will either be major supporters of the winning candidate or will just be buddies of the state GOP leaders. There won't be many caucuses or conventions to win delegates at in future conventions. They'll all be automatically picked based on the vote or chosen by state committees. I'm not really sure that the lawyer leading the charge is even a big Ron Paul supporter. I think he just might be playing it up for show, but really just trying to get his name out there and drum up some business in the future by becoming the "hero" who tried to take down Romney but failed. I'd want him as far away from a campaign I supported as possible.

Honor their obligation

Again what obligation. I support RP and I think by becoming a delegate I proved that but he does not own me. Now I can do one of two things. I can let up on the Republican Party, get Romney until 2020 and completely loose this country to status quo. Or I can lay Obama back into their laps and then watch them come crawling in 2016 and I can assure you that after 4 more of Obama they will come crawling. And I can absolutely guarantee you that I am not the only one that feels this way. Obama or Romney and we are going to loose this country. Even with RP in charge we are still going to be in a mess. Our currency is going to loose it's world reserve status and will collapse. We have $248 trillion in unregulated derivatives floating around in the US backed up by the crooked Federal Reserve and you people are telling me to be nice and bow to Romney and the Republican Party. Bottom line if I go out then I take a few with me. I am sick and tired of this status quo.

aren't you bound to Gingrich?

Aren't you bound to Gingrich, not Romney? If so, then vote for Ron Paul if you get promoted to delegate, since you'll be released by the candidate. People bound to Romney, though, should follow the rules and not try to pretend that there aren't any rules.

And no matter who you vote for, if you get to vote, Romney is going to be the nominee. You're not going to be the difference between saving the country from Mitt Romney and making him the President.

Scenario: If the Lawsuit Seed

...was planted by those who are not and never have been real Ron Paul supporters (and has been successful in getting the naive and disenfranchised to sign-up), which camps would have something to gain by this?

Do you have any thoughts? Because IF what I just said holds any water, there are several organizations, pacs, websites who might well be complicit.

Do you have any thoughts? It all sorta smacks to me of disinformation and I lean toward *not* a specific campaign, but perhaps some other disruptive agendas fueled by those who plant mazes in the political landscape that go nowhere. Certainly it has been divisive on the DP...and both the language and the behavior of some involved is unprofessional to put it mildly...

fonta

We do not need a lawsuit

We are already unbound. Come to Tampa and we will show you just how unbound we are. If we all want to talk "Snake in the grass" then we need not look any further than this page.

not sure...

If the guy was just a plant placed by some organization I think that would be quite impressive to have pulled off. I don't really think that's the case, though the chances of it being true are not quite zero.

I just think there's a decent chance he saw Ron Paul supporters as vulnerable and open to some type of move like this. I guess that doesn't mean he's not a supporter himself ... but he might be exaggerating his level of support and his opinions regarding the race to appear as a kindred spirit and gain trust. I may be totally wrong on this, but something doesn't seem quite right about him. He's got a bit of a shady past and his behavior could be described as erratic.

Or maybe he's sincere and just a bad lawyer.

Well ....... A Lot of Bad Lawyers Out There

.....and ; ) many are *not* sincere. Others *affiliated* with this also have *very* shady pasts. And, birds of a feather....
My concern is just that some good people may have been easy prey. I hope it is very few and that there will be no repercussions.

But I am about to let it go. In the big picture, I think it matters not a hill of beans!

Except that, as you said and I agree, it is not good for Ron Paul, Tampa or continuation of the movement/message most of us believe in.
To me, that message encompasses an ideal...a better way to approach learning to live together on this planet. And, without something..however far off to shoot for...we all miss the mark because there is none. Just blowing in the wind...with history repeating itself in ever more self-destructive ways. Oh well.

fonta

if it walks like a patriot-minded idealistic lawyer

willing to work for free for liberty, peace and prosperity while upholding the rule of law and the Constitution, then maybe that's exactly what it is.

Thanks!

Thanks for the info mate=)