Comment: More and More BS Misinformation (again)

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: They'll sabotage us (see in situ)

More and More BS Misinformation (again)

So much misinformation everywhere. Neither RP's campaign or any of his supporters who know what is going on are only relying on the "delegate strategy". Do people seriously believe we don't want the popular vote? They are trying to get as much popular vote as possible.

This so-called "delegate strategy" (implying it's some secret optional strategy that only RP's campaign is using) is the only strategy. It's not a secret to the other campaigns. It's not an alternate strategy. It's not optional. It is THE strategy of every campaign. It is the strategy that everything else including the popular vote is working towards. It has always been this way.

Then there is the idea that even if RP ends up getting the most delegates, they will simply change the rules. If they do try to change the rules, how are they going to do it if RP has the most delegates? The delegates are the ones that change the rules. At any point in which one candidate gets 50% + 1 delegate, they own the rules. Not only can they pick RP as the nominee, but they can change all the rules to make it more fair and easier for our side in the future.

The idea put forward above is that even if he wins, he is not going to win. If that's the case, how do you think popular vote would be any different? So what is really being said here, is to give up now, he can't win. This is nothing but BS, put forward by either people who don't want him to win, or don't understand the system and shouldn't be giving advice until they do.

At this time, less than 4% of the total delegates are actually selected and bound, and Romney only has 5% of the delegates needed to win the nomination. So far most of the state contests have been caucuses. The most important and only relevant thing in regards to them is to get delegates. The popular polls they have are only meaningful in that they help give momentum and help raise funds. Sure it is helpful to win them, but it's more important to make sure you get enough delegates to stay in the race. You don't even need to get the most delegates, just enough to prevent the other candidates from getting enough to end the race.

Every day RP gets more and more supporters, and the more supporters, the more funds and more people spreading the word about him. The more truth people find out about RP, the more they like him. The more they find out about the other candidates, the more they despise them. It's only a matter of time till they all convert. You see a Romney supporter, I see a future Ron Paul supporter. Once the primaries start up in March, then the popular vote will matter. By that time, with Ron Paul's inevitable rise in support, not only will he be "dangerous", but he will be unstoppable too.

Even in the states that have already had a caucus and have chosen delegates to go their county/district conventions in a month or so, the game is not over. Because the popular vote in these states is completely irrelevant to the delegate selection process, RP and his supporters could very well and likely have taken the majority of the low level delegate spots which will eventually go on to choose the real national delegates in the next few months. Let's assume Ricky managed to temporarily fool enough people into getting 50% of the precinct level delegates in some of the recent states. How long do you think it will be before the true Ricky starts making himself known? How many of these supporters is he going to lose after the fact. They are not bound to him and have every right to change their minds and support RP delegates at the next level instead of Ricky.

People will say "but that doesn't seem fair and people will rise up against it". Who? The ones that had their caucuses early and want to influence the election before 95% of the people even had a chance to vote yet? There is a very good reason that these smaller population states are allowed to have their contests so much earlier than the rest of the states. It's because of the fact that they have so very few delegates and are only permitted to do so because their delegates are not bound to any candidates yet. These states willingly choose to sacrifice the meaningfulness of their popular vote in order to have their contest earlier so they don't get completely ignored by the candidates who would no doubt be too busy in the more populated states. Surprisingly even to me, this system seems to be the fairest overall. The only issue this primary, is that one of the highest populated states in the country foolishly and greedily decided to put their winner takes all, bound delegate primary in January. Don't get me wrong, I love the state of Florida, but this was total and complete BS, and they should have been penalized for both of their violations instead of just one. The people of Florida should be pissed that they lost 49 of their delegates and that half the candidates never even bothered to campaign there.