Posted on 05/06/2012 5:07:18 PM PDT by redreno
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul captured the majority of Nevada’s national delegates early Sunday, overwhelming likely nominee Mitt Romney with an organized contingent who easily took control of the state convention.
Paul’s supporters won 22 of the 25 national delegate slots up for election at the state convention in Sparks on Saturday. Romney won three.
Another three automatic delegates are expected to support Romney, meaning Romney will have six supporters in the delegation and Paul will have 22.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
They could not start it until the conventions began... about the time that Santorum and Gingrich dropped out.
What happens to all the delegates that were assigned to candidates no longer in the race like Santorum?
They are re-assigned in proportion according to the caucus/primary results.
That’s just great. Now we have the lawyers taking control of the party’s delegates and floor action. Nope, can’t let the delegates work it out themselves.
Then Romney has it easily.
Ron Paul’s supporters are making some serious trouble for Romney and Company. Wouldn’t be ironic if he were the only one who could stop Romney’s nomination.
Based on what? The state parties have the right to handle their own business and elect their own delegates. With what standing would Priebus have to remove all state delegates that aren’t for Romney?
With that said, how excited and big can Romney’s base be when they can’t even muster enough people to get their own delegates in place? Romney won in states where voter turnout was depressed. It’s not much of a victory when your campaign strategy was to simply discourage people from voting.
I have NEVER laughed so much. Paultards actually think he has a chance? (Welcome to Nazi germany cica 1931)
In all fairness, it is hard to fault the Paultards. They may be little liberal Nazi thugs, but man, have they got nerve! Now they try hard to play on the arguement that “what are you going to do, elect Mitt”. No I am not. But I would not vote for “Dr. Paul” on a bet. I will not vote for either retard. And neither will most of the GOP base.
Perhaps I am old fashioned, but I love Paultards. How the heck can you not like someone that full of shat?
They held a primary preference poll. The people voted. The Nevada rules state that the delegates are bound to the candidates for whom the people voted.
But since there is a convention to go to, people get to run to go to the convention. It’s fun, and there’s also a lot of work to do there, and people consider it an honor to get selected. That’s what the conventions are for, to select the people to go.
A “saner” approach would be the one some states use, where candidates offer a slate of delegates in the primary. But this allows party faithful to take part in the process.
Unfortunately, there is one candidate who believes it is OK to send delegates who will lie about who they support, to gain election at state conventions under false pretenses. They think they can then go to the convention, and break the rules and the binding of the state voters. They are trying to disenfranchise the primary voters.
This is different than where actual candidate support is determined in caucuses, where the people who show up are given the right to choose the candidates. Except usually there Paul also got beat soundly — and like in Iowa, had supporters assigned to pretend to be for other candidates where Paul couldn’t win a precinct; the idea being when they got to the next level, they would all vote for Paul delegates, again packing the convention.
Of course, in many instances those delegates are also bound for the first round, and unless they break the rules, this won’t bother Romney a bit. If they made it to a 2nd round, they might cause more trouble.
The bigger problem will be if they get enough to screw up the party platform. Imagine a foreign policy plank written by Ron Paul zealots — who generally are even more nuts when it comes to our military than Ron Paul himself.
LOL!
“Commanding”
“Inevitable”
And punked by Ron Paul in NEVADA!
Precisely.
Unfortunantely, your polemic is too full of groundless assertions, name-calling, and a slavish devotion to the arcana of party rules to merit a response in detail.
Either a person sees the society in crisis, or he doesn’t.
If he does, he is willing to take action personally.
If he does not, he will hide behind archaic party rules and regulations developed by past power-brokers and would-be aristocrats to keep themselves in power, and take potshots at those who do see the necessity for real change.
thanks
thanks
You seemed to be able to put together some sort of response, it would have been nice if you could have explained what specific items in my post you disagreed with.
slavish devosion to the arcana of party rules
I happen to like the idea of not stealing people's votes. So when a state holds a primary, and people show up and cast votes for the candidate they want, I would not consider it "arcana" that the delegates sent to the national convention would vote for the candidate picked in the primary. I'm sorry that you, as a conservative, see that principle so negatively that you call it "slavish devotion", but yes, I am slavishly devoted to the idea that my vote matters, and that a political candidate shouldn't use backroom manuevering to negate my vote.
groundless assertions
My comments on delegate selection are based on reading party documents from several states, and I believe it to be accurate. My comments about goings-on in Iowa and elsewhere are from news reports posted in freeper threads, and the ongoing discussion, and I believe them to be accurate but am willing to entertain the notion that the reports are incorrect, if you have any evidence to the contrary. But without some information from you about which things I said you believe are groundless, I can't really provide you links showing my evidence.
Name-calling
I apologize for calling Ron Paul supporters "nuts" when it comes to foreign policy. There are people who support Ron Paul who have dangerous notions about our position in the world, and he draws support from a crowd that includes poeple considerably more anti-military than he is (I wouldn't call him anti-military, but peaceniks are a regular feature among the crowds of Ron Paul supporters). But I shouldn't have labelled them "nuts", because name-calling isn't helpful.
If only Ron Paul weren’t such a Blame America First nut.
What point contained in my intentionally brief post on the specific subject matter being discussed on this thread did you not understand?
I guess you just can’t face the reality that people in the party really do understand that it’s just other interested people, vested interests, who have been writing and interpreting the rules and have their thumb on the scale, and they are not going to put up with it any longer.
Your sort-of apology about the name calling intentionally misses the point. Your entire post was loaded with name-calling that went far beyond what you admit “wasn’t helpful”. In fact, your multiple name-calling and baseless attacks are designed to marginalize and run off people participants in the convention system, and deny them a voice.
If you can accomplish that with your tactics, you then will not have to sit down and discuss the issues, and your own “backroom manuevering” can proceed unchallenged.
What has worked for the insiders for a long time is breaking down.
I don't think that word means what you seem to think it means. "nuts" is a name. Expressing opinions about another person's ideas is not "name-calling", I can say your opinion is stupid, and that is not "name-calling". Saying that someone lied about who they supported is not "name-calling". If you want to accuse me of something, figure out what the correct word is and have at it.
designed to marginalize and run off people participants in the convention system, and deny them a voice.
Nothing I said would run off well-meaning, honest people from the participants in the convention system. Nor would I want to do so; so my words could hardly be "designed" to do so. If they do any such thing, and I assert they do not, it is by error, not design. I do mean to discourage people who want to usurp the will of the voters, and abuse the rules and the system to their own ends after the rest of us have followed the rules and consider the matter closed.
Most of us have a desire to have our votes properly cast for the candidate we collectively chose in our primary. We have little interest in WHICH PERSON is chosen to go to the convention to cast those votes. Paul is using our disinterest to pack the convention with delegates who don't actually support the candidate for whom they are bound to cast their ballots; at one point this was a not-irrational strategy, hoping a 2nd or subsequent ballot was called in which the delegates would be free to cast their own choice and would pick Paul. Now it is more likely just to get him on the convention floor (if they can "hold majority in 5 states"), and to maybe influence the party platform.
And to the degree these people are honest at the conventions, and abide by the rules at the convention, it is their right, and that's how the process works. To the degree they misrepresent their intentions, or decide they will violate their oath or binding, or use their "victory" to falsely claim a "change in the 1st ballot" so as to keep interest in their candidate, it is deserving of ridicule and concern by those of us who respect the intent of the voters.
Since I'm not involved in party politics, conventions, or any other "manuevering", I find it hilarious that you suggest otherwise. And I'm more than happy to discuss issues -- but that is what the political primary was for. That's what Ron Paul did on the stage month after month. And the voters cast their votes with that in mind, and made their choice of which ideas they liked, and Ron Paul mostly lost big, and now you seem to support using a backroom, obscure, misunderstood process to subvert that choice -- which seems the opposite of sitting down and discussing the issues openly and honestly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.