Our Current Situation: The difference between a Primary, Staw Vote, and Delegates

[da32130]

Folks, if this were just about this election it might be discouraging. But this is about the longer term direction of the Republican party.

In 2000 McCain lost to Bush. In 2008 McCain was the frontrunner, and now the likely nominee.

In 1976 Reagan lost to Ford. In 1980 Reagan won.

A strong showing has historically allowed for an increased position in future races.

So how is Paul doing:

Primaries:
NH 8% and 29% behind McCain
MI 6% and 24% behind McCain
SC 4% and 29% behind McCain
FL 3% and 33% behind McCain

As most of us know, people tend to vote for either of the top two candidates in a primary based on what they have read in the newspaper or seen on the evening news. A lot of these people aren't that committed and don't show up when more effort is required.

To go to a straw vote at a caucus requires more effort.

Straw Vote:
IO 10% and 3% behind McCain (high turnout more like a primary)
NV 14% and 1% ahead of McCain (very high turnout for Romney)
ME 19% and 2% behind of McCain (not yet finished)

Looking at straw votes Paul is much more competitive with McCain. But the staw vote doesn't really matter. What matters is delegates (and in a brokered convention that is true of the primaries above).

Delegate Vote:
LA party had to change rules, limit voters, and won't publish results of delegate leanings in order to prevent Paul from winning.

By most accounts the delegate percentages were higher than the straw vote percentages. So this is even more encouraging news relative to McCain.

By being competitive for these delegates it gives Paul a chance at a brokered convention. It also allows Paul delegates to help shape party goals.

But longer term it sets the groundwork for an even better showing in future elections. This is because Paul, or people with similar ideas, will have shown they have a strong base of support. This support will give them early credibility and allow commentators to say he has a chance. This will force voters to choose Paul or the other guy. Thus eliminating one of our biggest obstacles.

The other obstacles are concerning positions. And it may be the party moves closer to Paul as the war and economy play out as Paul believes.

[acptulsa]

Which is why I say we're fighting both harder and smarter. The current path of the G.O.P. is toward oblivion. The neocons don't care so long as they get a few more bucks out of their arms merchant stocks before the party dies. The rank and file do care, which is why one of my main selling points (as a middle aged guy talking mostly to Republicans my age and older) is you--no Republican since Reagan has pulled young people into the party like Dr. Paul.

I know many of you can't see past the elections themselves, but you should have more faith. Either we win the convention or we don't. Either the G.O.P. survives the four years completely out of power or it doesn't. Either way, we and all of the nation have served notice on the old guard that neocon business as usual won't continue, and we in particular have demonstrated that we have the path forward for true conservatives.

Perhaps you know not what you do. Believe. You are making the difference. You have already gotten to the point that American politics will never be the same.

That said, it would certainly be best to win this year. Toward that end, may I suggest that over the next month, you tell everyone who says our man can't win that this is exactly what the media said about the Giants?

[da32130]

Toward that end, may I suggest that over the next month, you tell everyone who says our man can't win that this is exactly what the media said about the Giants?

People almost always confuse "unlikely" with "can't".