View Full Version : PPP: Alabama and Mississippi
CTRattlesnake
03-12-2012, 08:07 AM
We need to stop Romney from winning here...if he can take two states in the deep south, its going to be hard to stop him and get a brokered convention.
Mississippi
Gingrich: 33
Romney: 31
Santorum: 27
Paul: 7
Alabama
Romney: 31
Gingrich: 30
Santorum: 29
Paul: 8
The problem is that the neo-con vote is being divided almost down the middle. If it was Gingrich vs Romney in the south, romney would stand no chance.
digitaldean
03-12-2012, 08:10 AM
I would rather see Gingrich win in those 2 states so the media gets off Santroum.
RonPaul101.com
03-12-2012, 08:19 AM
I would rather see Gingrich win in those 2 states so the media gets off Santroum.
Me too. If Paul is going to get 4th in both states as a near certainty, I would hope supporters vote on strategy a bit (same thing that could have and should have been done for us in Washington County, ME.)
I think our only chance is a brokered covention now - at the risk of being labeled negative on this forum.
Me too. If Paul is going to get 4th in both states as a near certainty, I would hope supporters vote on strategy a bit (same thing that could have and should have been done for us in Washington County, ME.)
I think our only chance is a brokered covention now - at the risk of being labeled negative on this forum.
I think there is a fine line between being negative and being realistic. A brokered convention is our best bet.
anewvoice
03-12-2012, 08:24 AM
Me too. If Paul is going to get 4th in both states as a near certainty, I would hope supporters vote on strategy a bit (same thing that could have and should have been done for us in Washington County, ME.)
I think our only chance is a brokered covention now - at the risk of being labeled negative on this forum.
A brokered convention has always been our only chance. Many people on this forum don't get that and react negatively to everything. We've got a small window of opportunity here, but the fact there is a window at all should give everyone hope.
RonPaul101.com
03-12-2012, 08:31 AM
I totally agree. If all 4 candidates where to split the total delegate count in 4, I know we could hold our own and get at least 500 delegates in a second or third voting round.
Paulatized
03-12-2012, 08:34 AM
I totally agree. If all 4 candidates where to split the total delegate count in 4, I know we could hold our own and get at least 500 delegates in a second or third voting round.
Pretty sure it's winner take all.
edit: oops didn't read carefully, thought you were referring to MS and AL delegates.
JacobG18
03-12-2012, 08:35 AM
Sorry but I'am not passing up My chance to vote for Paul.
jt8025
03-12-2012, 08:44 AM
I voted for Paul in GA and I am thinking I am regretting it because I could have pushed people toward Gingrich and tipped him from 48% to 50% making it a winner-take-all for Gingrich instead of a proportional where Romney received some delegates. CNN has it 53 Gringrich, 20 Romney, and 3 Santorum. Could have been 76 Gingrich and there would have been less Santorum/Romney talk in the media.
The name of the game needs to be keep Romney from attaining delegates.
FYI, I am going through the delegate process and I am a delegate to the District and State convention where we will be choosing the "bound" delegates for GA. That become unbound after the first or second vote depending on particulars too deep to get into here.
Esoteric
03-12-2012, 08:45 AM
Ron paul needs to be in Hawaii.
vechorik
03-12-2012, 08:53 AM
deleted -
RonPaul101.com
03-12-2012, 08:54 AM
Sorry but I'am not passing up My chance to vote for Paul.
Sorry, I forgot it's all about you and not about saving this country.
This is the problem, not everyone will be savvy enough to vote for 'the enemy of my enemy' - just look at how many people still voted for Santorum in Washington County, ME. Had they voted for Paul, Santorum (their guy) would be that much closer to Romney.
parocks
03-12-2012, 08:57 AM
I would rather see Gingrich win in those 2 states so the media gets off Santroum.
Well, situational vote Gingrich.
Gingrich doesn't have many more states to win. Alabama borders Georgia, and since we pretty much have to have a brokered / open convention, would like to see Gingrich get these 2.
RonPaul101.com
03-12-2012, 08:58 AM
Voting for Gingrich won't accomplish a thing in MS (and I'm not positive, but I don't believe it will accomplish anything in AL either).
Why is it everyone seems to forget that blind, stupid, momentum is still momentum and seems to be a driving force here. If Romney wins the popular vote, regardless of what happens to the delegates, the race will be that less competitive. If you don't believe me just take a look at the traffic on this forum ever since Super Tuesday. Momentum, albeit mindless, is still very much a factor.
parocks
03-12-2012, 08:59 AM
Sorry, I forgot it's all about you and not about saving this country.
This is the problem, not everyone will be savvy enough to vote for 'the enemy of my enemy' - just look at how many people still voted for Santorum in Washington County, ME. Had they voted for Paul, Santorum (their guy) would be that much closer to Romney.
Well, maybe. I can't recall offhand how many Santorum votes there were in Wash Co.
parocks
03-12-2012, 09:01 AM
I voted for Paul in GA and I am thinking I am regretting it because I could have pushed people toward Gingrich and tipped him from 48% to 50% making it a winner-take-all for Gingrich instead of a proportional where Romney received some delegates. CNN has it 53 Gringrich, 20 Romney, and 3 Santorum. Could have been 76 Gingrich and there would have been less Santorum/Romney talk in the media.
The name of the game needs to be keep Romney from attaining delegates.
FYI, I am going through the delegate process and I am a delegate to the District and State convention where we will be choosing the "bound" delegates for GA. That become unbound after the first or second vote depending on particulars too deep to get into here.
Don't regret it. We weren't thinking situational voting at that time. Now it's clear that situational voting is applicable. Gingrich or Santorum, but more Gingrich than Santorum in these 2 states.
vechorik
03-12-2012, 09:09 AM
What would voting for Gingrich accomplish in MS?
Delegates are bound according to percentage.
A candidate must have 50% plus one to bind all delegates (that won't happen).
Dr. Paul must win at least 15% to get any bound delegates (that won't happen either).
digitaldean
03-12-2012, 09:14 AM
I voted for Paul in GA and I am thinking I am regretting it because I could have pushed people toward Gingrich and tipped him from 48% to 50% making it a winner-take-all for Gingrich instead of a proportional where Romney received some delegates. CNN has it 53 Gringrich, 20 Romney, and 3 Santorum. Could have been 76 Gingrich and there would have been less Santorum/Romney talk in the media.
The name of the game needs to be keep Romney from attaining delegates.
FYI, I am going through the delegate process and I am a delegate to the District and State convention where we will be choosing the "bound" delegates for GA. That become unbound after the first or second vote depending on particulars too deep to get into here.
Good luck in GA and I hope Paul gets 20-30 of the 76 bound Newt delegates on the 2nd or 3rd vote to really be Paul people.
parocks
03-12-2012, 09:33 AM
What would voting for Gingrich accomplish in MS?
Delegates are bound according to percentage.
A candidate must have 50% plus one to bind all delegates (that won't happen).
Dr. Paul must win at least 15% to get any bound delegates (that won't happen either).
Oh, a tiny "bump". The desire to stay in the race. A delegate. Things like that.
jt8025
03-12-2012, 09:44 AM
What would voting for Gingrich accomplish in MS?
Delegates are bound according to percentage.
A candidate must have 50% plus one to bind all delegates (that won't happen).
Dr. Paul must win at least 15% to get any bound delegates (that won't happen either).
Delegate wise not much, but one delegate change may be the one delegate Romney needed for 50% +1.
Momentum wise, the media will fuel Gingrich into some possible wins in later winner-take-all states. Or at least have Romney not do as good in some contest.
Paul Or Nothing II
03-12-2012, 09:51 AM
Sorry but I'am not passing up My chance to vote for Paul.
Not voting Paul would be craziness, the less votes he gets, the more "unelectable" he'll be to the media & the voters in the rest of the States, imagine the media-frenzy if Paul ended up with 1-2% because a lot of the Paul-supporters voted Gingbitch or whoever :(
So we must always vote Paul & remember that we're in this for the delegates, become a delegate yourself & get as many of your family & friends to become delegates, even if you become, Romney/Ginchrich/Santorum-delegate, that's fine, just become one & that'll give us an advantage at the RNC second-ballot of delegates, somebody earlier said that Paul-supporters who are bound-delegates for others can even ABSTAIN from voting on the first-ballot at RNC :D
LibertyIn08
03-12-2012, 10:46 AM
I am considering voting for the RP delegates in IL and Santorum in the straw poll.
fatjohn
03-12-2012, 11:35 AM
Sorry, I forgot it's all about you and not about saving this country.
This is the problem, not everyone will be savvy enough to vote for 'the enemy of my enemy' - just look at how many people still voted for Santorum in Washington County, ME. Had they voted for Paul, Santorum (their guy) would be that much closer to Romney.
If you really follow Paul, you would never vote against your own principles no matter how much longer it takes to get the result. WTF happened with this forum?
Brett85
03-12-2012, 11:46 AM
If you really follow Paul, you would never vote against your own principles no matter how much longer it takes to get the result. WTF happened with this forum?
+Rep. What ever happened to voting based on principle?
RonPaul101.com
03-12-2012, 12:00 PM
If you really follow Paul, you would never vote against your own principles no matter how much longer it takes to get the result. WTF happened with this forum?
I want Paul to be the next President if at all possible. That is THE GOAL and if casting my vote for someone else actually helps accomplish that goal, I'd be foolish to do otherwise.
Not everyone is cut-out for strategy - my hope is some RP supporters are.
RonPaul101.com
03-12-2012, 12:02 PM
+Rep. What ever happened to voting based on principle?
2008 happened... we're suppose to be smarter this time around. Playing to win may actually help our chances of winning - just a strategy we may want to consider one of these cycles...
parocks
03-12-2012, 12:14 PM
I am considering voting for the RP delegates in IL and Santorum in the straw poll.
If that's an option, that seems like a good way to proceed.
parocks
03-12-2012, 12:18 PM
I want Paul to be the next President if at all possible. That is THE GOAL and if casting my vote for someone else actually helps accomplish that goal, I'd be foolish to do otherwise.
Not everyone is cut-out for strategy - my hope is some RP supporters are.
When you see things like this
Romney campaign says losing nomination would take 'act of God'
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/07/10601781-romney-campaign-says-losing-nomination-would-take-act-of-god
it's fairly clear that whatever way to vote to STOP ROMNEY is the way to go. The campaign has the delegate thing in hand. They're doing as much as they can there.
http://webmusicvideo.com/bachmann2012/media/kunena/attachments/70/stopromney1251.jpg
Paul Or Nothing II
03-12-2012, 12:28 PM
I am considering voting for the RP delegates in IL and Santorum in the straw poll.
Romney may or mayn't win these states, he may or mayn't have enough delegates but by not voting for Paul we'll only help the media further the meme that Paul is "unelectable", imagine the media-frenzy when Ron ends up with 1-2%, that will have a negative impact on how voters in subsequent States perceive him, may be most Paul-supporters won't even show up because they may think it's futile so I'd say always vote Paul, whatever votes he gets, the more the better, otherwise the campaign will die a sad death way before the Conventions :(
+Rep. What ever happened to voting based on principle?
I don't think people are abandoning their principles. They are just looking at various ways to achieve them and trying to figure out what makes the most sense in both short term (momentum) and long term (delegate count). That being said, I had it pretty easy in Virginia. The vote here was a no-brainer.
xFiFtyOnE
03-12-2012, 12:47 PM
We need to stop Romney from winning here...if he can take two states in the deep south, its going to be hard to stop him and get a brokered convention.
Mississippi
Gingrich: 33
Romney: 31
Santorum: 27
Paul: 7
Alabama
Romney: 31
Gingrich: 30
Santorum: 29
Paul: 8
The problem is that the neo-con vote is being divided almost down the middle. If it was Gingrich vs Romney in the south, romney would stand no chance.
Should me and my friends vote for Gingrich then? Just vote Paul in the delegates? To stop the Romney...
ichirix
03-12-2012, 12:58 PM
Should me and my friends vote for Gingrich then? Just vote Paul in the delegates? To stop the Romney...
To be honest, I couldn't bring myself to vote for someone else solely from a politically strategic perspective.
Here is another poll for Alabama/Mississippi
From ARG
Alabama
Newt 34
Mitt 31
Rick 24
Ron 6
Mississippi
Mitt 34
Newt 32
Rick 22
Ron 8
jt8025
03-12-2012, 01:00 PM
Should me and my friends vote for Gingrich then? Just vote Paul in the delegates? To stop the Romney...
That is my opinion. Vote in the primary for Gingrich and try to become or help others become a delegate for Ron Paul.
In my state (GA) there is a 3 step process to become a delegate. Attend a Precinct Meeting where you fill out your name to be a delegate to a County Convention. At the County Convention you sign up or are elected to the District and State Conventions. At the District and State Conventions you can run to be a Delegate to the National convention or help vote Ron Paul supporters to be National Delegates that can vote for Ron Paul on the first, second, or third ballot (depending on State rules).
jt8025
03-12-2012, 01:03 PM
I voted for Ron Paul in GA and Newt got 47% which gave Newt 56, Romney 20, and Santorum 3 delegates. If some of the Ron Paul people would have voted for Newt and got him to 50% then it would have been Newt 76, Romney 0, and Santorum 0. I hope the 20 Romney got in GA do not put him over the 1144 mark and all of our delegate work get be for nothing because of my "popular" vote.
Keith and stuff
03-12-2012, 01:06 PM
If I lived in AL, I'd vote for Paul. If I lived in MS, I'd vote for Paul. However, if I was a grassroots leader in either of those states, I may try to raise money to play Ron Paul ads that speak the truth about Romney on the radio. The VT grassroots were able to get the funds to play Paul ads on the radio. I guess it is too late, anyway. One quick thing you could do is go to a polling location near you and hold a Paul sign for 10 hours. While holding the Paul sign, place a few anti-Romney signs around the polling location, following the rules. Maybe have a sign mention that he is a Yankee Banker, another that says he voted for Gun Control or stuff like that.
shane77m
03-12-2012, 01:25 PM
Voting for Ron Paul. Alabama is proportional.
Ron Paul was on a couple of radio interviews in Alabama this morning. One was on the Michael Hart show on 101.1. He got a good 15 minute interview. Dr. Paul even hinted at some vote counting confusion, I can't remember what he said exactly. The other was on the Rick and Bubba show. They are your typical southern neo-cons. They only gave Dr. Paul about 9 or 10 minutes. They like Ron Paul on a lot of things except the foreign policy (imagine that).
A religious theme observance of mine is below:
It's funny to me that Rick and Bubba were hammering Romney about being a Mormon but I have heard nothing from them hammering Santorum about the Roman Catholic Churche's anathemas against Protestants. They seem to be behind Santorum.
Paul Or Nothing II
03-12-2012, 01:26 PM
Should me and my friends vote for Gingrich then? Just vote Paul in the delegates? To stop the Romney...
Fewer votes is the LAST things Paul needs right now, it will give more credence to media's "unelectable" meme if he ends up with 1-2% & voters in subsequent States will be less likely to vote for him, many Paul-supporters may lose hope & stay at home :(
Please vote for Paul & also become a delegate & get as many Paul-supporters to become delegates as you can :)
To be honest, I couldn't bring myself to vote for someone else solely from a politically strategic perspective.
Voting is an expression of free speech but it is also a business with measurable goals. Each of us has political goals that we are trying to achieve and the outcome of votes should be measured against those goals. My goal is to get Ron the nomination, and the most plausible route at this point is through a brokered convention. If voting for Newt denies Mitt enough delegates to win and puts us into a brokered convention, that is a good outcome. Please note that I said "if." We've all learned that polls are pretty accurate, so if this is a winner-take-all scenario and Newt is above Romney 36% to 30% -- a vote for Newt doesn't change much, I'd vote for Ron. If the polls leading into the election showed Newt and Mitt tied, I'd be more inclined to vote for Newt. But again, only in a winner-take-all scenario. If it's proportional, vote for Ron.
jt8025
03-12-2012, 01:59 PM
Voting is an expression of free speech but it is also a business with measurable goals. Each of us has political goals that we are trying to achieve and the outcome of votes should be measured against those goals. My goal is to get Ron the nomination, and the most plausible route at this point is through a brokered convention. If voting for Newt denies Mitt enough delegates to win and puts us into a brokered convention, that is a good outcome. Please note that I said "if." We've all learned that polls are pretty accurate, so if this is a winner-take-all scenario and Newt is above Romney 36% to 30% -- a vote for Newt doesn't change much, I'd vote for Ron. If the polls leading into the election showed Newt and Mitt tied, I'd be more inclined to vote for Newt. But again, only in a winner-take-all scenario. If it's proportional, vote for Ron.
Only thing I would say is if it is proportional and Mitt barely wins and gets 20 delegates and Newt gets 19 delegates, the media will parade Romney's name around as the winner and it will give him momentum in the future states.
Only thing I would say is if it is proportional and Mitt barely wins and gets 20 delegates and Newt gets 19 delegates, the media will parade Romney's name around as the winner and it will give him momentum in the future states.
That's a good point. Ultimately, each voter will have to consider as many sides to this question as possible and do in good conscience what he thinks will advance the Ron Paul campaign the best.
parocks
03-12-2012, 02:26 PM
Should me and my friends vote for Gingrich then? Just vote Paul in the delegates? To stop the Romney...
It depends, most people here care most about what they ENJOY. Would you ENJOY doing something even if it doesn't really help Ron Paul at all?
Then do that. Most people here do that.
Most of what the grassroots does isn't worthwhile at all.
What people aren't really catching on to yet is that we haven't won a state yet, and the unbroken streak of losses will certainly demoralize people, yes, etc. So, yeah, vote Ron Paul. Someone else will not vote for Ron Paul without you even having to participate in that process.
Heck, it's beginning to appear that the number of actual votes we get are increasingly inconsequential. So, eh, do what you want. It won't matter either way. Because in order for Ron Paul to win, he needs (or needed) exceptional grassroots. And what he got was a little less than mediocre grassroots. And it won't be fixed. More of our memes ideas plans strategies tactics are bad wrong hurtful counterproductive etc. Our grassroots is clearly the most enthusiastic, which raises our score.
parocks
03-12-2012, 02:29 PM
If I lived in AL, I'd vote for Paul. If I lived in MS, I'd vote for Paul. However, if I was a grassroots leader in either of those states, I may try to raise money to play Ron Paul ads that speak the truth about Romney on the radio. The VT grassroots were able to get the funds to play Paul ads on the radio. I guess it is too late, anyway. One quick thing you could do is go to a polling location near you and hold a Paul sign for 10 hours. While holding the Paul sign, place a few anti-Romney signs around the polling location, following the rules. Maybe have a sign mention that he is a Yankee Banker, another that says he voted for Gun Control or stuff like that.
grassroots ads. so well meaning. we enjoy making nice ads saying nice things about ron paul it makes us feel so good like we're helping
alucard13mmfmj
03-12-2012, 02:35 PM
So in MS and AL... the best strategy we can implement is to promote Ron Paul AND Gingrich? Best possible outcome for us is Ron Paul winning those 2 states... But, with the odds against us in those states, I suggest we try to get Gingrich the win in those states to prevent Romney from getting wins. Romney getting wins in MS and AL is disasterous.
At any rate, Gingrich grassroots sort've helped us out in Virginia by telling Gingrich supporters to vote for Ron. I think we should possibly repay the favor? Promote both Gingrich and Ron.
roversaurus
03-12-2012, 02:36 PM
Ron paul needs to be in Hawaii.
Paul doesn't want to win.
Yes, I am being negative. But I worked my ass off and I expected the Paul campaign to do the same.
alucard13mmfmj
03-12-2012, 02:38 PM
Paul doesn't want to win.
Yes, I am being negative. But I worked my ass off and I expected the Paul campaign to do the same.
I do wonder what the devil is he doing? If Ron is in MS or AL, it is not a very good strategy. He is at the bottom, single digit, of polls in MS/AL. Ron has a small chance to win Hawaii, but no chance in MS or AL. Ron needs to go to hawaii T_T.
We should've started a Hawaii Money Bomb for Ron.
vechorik
03-12-2012, 02:46 PM
I do wonder what the devil is he doing? If Ron is in MS or AL, it is not a very good strategy. He is at the bottom, single digit, of polls in MS/AL. Ron has a small chance to win Hawaii, but no chance in MS or AL. Ron needs to go to hawaii T_T.
We should've started a Hawaii Money Bomb for Ron.
Why criticize when you don't even know what's going on? Ron Paul hasn't set foot in MS nor AL and I've not seen one ad. Feel better?
vechorik
03-12-2012, 02:50 PM
Paul doesn't want to win.
Yes, I am being negative. But I worked my ass off and I expected the Paul campaign to do the same.
I thought the campaign was you (and me) and yes, I've worked my butt off too.
parocks
03-12-2012, 02:50 PM
Romney may or mayn't win these states, he may or mayn't have enough delegates but by not voting for Paul we'll only help the media further the meme that Paul is "unelectable", imagine the media-frenzy when Ron ends up with 1-2%, that will have a negative impact on how voters in subsequent States perceive him, may be most Paul-supporters won't even show up because they may think it's futile so I'd say always vote Paul, whatever votes he gets, the more the better, otherwise the campaign will die a sad death way before the Conventions :(
What state left do you think we'll WIN? We need to control the delegations of 5 states.
The campaign dies the minute Romney gets 1144. If we get the 5 delegations, we're good.
jt8025
03-12-2012, 03:05 PM
If I'm not mistaken we need 5 delegates AT THE CONVENTION. We do not have to win any contest up to and including the first vote. We just have to have a majority of votes from 5 delegations on the second vote to win.
RonPaul101.com
03-12-2012, 03:07 PM
Fewer votes is the LAST things Paul needs right now, it will give more credence to media's "unelectable" meme if he ends up with 1-2%...
There is no material difference between Paul @ 5% or Paul @ 9% in either of these two states - none. However there could be a huge difference - country saving difference - between Newt 29% and Newt 34%...
Gravik
03-12-2012, 03:23 PM
Bible belt.....
BamaAla
03-12-2012, 03:45 PM
I was arguing this on my Alabama RP facebook pages, but the comments didn't last long on any of them.
I'll be voting for Gingrich tomorrow; I won't feel good about it, but I think it'll actually help.
jacmicwag
03-12-2012, 04:42 PM
I was arguing this on my Alabama RP facebook pages, but the comments didn't last long on any of them.
I'll be voting for Gingrich tomorrow; I won't feel good about it, but I think it'll actually help.
yuk! Has it come to this?
jt8025
03-12-2012, 04:47 PM
yuk! Has it come to this?
If you want a brokered convention (which Ron Paul does) then yes.
CTRattlesnake
03-12-2012, 04:47 PM
There is no material difference between Paul @ 5% or Paul @ 9% in either of these two states - none. However there could be a huge difference - country saving difference - between Newt 29% and Newt 34%...
Agreed.
If i lived in Mississippi or Alabama, i would vote Newt.
Think of it as helping Dr. Paul by preventing mitt from winning.
By voting for Newt, you're helping Ron more than actually voting for him
Student Of Paulism
03-12-2012, 04:50 PM
yuk! Has it come to this?
Newt Gingrich is a wonderful man. He helps elderly woman across the street and rescues kittens out of trees occasionally. You would be insane not to vote for him. He is the founder of the tea party as well.
LibertyIn08
03-12-2012, 05:34 PM
Romney may or mayn't win these states, he may or mayn't have enough delegates but by not voting for Paul we'll only help the media further the meme that Paul is "unelectable", imagine the media-frenzy when Ron ends up with 1-2%, that will have a negative impact on how voters in subsequent States perceive him, may be most Paul-supporters won't even show up because they may think it's futile so I'd say always vote Paul, whatever votes he gets, the more the better, otherwise the campaign will die a sad death way before the Conventions :(
I'm certainly aware of the problem.
The way I see it, Santorum botched up his delegate slates in IL. If I can ensure Paul does well in the delegate votes, that is the important thing. Santorum tying Romney in the straw poll here would be a big deal.
At the same time, I really want to pull the lever straight Paul. It'll probably depend on how the remaining polls prior to the election look.
Brett85
03-12-2012, 05:39 PM
Does anybody here really think that the GOP would allow Ron Paul to win in a brokered convention in which he didn't win a single primary? With all due respect, that just seems like delusional thinking to me. The Ron Paul supporters who live in Alabama should vote their conscience and vote for Ron.
NoOneButPaul
03-12-2012, 05:44 PM
We need Gingrich to win... I would suggest all Paul supporters in these states back Newt.
Not only will it allow him to catch up a bit on delegates but it will also take the focus off of Santorum for a little while.
A Newt surge is just what we need to fuel the fires of a brokered convention. We stand no shot in the South so we might as well play it smart.
NoOneButPaul
03-12-2012, 05:45 PM
Does anybody here really think that the GOP would allow Ron Paul to win in a brokered convention in which he didn't win a single primary? With all due respect, that just seems like delusional thinking to me. The Ron Paul supporters who live in Alabama should vote their conscience and vote for Ron.
It isn't the GOP's choice, it's the delegates choice.
Depending on how many unbound delegates we get (the projections show a lot) and based on how many stealth delegates we have I think there's hope.
At the very least I want to see it just to see how many delegates we actually had...
Best case scenario is Newt decides to fuck over Romney, who he still hates, and sends his delegates our way allowing us the majority over Santorum and Romney's delegates.
Winning at a brokered convention is a very long shot but it's still the best shot we've got.
Brett85
03-12-2012, 05:58 PM
Best case scenario is Newt decides to fuck over Romney, who he still hates, and sends his delegates our way allowing us the majority over Santorum and Romney's delegates.
Newt is the same guy who said that "every decent American" should reject Ron Paul's philosophy, and he said that he couldn't even support Ron Paul over Obama. Do you really think that Gingrich would actually give Ron his delegates after making comments like that? The almost certain scenario would be that Gingrich would give his delegates to Santorum in a brokered convention.
VinnyG
03-12-2012, 06:10 PM
Guys..they are not going to allow it to get to a brokered convention. Period. End of sentence. Exclamation point. Romney is going to make it. And even if he didn't quite make it, he will be SO close that there will be deals made BEFORE the first vote to get him there.
Again..they will NOT ALLOW it to be brokered. It really is a pipe dream.
Besides, even in the off chance Newt "gave" his delegate to Ron Paul...and the off chance that they actually all followed Newt's advice and did it (which they don't have to) it still would not give him more than Romney.
Win or lose these south states, Newt is doe in a couple weeks. These are proportional states, and based on these polls, even if Newt DOES win, he is taking half the delegates, at most. Only a few more than Romney.
You don't have to LIKE it, but you should probably start getting used to the fact that Romney is going to get through this week (which was supposed to be his worst week) with still getting the most delegates of all four candidates in the 3 days of voting (counting Puerto Rico on Sunday)
It may not be the final momentum he needs to wrap it up quickly, but he will likely get at least 90 delegates out of the 160 or so. And then comes April which is going to be TORTURE for the anti-Romney crowd. Gingrich will likely not be around for that.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.