Question about "stealth" delegates

[zachrbroussard]

Without giving away too much information, all I need is a simple yes or no answer...

Are the "stealth delegates" that people talk about counted as "Romney" delegates in counts such as those on thereal2012delegatecount?

[sailingaway]

Look at their breakdown of how they count it. I don't see how they would know about all our stealth delegates, but they would know those in NV bound to Romney and in MASS probably. But they should say on their site.

[minusbear]

Without giving away too much information, all I need is a simple yes or no answer....

Are the "stealth delegates" that people talk about counted as "Romney" delegates in counts such as those on thereal2012delegatecount?

Don't talk about fight club.

[jkr]

http://0.tqn.com/d/comicbooks/1/0/P/q/gijoesnakeeyes.jpg
my stealth delegate cannot speak...

[ns1000]

Just read the links on that website. It is pretty in the open if you are willing to read all links, and search the forums here and dp for results. We won't reach 1144, but it will be a lot more than what AP predicts so far.

[alucard13mmfmj]

500-700+... that's all you need to know ^^

[zachrbroussard]

I don't see how they would know about all our stealth delegates....

So since there's no way about knowing about them, they are included in the Romney count, correct? That's all I was wondering, thanks!

[jkr]

of course he cant win...


...in the first round

[AJ Antimony]

Impossible to say. The word "delegate" means different things in different contexts. "Delegate" can refer to 'delegate to the state convention,' 'national delegate pledged to Romney,' 'national delegate who supports Ron Paul but may or may not be able to vote for him,' etc.

So when it comes to delegate counts, you have to first figure out exactly what they are counting. Usually, they're going to be counting the number of delegates pledged to certain candidates. This is especially true with MSM estimates. You're not going to find many people counting delegates defined as 'supporters' instead of 'voters.' It's just too hard to find accurate information from reliable sources. I hope my response makes some sense.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[brandon]

There are no stealth delegates of any significance. This is just a fantasy.

[MarcusI]

"There are no stealth delegates of any significance. This is just a fantasy."

I have the same feeling. Would be a surprise to see more than maybe 250-300 Paul delegates (including the Romney "bound" Paulites) at Tampa. Romneys camp is not so silly to send Paulites in masses to Tampa without knowing it.

[tbone717]

The concept of "stealth" delegates was pertinent only when the possibility of a brokered convention still existed. The thought being that delegates who were supporters of Paul were bound to vote for another candidate in the first round of voting, but if no candidate reached 1144 then those delegates would become unbound for subsequent rounds of voting and could then change their vote and support Paul. Once Romney hit 1144 bound (he has over 1300 now), there was no longer a chance for the convention being brokered.

The good news is (and this has been communicated by the campaign), that Paul will have a sizable contingency of supporters there at the RNC. The campaign estimates that there could be as many as 500 delegates at the RNC that are Paul supporters. So, when it comes to voting on platform issues, the VP selection, etc, our side will be well represented. In fact, it is the best representation for liberty Republicans at the RNC in decades.

[Gary W Trott]

Without giving away too much information, all I need is a simple yes or no answer...

Are the "stealth delegates" that people talk about counted as "Romney" delegates in counts such as those on thereal2012delegatecount?
The answer to your question is that they are delegates who will vote for Ron Paul but are not listed as supporting him. As someone said up above they may be bound to vote for other candidates on the first ballot.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[zachrbroussard]

I've got the same impression. The Green Papers (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R) is reporting a soft total of 138 delegates for Ron Paul - and they tend to be fairly reliable. If Ron is expecting the support of 500 delegates on the floor of the GOP national convention, then that would imply there's over 360 of these stealth delegates ... and I just don't see it. It makes you wonder if the campaign has been peddling snake oil all along - because the impression I've been getting throughout this campaign was that the brokered convention was a lock, and now it seems like they were never even close. I'm merely thinking of the movement going forward and who to trust - not to trust as leaders, because ultimately we're all our own leaders - but who do you trust to give you reliable information, reliable metrics, to base your decisions and actions upon. There's been a lot of remarks along the lines of "no one can reveal the information because it's all secret strategy"; but it's looking more and more like the stealth delegates were never really there, and that it was being played up as a ruse to energize people. I respect people who give me honest metrics, even if it's bad news, because I can base a path forward on good information - but you can't really do much when the information they're shoveling is bovine fecal material.

So how will we ever know just how many stealth delegates there are? Or is this merely an opportunity to wave hands in the air and say there would have been 8 or 9 hundred if only it had gone to a second ballot?

http://www.thereal2012delegatecount.com/

[cheapseats]

So how will we ever know just how many stealth delegates there are? Or is this merely an opportunity to wave hands in the air and say there would have been 8 or 9 hundred if only it had gone to a second ballot?


It also provides emotional fuel to keep WE GOT SCREWED, THEN ROBBED sentiment percolating.

Given the shift from "No One But Paul" to NOBP UNLESS RAND IS VP OR WE GET OTHER CONCESSIONS, it stands to a particular brand of Reason that some people would want other people..."on principle", natch...to transform their outrage at the "The System's" abuse of RON Paul into wagon-circling defense of his son RAND...who has experienced NONE of the mean-spirited ostracizing that his uncompromising father has endured for decades.

[sailingaway]

The concept of "stealth" delegates was pertinent only when the possibility of a brokered convention still existed. The thought being that delegates who were supporters of Paul were bound to vote for another candidate in the first round of voting, but if no candidate reached 1144 then those delegates would become unbound for subsequent rounds of voting and could then change their vote and support Paul. Once Romney hit 1144 bound (he has over 1300 now), there was no longer a chance for the convention being brokered.

The good news is (and this has been communicated by the campaign), that Paul will have a sizable contingency of supporters there at the RNC. The campaign estimates that there could be as many as 500 delegates at the RNC that are Paul supporters. So, when it comes to voting on platform issues, the VP selection, etc, our side will be well represented. In fact, it is the best representation for liberty Republicans at the RNC in decades.

That 500 would contain many stealth delegates, and there may be more than that. However, clearly the campaign does not expect there to be near enough for the ultimate nomination, although the distribution of those delegates matters. Unless Romney's credentials committee prefers a coronation convention to the point of throwing away any chance at November, and shafts our delegates, we SHOULD have five states to nominate Ron from the floor (assuming we get Iowa). We should also, at least with coalitions of a few like minded people at the state level, be able to get motions made and seconded and into discussion to actually do business. That hasn't happened, as I have said, since 1976 and the party is due major discussion at the national level about the direction of the party -- discussion LED by MEMBERSHIP. ALL conservatives should want that, regardless of Santa's recent attempts to make it look like we are facing off against his supporters. Delegates, stealth or not, matter a lot because it will determine the success of what we do, and will determine how much we can do. However, we will also need to work with others to make the biggest inroads because our motions will take a majority to pass. And THAT was where 'be respectful' came in in Ron's email, not to establishment, per se, but to all the other delegates who are there to see there own speakers, whose cooperation we want to engage. The LAST thing establishment wants is us meaningfully cooperating with other conservatives to get things done.

[Peace&Freedom]

It also provides emotional fuel to keep WE GOT SCREWED, THEN ROBBED sentiment percolating.

Given the shift from "No One But Paul" to NOBP UNLESS RAND IS VP OR WE GET OTHER CONCESSIONS, it stands to a particular brand of Reason that some people would want other people..."on principle", natch...to transform their outrage at the "The System's" abuse of RON Paul into wagon-circling defense of his son RAND...who has experienced NONE of the mean-spirited ostracizing that his uncompromising father has endured for decades.

Quite plausible. The campaign may have war gamed early on that the party establishment would hose Paul again, and in that case used the primary race 1) to further build up the liberty movement power base within the Republican party, and 2) turn Ron into a shunt for the ostracizing so as to protect Rand in 2016. This allows the movement to build to critical mass over the next cycle, leading to the major confrontation in the next primary race.

Think about it, Ron apparently decided not to go third party because 1) he's building the movement within the GOP, and 2) to set up Rand's run. But under this scenario, by 2016, the movement will have been built, and Rand will already be running. If the system hacks then defraud/vote-rig/blackout Rand from winning the same way they did Ron, by spring 2016 there'll be nothing to hold back either Paul from running third party. The whole point of having an independent political power base is to be able to use it independent of a particular party structure. It will be time to so use it in 2016.

[cheapseats]

Quite plausible. The campaign may have war gamed early on that the party establishment would hose Paul again, and in that case used the primary race 1) to further build up the liberty movement power base within the Republican party, and 2) turn Ron into a shunt for the ostracizing so as to protect Rand in 2016. This allows the movement to build to critical mass over the next cycle, leading to the major confrontation in the next primary race.

Maybe . . . after the major confrontation in THIS race.

This strategery would literally BANK on a critical mass of RON Paul's support segueing to RAND Paul.

If a critical mass of Ron Paul's support segues to Rand, then a critical mass of Ron Paul support is REPUBLICAN.




Think about it, Ron apparently decided not to go third party because 1) he's building the movement within the GOP, and 2) to set up Rand's run.

Believe you me, I have given that a LOT of thought.




But under this scenario, by 2016, the movement will have been built...

RE-BUILT, differently.

It is inconceivable to me that genuine Libertarians (or frankly, genuine Independents) would SUPPORT Rand Paul, beneficiary of Nepotism & Dealmaking...unless it is the time-honored lackluster rally around a LESSER OF EVILS.




...and Rand will already be running.

Certainly seems that way. What Rand Paul Supporters don't GET is that lotsa Non Republican Ron Paul Supporters don't WANT Rand Paul to be President. Ever.




If the system hacks then defraud/vote-rig/blackout Rand from winning the same way they did Ron, by spring 2016 there'll be nothing to hold back either Paul from running third party.

Ron Paul will be in his 80's. I appreciate that Ron Paul Supporters believe that he'd be a better President in his NINETIES than any other jackoff in the prime of life (except Rand, of course, as a distant second). But it isn't true. Senses dull, reactions slow. Life is HARD.

Ron Paul is OUT. OF. CONTENTION. after this year. Hence, NOBP.

And WHY, pray tell, would Rand Paul abandon (even more) "Republican Inroads" in 2016?



The whole point of having an independent political power base is to be able to use it independent of a particular party structure.

Ain't THEORY grand?




It will be time to so use it in 2016.

So they say in 2012...as they said ABOUT 2012, BEFORE 2012.

In 2016, they'll say "our time" is 2020...if it is even necessary or DESIRABLE anymore, now that "we" are gaining such foothold in the Grand Old Party.