How does Rand Plan To Keep The GOP From Cheating Him In Iowa and New H?

[reduen]

We all know here that Ron actually won Iowa and New Hampshire when he ran and was cheated out of them by the GOP. Does anyone here know what Rand plans to do to keep the same thing from happening?

[timosman]

We all know here that Ron actually won Iowa and New Hampshire when he ran and was cheated out of them by the GOP. Does anyone here know what Rand plans to do to keep the same thing from happening?

He has no plans. The expectation is everybody will play by the rules this time.:rolleyes:

[reduen]

I hope that you are wrong or just being sarcastic here...


He has no plans. The expectation is everybody will play by the rules this time.:rolleyes:

[acptulsa]

Whatever plans he has he is wisely keeping to himself.

Meanwhile, what are you doing? Are you setting up a site where Iowans can post the result of their caucuses, so we can compare that to the official counts?


I hope that you are wrong or just being sarcastic here...

He seldom fails to be either one.

[mit26chell]

It is up to us to help him. If he's cheated the only recourse would seem to be legal.

[timosman]

Whatever plans he has he is wisely keeping to himself.

Meanwhile, what are you doing? Are you setting up a site where Iowans can post the result of their caucuses, so we can compare that to the official counts?

This is something Rand should have done by now. Unfortunately nobody on the campaign side was interested.

[acptulsa]

This is something Rand should have done by now. Unfortunately nobody on the campaign side was interested.

Let's see your proof of that.

[reduen]

I am not setting up a site as you suggested but I did suggest an app that would serve that same function some time ago. Are you doing either? I worked extremely hard during the last two Dr. Paul campaigns, way too much to list here but I did lead the takeover of our county GOP etc... For Rand, I have pretty much just donated here and there because of my experience with the GOP concerning his dad. Why work hard if there is no possibility of winning? That is why I asked the question...


Whatever plans he has he is wisely keeping to himself.

Meanwhile, what are you doing? Are you setting up a site where Iowans can post the result of their caucuses, so we can compare that to the official counts?



He seldom fails to be either one.

[reduen]

If you will check below my picture you will see that I came to this party long before you... Glad to have you but this aint my first rodeo...


It is up to us to help him. If he's cheated the only recourse would seem to be legal.

[acptulsa]

I am not setting up a site as you suggested but I did suggest an app that would serve that same function some time ago. Are you doing either? I worked extremely hard during the last two Dr. Paul campaigns, way too much to list here but I did lead the takeover of our county GOP etc... For Rand, I have pretty much just donated here and there because of my experience with the GOP concerning his dad. Why work hard if there is no possibility of winning? That is why I asked the question...

I'm not doubting your track record. I'm suggesting that transparency in this would be a bad thing. I'm suggesting that even if he has that angle covered, a little redundancy wouldn't do any harm. I'm saying that if we try to cover that angle in a transparent manner at the grassroots level, maybe the powers that be will be too busy jacking with us to find out what the campaign is doing and torpedo that.

And I'm sick to death of this site being loaded down with people who spend all day saying, 'Oh, the campaign isn't doing that and doesn't want to win,' when they have no idea if the campaign is doing that, or if it's even legal for the campaign to do that.

If Rand Paul had received the same level of spontaneous support his father did, he would be a very, very serious threat to win right now. But we allowed ourselves to be played by naysayers, doom and gloomers, and purity testers. And here we are.

[timosman]

Let's see your proof of that.

What proof do you need? I just hope Rand has something up his sleeve we might not know about.

[acptulsa]

What proof do you need?

What proof do I need that you made a very discouraging blanket statement even though you have no idea at all if it's true or a baldfaced lie?


I just hope Rand has something up his sleeve we might not know about.

None, thanks. That's all the proof anyone could ever need.

[Foreigner]

If there is any cheating, it's probably to pump up Rubio and Bush, how embarrassing it would be for the establishment to only get 20% total of the vote. ;) I doubt they have Rand on their radar right now.

[reduen]

Listen, I do understand your frustrations but step in my shoes for a second. I worked and donated for eight years of my life and when I finally got into a position that mattered the GOP of my state threatened to take me to court to challenge the legitimacy of my election as the county election commissioner. I did not have the money, support or health by that time to go any further... Maybe you can see my lack of enthusiasm and the reason for my wondering... Having said that I see hope where I did not see it before and I want to believe that it is possible.


I'm not doubting your track record. I'm suggesting that transparency in this would be a bad thing. I'm suggesting that even if he has that angle covered, a little redundancy wouldn't do any harm. I'm saying that if we try to cover that angle in a transparent manner at the grassroots level, maybe the powers that be will be too busy jacking with us to find out what the campaign is doing and torpedo that.

And I'm sick to death of this site being loaded down with people who spend all day saying, 'Oh, the campaign isn't doing that and doesn't want to win,' when they have no idea if the campaign is doing that, or if it's even legal for the campaign to do that.

If Rand Paul had received the same level of spontaneous support his father did, he would be a very, very serious threat to win right now. But we allowed ourselves to be played by naysayers, doom and gloomers, and purity testers. And here we are.

[bierdegarde]

Require election officials to swear an oath.

[reduen]

I believe that your mistake here may be that you are following the narrative set forth by the media when you state this...


If there is any cheating, it's probably to pump up Rubio and Bush, how embarrassing it would be for the establishment to only get 20% total of the vote. ;) I doubt they have Rand on their radar right now.

[reduen]

I agree with you where transparency is concerned accept I believe it should be 100% across the board. Are you capable of setting up a site like you suggested before? I am not the man for that job but I like the idea.

This post was for acptulsa..

[Snowball]

The next Fox debate is only 9 days away in Des Moines
and they haven't even announced the criteria yet.

[Lord Xar]

I remember the stories of broken in offices with seals on voting cards broken...
Strange men taking off in a car behind a security gate, in a residential neighborhood.

IF ANY OF YOU THINK THIS WILL BE LEGIT, YOU GOT ANOTHER THING COMING..

[derek4ever]

This is a very important question! Do we know if anybody in the campaign has some sort of system where the identified Rand voters have their votes protected and counted properly? I just read that Iowa will be using e-voting, so that raises a major red flag. :eek:

[squirl22]

I thought, in a caucus, people have to actually stand up and declare who they are voting for. The vote is public within the precinct group. So, if he has the precinct captains like he says he has, why not have someone video the whole thing specifically the vote count as announced by each group within the precinct?

[squirl22]

I just read that Iowa will be using e-voting,

What the heck is that? As I stated above, I thought you had to publicly vote.

[Joeinmo]

Well there is a pretty good portion (not all) of Rand supporters that are part of the Iowa GOP leadership

[Joeinmo]

There is no electronic voting at the Iowa Caucus, not sure where that came from they use paper. Now the totals of the paper might be sent from the caucus to the official count center via electronic, but the paper is there for back up

[jmdrake]

Listen, I do understand your frustrations but step in my shoes for a second. I worked and donated for eight years of my life and when I finally got into a position that mattered the GOP of my state threatened to take me to court to challenge the legitimacy of my election as the county election commissioner. I did not have the money, support or health by that time to go any further... Maybe you can see my lack of enthusiasm and the reason for my wondering... Having said that I see hope where I did not see it before and I want to believe that it is possible.

Well that sucks. The CFL really needs a legal defense fund particularly for cases like this.

Anyway, Ron Paul ultimately was allowed to "win" Iowa from the standpoint of getting 25 out of the 28 delegates. He just came in third in the actual caucus so he didn't get the media bump he needed. Or are you saying he actually had more caucus votes than Santorum?

[reduen]

Wow! What a relief. Now that you said that I feel so much better... :rolleyes:


Well there is a pretty good portion (not all) of Rand supporters that are part of the Iowa GOP leadership

[acptulsa]

I agree with you where transparency is concerned accept I believe it should be 100% across the board. Are you capable of setting up a site like you suggested before? I am not the man for that job but I like the idea.

This post was for acptulsa..

No, can't claim to be a computer whiz.

It's a hard choice to decide if your efforts are better spent in an early state like Iowa, which can affect momentum, or in your home state where one's efforts presumably go farther. And always a challenge to decide whether playing an open hand encourages others, or playing close to the vest is better because it gives the enemy less information to use against you.

Pics of tote boards were posted here from Iowa caucuses before. That particular precaution won't be hard to pull off. Keeping New Hampshire honest will be the challenge.


This is a very important question! Do we know if anybody in the campaign has some sort of system where the identified Rand voters have their votes protected and counted properly? I just read that Iowa will be using e-voting, so that raises a major red flag. :eek:

Iowa is using caucuses. The computers will not be the only creatures to know how many votes went where. Iowa is not the state we most need to worry about.

[derek4ever]

Here's the proof they're planning on counting the ballots in Iowa electronically. Just read it.

h t t p://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/the-iowa-caucus-gets-a-much-needed-upgrade/422052/

[robskicks]

I make apps. Let's do it.

[derek4ever]

I make apps. Let's do it.

+1! Apps, tickets, stickers, whatever is needed! :cool:

[reduen]

Are you serious!?!? I love this idea but when I suggested it to the campaign during that techy thing they had there was no reply...


I make apps. Let's do it.

[CPUd]

They are not using the phone-in system this time to report precinct totals, it will be done via software. the people running the precincts are still going to undisclosed locations to count and enter the precinct totals. Reps from the campaigns (precinct captains) are allowed to go with them.

[CPUd]

I'm not doubting your track record. I'm suggesting that transparency in this would be a bad thing. I'm suggesting that even if he has that angle covered, a little redundancy wouldn't do any harm. I'm saying that if we try to cover that angle in a transparent manner at the grassroots level, maybe the powers that be will be too busy jacking with us to find out what the campaign is doing and torpedo that.

And I'm sick to death of this site being loaded down with people who spend all day saying, 'Oh, the campaign isn't doing that and doesn't want to win,' when they have no idea if the campaign is doing that, or if it's even legal for the campaign to do that.

If Rand Paul had received the same level of spontaneous support his father did, he would be a very, very serious threat to win right now. But we allowed ourselves to be played by naysayers, doom and gloomers, and purity testers. And here we are.

QFT

[WTLaw]

At this point, I have to wonder if the establishment might not rather have Rand do well than Trump...and Cruz is personally unpopular with many in the party, even though his policies are more in line with establishment conservatism. SO, I dont think there is quite the orchestration this time in anti-Paul measures, at least other than what has already been done.

[brandon]

We all know here that Ron actually won Iowa and New Hampshire when he ran and was cheated out of them by the GOP.?

What does this comment even mean? Ron Paul lost the popular vote in Iowa, but won the caucus securing the most delegates and running the entire Iowa GOP. How was he cheated?

He certainly didn't win NH. No one got close to Romney. I've never seen any evidence of Paul being cheated in NH.

[TheTyke]

When Rand ran in Kentucky, he was very aware of the possibility of fraud - especially running against the Sec. of State who was in charge of the election. I can say he took excellent measures to prevent against this.

He also won the primary by 24%. It's just simple reality that we have to win by a significant margin, or the media will spin it any way they want. i.e. in 2012 when it was very close, the media announced Romney as the winner of Iowa. A few weeks later they announced with much less coverage that Santorum actually won the popular vote. Then almost no one announced it when it was learned Ron Paul actually won the delegates.

All efforts should be focused on phone banking, donating, spreading the word, and winning by as large a margin as we can. The establishment does not have perfect control of elections, as some would have you believe... but they stack the odds in their favor every way possible. That's why we need both an excellent strategy, as many resources as we can muster, and all of us working together whenever we hope to beat them.

[reduen]

Back off please brandon... If you don't agree with my post that is your deal..


What does this comment even mean? Ron Paul lost the popular vote in Iowa, but won the caucus securing the most delegates and running the entire Iowa GOP. How was he cheated?

He certainly didn't win NH. No one got close to Romney. I've never seen any evidence of Paul being cheated in NH.

[invisible]

I thought, in a caucus, people have to actually stand up and declare who they are voting for. The vote is public within the precinct group. So, if he has the precinct captains like he says he has, why not have someone video the whole thing specifically the vote count as announced by each group within the precinct?

In IA in 2008, the process was completely transparent. The precinct chair asked for two volunteers to count ballots, who each supported different candidates (we got one, the other stated they were a romney supporter). The ballots were counted by both counters and the chair, in front of everyone. Then the counters verified the chair phoning in the correct numbers to HQ. The delegate process was likewise fair and square, and completely transparent (we got 50% of all available delegate slots in my precinct). No one declared who they were voting for on the ballot, but the chair did ask those being nominated as delegates who they supported (everyone answered honestly, and no one tried to go undeclared).

Remember that in a caucus, anyone can move to change how anything is done. If it is intended otherwise, then a motion can always be made to count the votes in front of anyone, by multiple supporters of different candidates, and for it to be properly verified that the correct totals are reported to HQ. In this way, it will be very easy to at least keep IA (and other caucus states) transparent and honest - but it depends on each chair being fair and honest, and also on supporters knowing how to use Robert's Rules.

[GunnyFreedom]

I remember the stories of broken in offices with seals on voting cards broken...
Strange men taking off in a car behind a security gate, in a residential neighborhood.

IF ANY OF YOU THINK THIS WILL BE LEGIT, YOU GOT ANOTHER THING COMING..

Wasn't that NH? A caucus is a lot more difficult to defraud than a primary.

[GunnyFreedom]

I know a grassroots Rand group on my FB is planning to share local caucus results to compare with official tallies. No idea how they are organized, I haven't been paying attention to that part since I will not be in Iowa.

[TomtheTinker]

I
Well that sucks. The CFL really needs a legal defense fund particularly for cases like this.

Anyway, Ron Paul ultimately was allowed to "win" Iowa from the standpoint of getting 25 out of the 28 delegates. He just came in third in the actual caucus so he didn't get the media bump he needed. Or are you saying he actually had more caucus votes than Santorum?.

Would you mind explaining how Ron received 25/28 of Iowa's delagets. I have a general idea but would like to have a better understanding. Thanks

[acptulsa]

He just came in third in the actual caucus so he didn't get the media bump he needed. Or are you saying he actually had more caucus votes than Santorum?

He didn't get any media bump at all, if that's the one I'm thinking of. Except when Comedy Central lampooned them for reporting the candidates who came in first, second and fourth.


I.

Would you mind explaining how Ron received 25/28 of Iowa's delagets. I have a general idea but would like to have a better understanding. Thanks

I'm not 100% sure which campaign he's referring to. But I'm pretty sure the answer is, our delegates volunteered at the caucuses, and so wound up at the convention. There, they were somewhat restricted in who they could vote for, but were freed up somewhat by the fact that Santorum and others had dropped out by then, but Ron Paul had not.

[Jamesiv1]

I sure hope the campaign produces a video ASAP explaining in detail exactly what they are planning to counter any shenanigans.

Or I will be PISSED OFF and vote for Trump.

/sarc

[invisible]

I.

Would you mind explaining how Ron received 25/28 of Iowa's delagets. I have a general idea but would like to have a better understanding. Thanks

In IA (and it probably works pretty much the same in any caucus state), you vote (caucus) by precinct, and everyone shows up at the same time. There is a ballot vote first, this is the vote that gets reported on TV as to who "won IA", and it means nothing as far as delegates are concerned. Then the ballots are counted and boring stuff is voted on and motions are made, stuff like voting on rules, delegates, and platform. Many people just mark the ballot, and then leave when all this boring and uninteresting stuff starts to happen. As part of this process, people are nominated (or nominate themselves) to be delegates. Once the nominations for delegates are finished, then there is a vote to elect the delegates. Note that this vote is entirely separate from the ballot vote, happens after most people have already left, and is not reported on TV. The delegates elected in this precinct caucus go on to the county caucus a few months later, and the same thing happens, delegates are elected to go on to the Congressional district caucus. At the Congressional district caucus, the process repeats, and delegates are elected to the state convention. At the state convention, the delegates are elected to go to the national convention. Each step of the process weeds out delegates, until the final number is reached which go to the national convention.

To use my earlier example of the precinct I was in in IA during 2008, there was a huge line of people who came in, marked their ballots, then immediately left. They had been bussed in by various churches to vote for the huckster, and all wanted to get back on the busses and go asap. That's why the huckster won the ballot vote, and was reported on TV as "winning IA". Out of perhaps 500-750 ballots were cast for the precinct, about 40 or so people bothered to stick around for the boring and uninteresting stuff. When it came time to elect the delegates, the chair opened the floor for nominations. Our precinct was assigned (based on number of registered voters in the precinct) 8 delegate positions, and 8 alternates. When all the nominations were done, there were exactly 8 people nominated, so there weren't even enough people willing to be delegates to fill the additional alternate positions. The chair made a motion to save time by voting for ALL nominated delegates together as a slate, rather than holding a separate vote for each person, since the number of people nominated was equal to the number of available delegate spots. The motion was seconded, voted on, and passed. Then everyone voted to elect all 8 people nominated to be the delegates to our precinct. For our precinct, the huckster got something like 50% of the ballot vote. But of our 8 delegates, we got 4 for Ron Paul, 2 for romney, 1 for fred thompson, and one for the huckster. So that is how the delegate vote can turn out very differently from who your TV set says "won IA" that evening.

As an afternote, in IA 2008 we did really well in getting delegates at the precinct level, and then getting them through the county caucus and onward to the Congressional district level. At the Congressional district caucus was where we got our butts kicked. We simply got outvoted somehow at the Congressional district level, only had like 15% of the vote, and very few of our delegates were able to advance to the state convention. This showed how effective our county meetup group was with our efforts and campaigning. While we were strong in the county and had more delegates than any other candidate by far, we got outnumbered by the rest of the counties that made up the Congressional district.

[NativeOne]

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffocusmagazine.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2Flegalism-nun.jpg&f=1

[Peace&Freedom]

And I'm sick to death of this site being loaded down with people who spend all day saying, 'Oh, the campaign isn't doing that and doesn't want to win,' when they have no idea if the campaign is doing that, or if it's even legal for the campaign to do that.

If Rand Paul had received the same level of spontaneous support his father did, he would be a very, very serious threat to win right now. But we allowed ourselves to be played by naysayers, doom and gloomers, and purity testers. And here we are.

Clean it up all you want to, but Rand's campaign did not generate or inspire the same level of spontaneous support his father did. He did not appear to make the adjustments or corrections to improve his position during primary season, thus encouraging naysayers and doom and gloomers.

And thus far his approach has not passed the pragmatism test (the whole electoral point of compromising or waffling was to gain more support, not the lower poll numbers Rand has received), thus encouraging the purity testers to ask what was gained by abandoning principles. In short, there are reasons why the campaign has struggled, and scapegoating the grassroots does not address them.

[nasaal]

When Ron Paul was likely cheated in Iowa, he still had a very very strong finish. We are assuming already that Rand is going to be cheated, but known cheating only has a marginal effect. He'd still end up top 3 if he had a similar result as his father. I think we should certainly hope against this, but be self-aware enough to not jump to conclusions. If he has a terrible showing, then chances are he wasn't cheated, he just had a bad showing.

[acptulsa]

Clean it up all you want to, but Rand's campaign did not generate or inspire the same level of spontaneous support his father did. He did not appear to make the adjustments or corrections to improve his position during primary season, thus encouraging naysayers and doom and gloomers.

And thus far his approach has not passed the pragmatism test (the whole electoral point of compromising or waffling was to gain more support, not the lower poll numbers Rand has received), thus encouraging the purity testers to ask what was gained by abandoning principles. In short, there are reasons why the campaign has struggled, and scapegoating the grassroots does not address them.

The grassroots complained that Ron Paul did not do the things he needed to do to remain acceptable to mainstream voters. The grassroots said they would support a candidate who did with equal vigor, said they were adult enough to continue that support even if it was the mainstream voters and not them who was getting their asses kissed. Instead, the grassroots proved to be faithless, and susceptible to those who were paid to sow doubt and division. Rand's impeccable record in the Senate was enough to convince the powers that be and their pet media that Rand would represent We, the People, not them, and fought. The grassroots did not counter that with the vigor they displayed in trying to put the far less appealing Ron over among the mundanes.

Clean it up all you want. Go ahead.

[reduen]

Well, there are the known knowns and there are the known unknowns and of course we then have the unknown unknowns etc... "We can't get fooled again.." ;)

[reduen]

Bottom line, those of you who say "The campaign better do this or else I am voting for so and so", you don't even begin to understand this fight and frankly in my opinion, you deserve what you get! Problem is that those of us who know that it is Rand Paul or nothing if we want to have any hope of returning to what the founders intended for us do not deserve what we will be getting...

[erowe1]

We all know here that Ron actually won Iowa and New Hampshire when he ran and was cheated out of them by the GOP.

Source?

[reduen]

As the old saying goes, "ours is not to question why, ours it but to do or die...".

[CPUd]

Clean it up all you want to, but Rand's campaign did not generate or inspire the same level of spontaneous support his father did. He did not appear to make the adjustments or corrections to improve his position during primary season, thus encouraging naysayers and doom and gloomers.

And thus far his approach has not passed the pragmatism test (the whole electoral point of compromising or waffling was to gain more support, not the lower poll numbers Rand has received), thus encouraging the purity testers to ask what was gained by abandoning principles. In short, there are reasons why the campaign has struggled, and scapegoating the grassroots does not address them.

I think his campaign is actually in a pretty good position right now. Luckily, there are new grassroots picking up the slack where some of the Ron grassroots (who turned out to be soft supporters) left off.

[reduen]

Et tu erowe1..?


Source?

[jmdrake]

I.

Would you mind explaining how Ron received 25/28 of Iowa's delagets. I have a general idea but would like to have a better understanding. Thanks

I'll do my best. You see the delegates are not elected at the same time the straw poll is tabulated. So most folks came, registered their vote for Santorum or Romney or Paul or whoever and then went home. But the Ron Paul supporters were specifically instructed to stay there until the very end when the delegates were actually elected. I suspect that Rand won't be able to pull off a similar feat as the cat is out of the bag. Then again, a lot of candidates are getting "shallow" support as in people who aren't all that dedicated to the cause but are just jumping on the bandwagon. Paul supporters tend to be smaller in number but larger in dedication.

[erowe1]

Et tu erowe1..?

Well, you started this out by saying, "We all know..." But I've been here since 2007 and this is news to me. If what you say is true, was the proof ever presented here on the forums? Because I don't remember that. I'd love to see your sources. What are they?

[reduen]

Watch it there buddy, I was here long before you showed up to the party! What is you def of "soft support"? lol


I think his campaign is actually in a pretty good position right now. Luckily, there are new grassroots picking up the slack where some of the Ron grassroots (who turned out to be soft supporters) left off.

[reduen]

Well sir, if you have even but read through all the post in this thread you can find plenty of evidence of where I am coming from and I remember plenty of reports of suspicious things back in the day, however if you are asking for iron clad proof I have only my opinion. Do you disagree that the media and the GOP have been anti our cause in any way?


Well, you started this out by saying, "We all know..." But I've been here since 2007 and this is news to me. If what you say is true, was the proof ever presented here on the forums? Because I don't remember that. I'd love to see your sources. What are they?

[reduen]

Blanket statement: It is my opinion that if the media and the GOP had all played things fair, we would already have a Dr. Paul presidency.

[timosman]

Blanket statement: It is my opinion that if the media and the GOP had all played things fair, we would already have a Dr. Paul presidency.

It all depends on what your definition of fair is. The campaign better be prepared for some creative definitions of the word. Complaining about the process not being fair is for suckers.

[erowe1]

Well sir, if you have even but read through all the post in this thread you can find plenty of evidence of where I am coming from and I remember plenty of reports of suspicious things back in the day, however if you are asking for iron clad proof I have only my opinion. Do you disagree that the media and the GOP have been anti our cause in any way?

I have done that. Is there a post in this thread where proof is given that Ron Paul actually got the most votes in New Hampshire and was cheated out of them? I still don't see anything like that.

Let's not say ironclad proof. Let's just set the bar at any evidence at all. I mean, to say, "we all know," there must be something pretty strong that you didn't just make up.

[reduen]

Is your goal here to disagree, argue, or to try and make me retract my original statement? Trying to figure out your point here..


I have done that. Is there a post in this thread where proof is given that Ron Paul actually got the most votes in New Hampshire and was cheated out of them? I still don't see anything like that.

Let's not say ironclad proof. Let's just set the bar at any evidence at all. I mean, to say, "we all know," there must be something pretty strong that you didn't just make up.

[erowe1]

I guess my thing is that the main goal needs to be winning the support of lots and lots of flesh and blood individuals, more than any other candidates do. If Rand can win, it's a given that the establishment will try to stop him. We just need enough support to be able to overcome whatever they do. In a statistical tie, Rand will lose to the advantages the establishment has. Once we agree that the political arena is the one we're fighting in, we just have to accept those constraints. We can't put our hopes in a strategy that will somehow result in losing the popular vote but winning with delegates. We have to win a whole lot more popular support than Ron ever did. And if we can't do that, then we lose.

[reduen]

I agree with you 100% here and the following has some info that you may have forgotten: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012


I guess my thing is that the main goal needs to be winning the support of lots and lots of flesh and blood individuals, more than any other candidates do. If Rand can win, it's a given that the establishment will try to stop him. We just need enough support to be able to overcome whatever they do. In a statistical tie, Rand will lose to the advantages the establishment has. Once we agree that the political arena is the one we're fighting in, we just have to accept those constraints. We can't put our hopes in a strategy that will somehow result in losing the popular vote but winning with delegates. We have to win a whole lot more popular support than Ron ever did. And if we can't do that, then we lose.

[Steve-in-NY]

To use my earlier example of the precinct I was in in IA during 2008, there was a huge line of people who came in, marked their ballots, then immediately left. They had been bussed in by various churches to vote for the huckster, and all wanted to get back on the busses and go asap. That's why the huckster won the ballot vote, and was reported on TV as "winning IA". Out of perhaps 500-750 ballots were cast for the precinct, about 40 or so people bothered to stick around for the boring and uninteresting stuff. When it came time to elect the delegates, the chair opened the floor for nominations. Our precinct was assigned (based on number of registered voters in the precinct) 8 delegate positions, and 8 alternates. When all the nominations were done, there were exactly 8 people nominated, so there weren't even enough people willing to be delegates to fill the additional alternate positions. The chair made a motion to save time by voting for ALL nominated delegates together as a slate, rather than holding a separate vote for each person, since the number of people nominated was equal to the number of available delegate spots. The motion was seconded, voted on, and passed. Then everyone voted to elect all 8 people nominated to be the delegates to our precinct. For our precinct, the huckster got something like 50% of the ballot vote. But of our 8 delegates, we got 4 for Ron Paul, 2 for romney, 1 for fred thompson, and one for the huckster. So that is how the delegate vote can turn out very differently from who your TV set says "won IA" that evening.

If it's all the same, I'd like to have my cake and eat it too, by winning both the majority of delegates as well as the paper ballots, please.

[erowe1]

I agree with you 100% here and the following has some info that you may have forgotten: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012

It says right there that Ron only got 11% of the popular vote nationwide. That's what I'm talking about. To beat the establishment, Rand has to do a lot better than that.

[Zippyjuan]

We all know here that Ron actually won Iowa and New Hampshire when he ran and was cheated out of them by the GOP. Does anyone here know what Rand plans to do to keep the same thing from happening?

In New Hampshire he had 22.9% to Romney at 39.3%. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/new-hampshire

In Iowa he was actually third though he got the most delegates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2012