There's a reason NV won't be colored yellow. Ron didn't win it because the delegates we won are still bound to support Romney.
There's a reason NV won't be colored yellow. Ron didn't win it because the delegates we won are still bound to support Romney.
The 'bound' results were 20-8 correct?
Yeah, so NV isn't one of the 5. There are obviously many benefits in winning the convention, but it doesn't count as a Ron win for the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPit
Correct. 20 of the 28 delegates are bound to Romney. However, they are free to vote as they wish on rules, bylaws, platform issues, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPit
How about the VP slot?Quote:
Originally Posted by MRoCkEd
if we go two ballots... they are Ron's people!
So even without the 1st ballot victory we've gained leverage heading into Tampa. And an opportunity for the RNC to make asses of themselves, which one has to figure CNN will jump all over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrishW
Ya...without Paul's name as an option to vote for!
And the people who abstain in round 1 may be replaced by alternates...possibly.
By the way, I posted this because there was confusion about NV. A lot of people don't seem to know what it means for us now. The thread title was made a little more positive, though.
The bottom line is Ron does not win NV delegation plurality. After today Ron has 2 out of the 5 states he needs (MN and ME). LA in the future, of course, but only two after today.
I saw this on other site. Any truth to this?
Quote:
According to the National GOP rule book, All voters can abstain from the vote on the first round as they are not controlled by the state or party conventions. Rule 38.
Quote:
Nevada delegates are bound by the state's results on the first ballot. However, rule 38, allows bound delegates in NV to refrain from voting in the first ballot, thus making them unbound in the second round if Romney is unable to acquire the necessary 1,144 votes to win the nomination
I'm not sure about that, but it sounds like it could be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by smartguy911
Although this sounds like it could be true too: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4403028
I was considering the needed five states, though:
Someone PMed me that they think plurality doesn't consider bound delegates. I don't see how that's possible, though. Can't find any clarification on what "plurality" entails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule 40
My dream: Romney gets up to deliver the keynote address in Tampa. All our delegates, bound to him or not, get up in unison and chant President Paul. Romney leaves the stage.
It would be rude, but it would make me smile.
Why in the world didnt they try to unbind the delegates?
Every delegate is free to vote as they choose for VP, bound or unbound.Quote:
Originally Posted by twomp
You need a plurality in 6 states to nominate VP from the floor. 1 to motion and 5 to second.
So they could vote for Ron. Isn't that obvious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogsoldier
So, 20/28 are bound to vote for Romney, does that mean the other 8 aren't and are ours?
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Okie RP fan
So, if you could breakdown the delegates from Nevada, between Romney and Ron, after the re-calculation of Newt and Santorum's delegates, how does it go? Is it still 20 for Romney and 8 for Paul? How many of Ron's delegates are pledged to vote for Romney, 14?
Hey, that's better than nothing at all, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy
"So they could vote for Ron. Isn't that obvious?"
But they are bound to Romney...They can't vote for Paul...if they obstain its likely a Romney supporter alternate will get to vote in their place.
If this isn't right then what am I missing?
If the state convention had unbound the delegates they could have voted for whoever they wanted to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogsoldier
"If the state convention had unbound the delegates they could have voted for whoever they wanted to. "
Yes thats my point....Now no matter what now they are bound to Romney unless they obstain in which a possible Romney alternate could step in and make the vote for Romney.
If they were unbound they wouldn't be forced to vote for Romney and could vote for Paul.
So why didnt they try to unbind the delegates?
Unbinding the delegates would have broken the delegate selection rules the Nevada GOP sent to the RNC back in October. The RNC is saying that if you break rules, you will get penalized (like how Florida lost half their delegates for breaking the calendar rule). The RNC said that one penalty may be that no delegates will be seated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogsoldier
I'm sure the campaign weighed all the pros and cons and thought it was better to not try and unbind the delegates.
I'm satisfied with leaving them bound on the first ballot. Make the RNC look like dicks if they refuse to seat a delegation that is following the rules.
the simple gameplan: get over 50% of delegates to be ron paul supporters; change bylaws at RNC; unbind them; win.
The RNC clearly felt it would break their rules for the state convention to unbind the delegates. The RNC sent a lawyer to the convention this morning. That means they would have fought any attempt at the convention to unbound the delegates. That would also mean that (if we had successfully unbound the delegates at the state convention) the RNC would have fought the unbinding of these delegates when we got to the national convention too, probably try to have them removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogsoldier
Maybe the Ron Paul campaign feels confident that Romney won't win on the first vote in Tampa, why make a move that will be vigorously challenged by the national party? why not wait and let the delegates become unbound after the first vote at tampa, when their unbinding cannot be fought by the RNC as a breach of the rules? If we had done it today at state level it may have been overturned in Tampa or worse the delegates ejected. When it happens in Tampa after the first vote, there will be nothing the RNC can do about it.
I think.
Ok now I see.This is nerve racking.
We just need to keep Romney from the magic number.
That's why Texas and California are so important.Quote:
Originally Posted by dancjm
Nevada may be considered one of the five states with a Ron Paul plurality:
Josh Putnam at FHQ is an expert on this stuff so if he's unsure, I'm sure not many people have a definitive answer.Quote:
Hamdan Azhar @HamdanAzhar
@FHQ Josh, What are your thoughts abt the likelihood of NV counting as a Rule 40b plurality state for Ron Paul? #ronpaul2012 #rnc #nvgop
Josh Putnam @FHQ
.@HamdanAzhar Tricky question, but would think NV could count RE: Rule 40. Delegates are Romney-bound on roll call only; not other business