How bad is it for our plans if Romney receives 1,144 delegates?

[roc_rob]

Article: Romney embraces delegate math again

Is there an alternate plan?

[CTRattlesnake]

Article: Romney embraces delegate math again

Is there an alternate plan?

If Romney gets to 1144 we lose


End of story, he takes the nomination... Which is why I support strategic voting for sanatorum to stop mitt at all costs

[sailingaway]

That is essentially correct, as I see it, (that then Romney would win, not about voting for Santorum). At that point it would be more does Ron get plurality of 5 states so he can be nominated from the floor and speak (there is no 'deal' for a speaking slot necessary if he is nominated from the floor.)

[CTRattlesnake]

See my sig for the real delegate count

[sailingaway]

That is the big thing, Romney saying 'I got that number' if he is counting winning, say NV and WA and ME might or might not be accurate since those delegates are unbound.

[CTRattlesnake]

That is essentially correct, as I see it, (that then Romney would win, not about voting for Santorum). At that point it would be more does Ron get plurality of 5 states so he can be nominated from the floor and speak (there is no 'deal' for a speaking slot necessary if he is nominated from the floor.)

I think we have to be real with ourselves.... In states where ron is clearly in fourt, but first place is up in the air , we can do more good by stopping mItt from winning.

[tremendoustie]

If Romney gets to 1144 we lose


End of story, he takes the nomination... Which is why I support strategic voting for sanatorum to stop mitt at all costs

No. Absolutely not.

Voting for evil for "strategic reasons" is no better than voting for the "lesser of two evils", and it misses the point.

Every single vote is a referendum on where this country should be heading. Every vote for Ron Paul sends a pro-liberty message. Every vote for santorum sends a pro-tyranny, pro-spending, pro-war message.

Do not get sucked into their game. Never support evil, period. We do not need kniving people to try to manipulate the process. We need men and women of courage who will stand up for what is right, regardless of whether it's popular.

[sailingaway]

I think we have to be real with ourselves.... In states where ron is clearly in fourt, but first place is up in the air , we can do more good by stopping mItt from winning.

Ron was fourth in MO in the poll but wont be in delegates barring some odd twists yet to come. You have to be careful about deciding he is in fourth. In fourth WHERE? On the ground in the caucuses and conventions, if our guys would be squeezed out, they cut deals on the spot and I am sure all of the relevant factors are known to them.

[SCOTUSman]

Are you really asking how bad it is for our plans, if Romney wins? Lol

[No Free Beer]

he still needs us.

[Liberty74]

It's over. And why I have advocated going Indy from the get go.

[Matthew5]

It's game over at that point. Why else do you think the pressure is mounting on Santorum to get out? Why are they not calling on Gingrich or Paul to leave? Because they know that they need to acquire Santorum's delegates to end this. Like it or not, Santorum is the only thing preventing a pre-convention victory for Romney.

However that doesn't mean we should vote for him! By no means! We need to funnel 100% of our efforts into Paul's campaign.

[CTRattlesnake]

No. Absolutely not.

Voting for evil for "strategic reasons" is no better than voting for the "lesser of two evils", and it misses the point.

Every single vote is a referendum on where this country should be heading. Every vote for Ron Paul sends a pro-liberty message. Every vote for santorum sends a pro-tyranny, pro-spending, pro-war message.

Do not get sucked into their game. Never support evil, period. We do not need kniving people to try to manipulate the process. We need men and women of courage who will stand up for what is right, regardless of whether it's popular.

Disagree strongly..... By strategically voting for Rick you are helping Paul more than actually voting for would.


Think about it... If mitt gets enough delegates it's over period, amen, goodnight. A strategic vote for sanatorum ends up helping the cause of liberty more than a vote for Paul does. No one is saying like what santorum stands for.... But sometimes it helps dr Paul
More if you vote Rick

[CTRattlesnake]

That is the big thing, Romney saying 'I got that number' if he is counting winning, say NV and WA and ME might or might not be accurate since those delegates are unbound.

We are fighting a war of perception here... The media doesn't give a you know what about local conventions... They only care about who "won" the beauty contest

[Athan]

We just need to get delegates. Do NOT follow the vote for Santorum plan if you don't know whether your state is a caucus or porportional state. Make sure to become a delegate. And don't make it obvious your a Ron Paul supporter.

[gerryb]

Votes don't choose delegates, conventions do.

[rockerrockstar]

You can vote for Ron Paul to prevent Romney from getting enough votes.

[sailingaway]

Votes don't choose delegates, conventions do.

Sometimes votes choose delegates, as in Illinois winning a DISTRICT would have directly given Ron delegates, even if he were fourth in the state. And he is ignored more when his numbers are low. I think it is a dangerous strategy, and minimizes the importance of Ron's message. There may be a time or two I would think differently, but at the moment none occurs to me.

[CTRattlesnake]

We just need to get delegates. Do NOT follow the vote for Santorum plan if you don't know whether your state is a caucus or porportional state. Make sure to become a delegate. And don't make it obvious your a Ron Paul supporter.

Agreed... Hence why I label it a "strategic" plan

[CTRattlesnake]

Sometimes votes choose delegates, as in Illinois winning a DISTRICT would have directly given Ron delegates, even if he were fourth in the state. And he is ignored more when his numbers are low. I think it is a dangerous strategy, and minimizes the importance of Ron's message. There may be a time or two I would think differently, but at the moment none occurs to me.

Mississippi and Alabama were perfect
For the strategic santorum plan... But most times its at
A
Local level

[roc_rob]

When Paul polls at the front of the pack against Obama---it would be a tragedy in my eyes for him not to run 3rd party.

[DonovanJames]

I also don't think it is an honorable way to support our cause by covertly acting as delegates for any other candidate

[KMX]

Romney can not win. He needs Texas and CA. He is not getting either.

[CTRattlesnake]

Romney can not win. He needs Texas and CA. He is not getting either.

He will win a plurality if not a majority of California delegates

[gerryb]

Sometimes votes choose delegates, as in Illinois winning a DISTRICT would have directly given Ron delegates, even if he were fourth in the state. And he is ignored more when his numbers are low. I think it is a dangerous strategy, and minimizes the importance of Ron's message. There may be a time or two I would think differently, but at the moment none occurs to me.

Actually he didn't even need to win a district in IL - his supporters just needed to vote for his delegates. In districts where he got 11% of the vote, his delegates only received 2% of the vote... a major problem

[sailingaway]

He will win a plurality if not a majority of California delegates

probably. The question is how many districts can we get for RON. The good news is that IF Ron has done well with delegates at convention that might be KNOWN by California's primary in June, so he might have momentum. If that actually happens, the dynamic could change dramatically. California was a Goldwater state. And while it is very liberal now, those people vote Democrat.

[Keith and stuff]

California was a Goldwater state. And while it is very liberal now, those people vote Democrat.

1964 Presidential General Election Results - California
Lyndon Johnson Democrat 4,171,877 59.11%
Barry Goldwater Republican 2,879,108 40.79%
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/s...&off=0&elect=0

I think you are talking about AZ which Goldwater won by 1% of the vote, and only because he was from there. Someone with his views from a different state may have lost by 10% or more in AZ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._Arizona,_1964

[Sullivan*]

Seriously $#@! off the "strategic" voting for other people besides Ron Paul. We're here to get Ron Paul elected, not make sure Santorum gets more delegates than anyone else, which is exactly what such a strategy would reap. A better strategy would be to vote for Newt Gingrich - if we are truly the insolent welps the media portrays us. You're all supposedly here because you believe in the message, the philosophy of our country's sacred honor. Pull up them big boy (or girl) britches and ACT THE $#@! LIKE IT.

[69360]

In my opinion you would be a fool to vote for Gingrich or Santorum in some misguided strategy. Stay the course vote for Ron and we'll go from there.

I think Romney is going to come up short on delegates. The totals the MSM are estimating are low and nobody is dropping out anytime soon.

A few months ago I scoffed at the idea of a contested convention, but it's looking more likely as each state votes.

If Romney comes up short we could very well see Ron or Rand as VP if Romney needs the delegates. More unlikely but not impossible is nobody has enough in the first round and it's game on.

[slamhead]

Let us not jump to conclusions. We all know that the media will represent the delegates "won" by Romney as a matter of fact. Unless Romney has 1144 bound delegates going into the election it matters nothing. Even if the media reports he has 1144 it will just be establishment propaganda until we actually show up at the convention. This is where it will get really interesting. Baring any dirty tricks the first round of votes is what counts at the convention. I am keeping my fingers crossed.