Ron Paul still may have a chance to beat Romney

[maple_leafs182]

I know most of you will say this is wishful thinking but according to Ben Swann, none of the delagates are actually bound to vote for any candidate so the delegates can vote for whomever they want.

Ron Paul just recently won Minnesota, Maine and Nevada. He still may have a chance to win the nomination, if not, I think he will still shake the republican party up.

[TheNewTeddy]

Ron Paul just recently won Minnesota, Maine and Nevada.

This joke is hilarious

Edited May 12, 2012 by TheNewTeddy

[Moonlight Graham]

I know most of you will say this is wishful thinking but according to Ben Swann, none of the delagates are actually bound to vote for any candidate so the delegates can vote for whomever they want.

But by convention, they very often go with what was voted for. All heck would break loose if not.

[TheNewTeddy]

Besides, they won't go for Paul, or even Santorum, or Gingrich.

If Romney were to kick the bucket, suddenly names like Palin come back into play.

[Smallc]

Ah ha, thread is funny because it's impossible.

[jbg]

Ah ha, thread is funny because it's impossible.

Agreed.

I am from the U.S. Let me explain.

Our system, for Presidential elections, is "first past the post", on steriods. With certain small-state exceptions (I think Nebraska and Maine or maybe just Maine), 100% of the electoral votes go to the winner in each state. Thus, the ability to develop a small cadre of extremely devoted followers means nothing. And that's who votes in some of these small states' primaries. And btw Romney got Nevada, not Paul.

As for the convention Romney either has or after California will have a mathematical majority in the convention. The delegates are committed to their candidate for at least the first ballot. Under the rules, therefore, Romney wins. A Ron Paul, or for that matter a Svend Robinson does much better in a proportional representation country. This, if I organize the "JBG Party" and I get the triggering percentage of votes, usually 3%, I get a certain number of seats in Parliament. Then, if the party with a plurality wants to organize a government, and say needs two or three more members, the "JBG Party" has a chance to wedge its way into the government. In a "first past the post" or single-member district system, the "JBG Party" would be a goner.

Thus, those rallies where throngs of idiots are cheering wildly for Ron Paul are sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[TheNewTeddy]

Ron Paul has not won ANY states

EVER

[punked]

Ron Paul has not won ANY states

EVER

He has won 5 states according to RNC rules.

[Guest Manny]

Even if Ron Paul doesn't win anything specifically, it does not stop him. For him, it's more about spreading his ideas. It's about the MOVEMENT.

Ron Paul Gains Supporters in RNC Leadership

[bleeding heart]

Even if Ron Paul doesn't win anything specifically, it does not stop him. For him, it's more about spreading his ideas.

Which ones? That America needlessly meddles in others' affairs? Or that tax is evil? Or that Ayn Rand was actually, despite all evidence, intelligent? Or that black people suck?

He's got so many ideas that it's difficult to keep track.

[Bonam]

He's got so many ideas that it's difficult to keep track.

God forbid someone might have more than one idea

[maple_leafs182]

And btw Romney got Nevada, not Paul.

Ron Paul won a majority of the delegates in nevada.

As for the convention Romney either has or after California will have a mathematical majority in the convention. The delegates are committed to their candidate for at least the first ballot. Under the rules, therefore, Romney wins.

This is why I posted the video saying the delegates are in fact not bound.

Thus, those rallies where throngs of idiots are cheering wildly for Ron Paul are sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Fuck off, just because you support an anti establishment candidate, that doesn't make you an idiot.

I'm not even going to bother responding to the guy who said Ron Paul hates black people, that guy is just ignorant. Also, the people who say Paul hasn't won any states are ignorant too.

[jbg]

Even if Ron Paul doesn't win anything specifically, it does not stop him. For him, it's more about spreading his ideas. It's about the MOVEMENT.

Ron Paul Gains Supporters in RNC Leadership

Sort of like spreading Santorum?

See thread.

Edited May 12, 2012 by jbg

[bleeding heart]

God forbid someone might have more than one idea

I admit it was not a particularly inspired joke...but it was a joke.

[bleeding heart]

Fuck off, just because you support an anti establishment candidate, that doesn't make you an idiot.

He is less of an establishment candidate than what is usual (as was Kucinich)...but he is still in most ways an establishment candidate.

Or else we would not be discussing him at this moment. He is an elected official; therefore, he must bow to institutional, establishment forces.

By definition.

He also advocates letting people die from lack of available health care.

But only the poor, of course; they're the only ones he actually despises, to my knowledge.

Which is to say that your golden boy is a knuckledragging elitist, who wishes to diminish what is in fact a strong and vibrant healthcare system in the United States.

This particular lunacy of his is a reactionary view, as you must know--fringe, in fact, anathema not only to most liberals but to most conservatives as well...since they are more decent than Mr. Paul is, his affable persona notwithstanding (and irrelevant).

He's a dink, in short.

I'm not even going to bother responding to the guy who said Ron Paul hates black people, that guy is just ignorant.

He despises them, or else he's not too concerned with what is said in his name, and with his implicit blessing. At the very least, the racism incident denotes political incompetence.

Edited May 12, 2012 by bleeding heart

[-TSS-]

Besides, they won't go for Paul, or even Santorum, or Gingrich.

If Romney were to kick the bucket, suddenly names like Palin come back into play.

I never thought about such a scenario. Indeed, what would happen if a nominee for presidential-election died before the election and at a stage he/she wouldn't have yet picked a running-mate? I think scenarios like this point out the weakness in a political system where you elect persons instead of parties. If a party-leader dies in the middle of an election-campaign there is always the deputy or the party has some procedure as to how to move on.

[bush_cheney2004]

I never thought about such a scenario. Indeed, what would happen if a nominee for presidential-election died before the election and at a stage he/she wouldn't have yet picked a running-mate?

The nominating party would just convene another convention and pick another candidate. The VP selection does not automatically become presidential election nominee.

I think scenarios like this point out the weakness in a political system where you elect persons instead of parties. If a party-leader dies in the middle of an election-campaign there is always the deputy or the party has some procedure as to how to move on.

I disagree...in some countries, the party leadership is already dead (politically) but he/she still leads the party!

[TheNewTeddy]

He has won 5 states according to RNC rules.

I'll believe it when I see it, or as they say on wikipedia, citation needed.

[punked]

I'll believe it when I see it, or as they say on wikipedia, citation needed.

Citation is not needed but here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgqueilR-2U&feature=g-u-u

BTW this does not mean Paul is going to win. Although it does mean they can put him on the ballot and he can get a prime time speech, he can pass some pretty crazy party planks all of which will strengthen his cause.

Edited May 12, 2012 by punked

[TheNewTeddy]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/ron-paul-wins-maine-nevada-delegates/story?id=16296075

Fuck. What the hell? I didn't believe you because it sounded like bullshit.

Excuse my swearing, but this is worth it... what the hell?

[punked]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/ron-paul-wins-maine-nevada-delegates/story?id=16296075

Fuck. What the hell? I didn't believe you because it sounded like bullshit.

Excuse my swearing, but this is worth it... what the hell?

I agree it does sound like bullshit. That is how broken the system is.

[Jack Weber]

God forbid someone might have more than one idea

In this case,more than one infantile and ridiculous idea...

[Jack Weber]

He is less of an establishment candidate than what is usual (as was Kucinich)...but he is still in most ways an establishment candidate.

Or else we would not be discussing him at this moment. He is an elected official; therefore, he must bow to institutional, establishment forces.

By definition.

He also advocates letting people die from lack of available health care.

But only the poor, of course; they're the only ones he actually despises, to my knowledge.

Which is to say that your golden boy is a knuckledragging elitist, who wishes to diminish what is in fact a strong and vibrant healthcare system in the United States.

This particular lunacy of his is a reactionary view, as you must know--fringe, in fact, anathema not only to most liberals but to most conservatives as well...since they are more decent than Mr. Paul is, his affable persona notwithstanding (and irrelevant).

He's a dink, in short.

He despises them, or else he's not too concerned with what is said in his name, and with his implicit blessing. At the very least, the racism incident denotes political incompetence.

I don't know if Paul is an elitist...

I suspect he's an infantile fool who thinks the "free" market is the most perfect thing in the world and if it functions "correctly" everything will work out.

It seems to me that this is the basis for all his advocacy for "more freedom"...This seems to be the vein running through almost all of his messaging.

It brings into question who might be behind Paul and also likes what he says...I highly doubt it's individuals who "want their country back from Big Government"...

[bleeding heart]

I don't know if Paul is an elitist...

I suspect he's an infantile fool who thinks the "free" market is the most perfect thing in the world and if it functions "correctly" everything will work out.

It could be...there can be innocent libertarians who really believe in the perfectability of man through free market ideology.

The problem or one of them, is that almost every libertarian loves Ayn Rand...who is explicitly elitist, and proudly so.

And I can't believe that Doctor Ron Paul is unaware that his favoured philosophy is going to hurt the poor disproportioantely. By definition.

So I think he is an elitist. It's just that he thinks elitism is "the natural order."

[Guest Manny]

Which ones? That America needlessly meddles in others' affairs? Or that tax is evil? Or that Ayn Rand was actually, despite all evidence, intelligent? Or that black people suck?

He's already distanced himself from those media reports about him not liking black people, but the msm, and folks like yourself just keep bringing that one up. What else should he do about it?

I would only approve of some of his ideas, not all of them, much like I would with any politician. Only a partisan fool agrees with everything a politician says.