Assuming Paul gets ALL of the current unbound delegates, he would still need to nab some 500 delegates from the remaining primary states to be able to deny Romney the outright nomination. That's something like 60% of the votes. And in reality, Romney is still going to get a large portion of those unbound delegates, so it's over 500 delegates Paul would need to grab from the remaining primaries. Considering that he's not even campaigning in those states anymore, the odds of this happening are all but non existant.
And like I said, it won't matter how many delegates he has now, if Romney gets DISQUALIFIED for violation of Rule 11. Not that I expect the Republican party to obey its own rules, but at least as it stands it seems like the RNC and the Romney campaign have some 'splainin to do.
This is why Ron Paul supporters are so god damn annoying and basically insufferable. Everything is a whine. Everything is soooooooooo unfair.
You're obviously part of the mainstream media conspiracy to destroy freedom and America.
On topic now, I wish the Obama campaign didn't attack Romney on his Bain Capital stuff. It's a weak line at best, since he can run on the fact that he made companies more competitive in the end, and DID create jobs (even if he actually cut more).
On May 15 2012 13:02 brokenLoL wrote: I'm moving to the U.S. in one month. Could I still vote? I'm from the U.K.
I believe you need to be a legal US resident, which requires I think 7 years of concurrent living here? I could be wrong about the number, but it's several years of living here.
On May 15 2012 13:03 SpeaKEaSY wrote: Except according to Mitt Romney campaign and the RNC circa 2008, there's no such thing as a bound delegate.
See @ 1:57
Why is ok for delegates bound for McCain to vote for Mitt Romney, but delegates bound for Mitt Romney not to vote for Mitt Romney?
That was actually posted several pages back. As I explained then it's true the RNC doesn't require any delegates to vote any way. But state Republican parties do. Unbound versus bound all comes down to the rules of the individual state Republican parties. Though each state has at least on unbound delegate, so they don't violate rule 38.
Why is ok for delegates bound for McCain to vote for Mitt Romney, but delegates bound for Mitt Romney not to vote for Mitt Romney?
This fantasyland train ride is getting just too tiresome. Technically in la-la land delegates can vote for whoever they want without sanction from the RNC. If, however, in reality they voted against the will of the voters there would be a huge controversy and the convention would most likely collapse. You don't do an end-run around the will of the voters just because you're like the Terran who floats his buildings off and flies them to the corners of the map. This is why the state organizations do, as Toasty says, bind their delegates.
Of course just flipping off the voters is what you insist would be all fine and dandy. Being all rebellious and ignoring what people want is more than half the fun of being a Ron Paulbot. Because Ron Paul is so awesome that he should be allowed to do that end-run around the voters. Ron Paulbots have gone so far down into the rabbit hole they're out Ron Pauling Ron Paul; he's already said that it isn't his intention to so disrespect the voters and the process. We're so far through the looking glass we're coming back up on it again.
Wouldn't there also be severe punishments by the RNC against states who didn't follow bound delegate rules? As in, primaries pushed back or reduced delegates in 4 years.
And how do you all KNOW that Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination? You haven't been in the future neither do you have some unknown knowledge other people don't have, I require that OP lists all candidates, not the 2 candidates he likes. Vote Ron Paul or see your country be put even further back in debt, these numbers ain't even funny ; http://www.usdebtclock.org/. But hey I presume it has nothing to do with your choices of presidents! Choose Obama again I'm sure he will make your country the most prosperous of countries....not.
LOL so now you're backtracking from when you said:
On May 15 2012 12:31 TheToast wrote: Even if Paul manages to snap up every unbound delegate he's still going to lose.
This:
On May 15 2012 12:31 TheToast wrote: Even if Paul manages to snap up every unbound delegate he's still going to lose.
Is identical in meaning to this:
Assuming Paul gets ALL of the current unbound delegates, he would still need to nab some 500 delegates from the remaining primary states to be able to deny Romney the outright nomination. That's something like 60% of the votes. And in reality, Romney is still going to get a large portion of those unbound delegates, so it's over 500 delegates Paul would need to grab from the remaining primaries. Considering that he's not even campaigning in those states anymore, the odds of this happening are all but non existant.
So, zero backtracking.
And like I said, it won't matter how many delegates he has now, if Romney gets DISQUALIFIED for violation of Rule 11. Not that I expect the Republican party to obey its own rules, but at least as it stands it seems like the RNC and the Romney campaign have some 'splainin to do.
This is why Ron Paul supporters are so god damn annoying and basically insufferable. Everything is a whine. Everything is soooooooooo unfair.
You're obviously part of the mainstream media conspiracy to destroy freedom and America.
On topic now, I wish the Obama campaign didn't attack Romney on his Bain Capital stuff. It's a weak line at best, since he can run on the fact that he made companies more competitive in the end, and DID create jobs (even if he actually cut more).
I personally think Romney's entire personal history, including his employment at Bain, is a great way for Obama to attack Romney. The guy used to be a corporate vulture. Combine it with choice sentences like 'I like firing people' and every flip-flop Romney has ever performed and all that's left of Romney's 'platform' is that he's in favor of big corporations. I can't imagine someone with a background like that winning an election in the current economic climate.
Romney is an even weaker presidential candidate than McCain was, at least he was a war hero.
On May 15 2012 20:57 GT3 wrote: And how do you all KNOW that Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination? You haven't been in the future neither do you have some unknown knowledge other people don't have, I require that OP lists all candidates, not the 2 candidates he likes. Vote Ron Paul or see your country be put even further back in debt, these numbers ain't even funny ; http://www.usdebtclock.org/. But hey I presume it has nothing to do with your choices of presidents! Choose Obama again I'm sure he will make your country the most prosperous of countries....not.
As much as people may admire Paul, most people (except for a few obsessed internet Ron Paul groupies like you) have a relationship with reality. If Ron Paul can be President, then heck, why not Gary Johnson - an even better version of Ron Paul (and who isn't a Creationist meathead). The only difference between Johnson and Paul is that Paul's supporters are more deluded. Paul's even mentioned on record a few months ago that he doesn't actually expect to win the nomination - that he's just in it to promote his ideas.
Toast, and others, why are you trying to reason with people who are unreasonable? Let the paulbots pop in here to thrown some self delusion around. The mod note says that this thread is for discussing Romney/Obama and to leave other people out. I guess the mods don't care enough to warn them, so just ignore them and stop giving crazy ideas attention.
On May 15 2012 13:02 brokenLoL wrote: I'm moving to the U.S. in one month. Could I still vote? I'm from the U.K.
I believe you need to be a legal US resident, which requires I think 7 years of concurrent living here? I could be wrong about the number, but it's several years of living here.
He has to become a citizen to vote, which requires 7 years of permanent residency, some classes, a test, and a couple other things I think.
On May 15 2012 13:02 brokenLoL wrote: I'm moving to the U.S. in one month. Could I still vote? I'm from the U.K.
I believe you need to be a legal US resident, which requires I think 7 years of concurrent living here? I could be wrong about the number, but it's several years of living here.
He has to become a citizen to vote, which requires 7 years of permanent residency, some classes, a test, and a couple other things I think.
From what I've heard from people who've taken the citizenship test, it's pretty easy. The residency requirements are a much larger issue.
In the past few days alone, several incidents cast the campaign in an unfavorable light: Mitt Romney’s son Josh was booed off the stage by Paul backers in Arizona on Saturday, and Romney surrogates Tim Pawlenty and Gov. Mary Fallin received similarly rude treatment in Oklahoma. They were the latest in a string of recent disruptions from Maine to Alaska that threatened to tarnish Paul’s legacy and marginalize the ideas he believes will one day dominate the Republican Party.
“It concerns him,” campaign chairman Jesse Benton told POLITICO. “He wants to convey to everybody and our staff want to convey that we’ll lose more than we gain if we go and we’re disrespectful. Respect and decorum are very important to Dr. Paul.”
“You need to give respect to get respect,” he added. “We are confident that there will be mutual respect at the convention. We want to make sure that we take every step we can to make sure that happens.”
Yeah, I've been avoiding posting all of these polls that have been coming out recently because it is so early in the race, but, damn does it look bad for Obama right now. Democrats have been hammering this "republican war on women" garbage for months, and Romney still comes out ahead among women. Ouch.
Well yeah, of course a campaign is going to focus on demographics they haven't secured. You're not going to see Obama ads attempting to sway the black community. That and the difference is statisically insignificant. (poll was +-4% confidence).
You're missing the point. Obama won the female vote comfortably in 2008, and democrats have been hammering this "republican war on women" idea for months. If, despite all of that, Romney is up or tied with the female vote, then Obama is in trouble.
I'm sure - well I hope - the president isn't aware of this, but it sure does reinforce the image of him as being totally down to earth and not a narcissist or anything.
Yeah, I've been avoiding posting all of these polls that have been coming out recently because it is so early in the race, but, damn does it look bad for Obama right now. Democrats have been hammering this "republican war on women" garbage for months, and Romney still comes out ahead among women. Ouch.
Meh, the Obama campaign is already debunking this poll as garbage. It's based on a tiny sample size of 600 people, that accepted a call back after answering a previous survey.
It's hard to put stock in phone surveys without a massive sample size. Trust me, I've actually paid a firm to conduct phone surveys on a clients behalf. It's very easy to get someone to flip from one position to another, just by rephrasing a question or even the order of questions.
For example, one of the questions was, "Do you think Pres. Obama Publicly Supported Same-Sex Marriage Because…" and the only options for, "Because he thinks it's right" and "For political reasons." It's easy to imagine someone believing both are true, or feeling that doing something for political reasons isn't necessarily more or less disingenuous.
But yeah, I agree that's it's too early to take these kind of polls seriously.
EPT
