Talk Elections

Here's a map, posted on facebook by a Ron Paul supporter:

()

Gee whiz.

This may actually be true, but not nearly enough to swipe the nomination.

I assume this is this Paulite's view of the delegate situation? I'm especially skeptical of Alaska and Massachusetts; in the former, it was reported that the Paul people failed to control the state's delegation selection despite taking over the state party and he will only get six delegates there.

In Massachusetts, it was reported that he'll get 16 delegates for abstention, but I've heard nothing about the other 25 delegates. If those are all for Romney, Romney could net 9 from the state. But even so it's inaccurate to assign the state to Paul, obviously, because on the first ballot it will be between Romney and abstain.

Nevada, also, is still apparently up in the air.

Perhaps more productive would be a Romney vs. Uncommitted map.

Paul does have the majority of delegates from Alaska, but more of them will be bound to Willard than Ron first round.  The Paulites over there tried to change the rules to unbind the delegates from the proportional rule, and that is what failed.

It's the same situation in some other states as well, such as Nevada and Massachusetts, although Willard probably has slightly more than Ron in MA.

Some states such as Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, and Maine are completely nonbinding processes where whoever gets sent to the convention will be free to vote for whomever they wish first round.  However, Alaska and Nevada (if RP gets the plurality) will be able to count as 2 of the 5 state requirement.

Nevada's eventual RNC delegates will be proportionally tied to the February straw poll, which means that Romney gets 14, Gingrich gets 6, Paul gets 5, and Santorum gets 3.  There's nothing the Paultards can do to change that.

Their efforts in the county conventions and upcoming state convention are more to do with taking over the state party leadership and organization.  Though the grassroots Paultards likely don't know any of this; they're still laboring under the delusion that they'll manage to game the system and send 28 of their number to Tampa.

Well there's the matter of who the delegates are bound to, and then there's the actual loyalty of the delegates. If Romney's "14 delegates" are actually loyal to Paul and abstain to keep Romney below 1144 on the first ballot, then after that it becomes the Wild West.

Also, Paul ninja delegates might be bound to vote for Mittens but they are completely free to vote for every plank they want to insert into the party platform during the convention (gold standard, denouncing foreign wars, etc.), many of which are anathema to Romney and mainstream Republicans.
Or they can reject Romney's choice of vice-president and choose Rand for all we know.   

Fixed, but this would be an historic convention if it happens.

They're making the claim that there was voter fraud. Now, i'm of the belief that there indeed was, but not to this degree. I think he won Maine, Iowa, Washington, Minnesota, but no way he was Massachusetts, Nevada, Missouri or Oklahoma. The rest are up in the air. This is why I distance myself from generic paultards. They bitch and whine when Ronnie doesn't win anything and then they automatically assume it's some kind of conspiracy.

Check out Rhode Island.
Clearly the Paulites have allied with the Gingrichists: they will launch Rhode Island at the Moon and use it as the start of a colony.

Oh, and Hawaii as well.

The MA delegation is bound to vote for Romney. But they've caused the Romney campaign some headaches because he has to devote the MA at-large spots to his friends and colleagues who lost their race for elected delegates spots to Paul's unknown ninja delegates. This squeezes out other Friends of Mitt who otherwise would have gone to Tampa.

Guys, unless 1) upon arrival at Tampa, the bound delegates will to their utter surprise by physically seized and literally forced to vote for Romney, or 2) the votes of the bound delegates will be entered in by the RNC as Romney votes regardless of what the bound delegates do, there is no such thing as "bound" delegates. All "bound" delegates mean is that on the first round, they cannot vote for a candidate other than the one to whom they are "bound". But as has been pointed out many times, they can abstain, and on the second round, they are no longer "bound." Hence the distinction between bound and unbound is virtually meaningless.

What are the prospects Romney doesn't get 50% of the delegates bound by the time Tampa happens?

Who cares? The whole point of my post is that whether the delegates are bound or not is a red herring, because the concept of "binding" delegates is meaningless.

The Republican Party will change any rules if they look to lead to confusion about the nomination being Romney's.

Can they do that? I thought the rules for each RNC were set in stone at the previous RNC?

They can and will do whatever they like if the rules are going to be manipulated against them.

If they could stage a riot to prevent votes from being counted in Miami in what was ostensibly a non-partisan election, they can exert total control over their own show. They're not going to be undone by technicalities. 

And if they do that, the more the "paultards" will scream conspiracy and will definitely not be showing up in November. Many will be voting for Obama even. The Republican party doesn't quite realize what they are dealing with here. These people are not going to fall in line. And they made up a significant part of the Republican vote this time around.

I guarantee you the diehard Paultards will stay home before they vote for Obama. Perhaps the younger ones (college students, etc.) may vote for Obama, but not the ones who have been supporting Dr. Paul since 2008 and before.

The college students will support Johnson, most likely.

Because of the pot issue.

I agree with that. I was talking about the ones who voted for Obama in 2008 or just didn't vote.