Paulites have started actively lying to a ridiculous degree.

[Beet]

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.

[Beet]

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.

[Beet]

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.

[Beet]

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.

[Beet]

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?