Could Ron Paul actually win the GOP nomination?

[Beet]

I have been looking at Erc's delegate list, and there are a number of delegate projections on there that almost certainly will be changed. Just to take an example, the very first entry on the list, gives Romney 10 delegates, Santorum 11, and Paul 6, with the rest uncommitted. But it's very likely that Paul will dominate the state convention. Combine that with his control of the state party, and I don't see why he can't come out with every single delegate from Iowa. If he does, it nets +28 delegates from Iowa.

Now look at Massachusetts-- a primary state that went 76% for Romney and less than 10% for Paul, with 41 total delegates. The Paul people look to have taken at least 16 or 17. Now, 16 or 17 out of 41 doesn't sound overwhelming, but consider that if true, that leaves Romney with (at best) 24 or 25 delegates. Let's say he has 25 delegates, and Paul 16. His "net" from Massachusetts is only +9.

Now look at Ohio. Romney got 38 delegates, Santorum 21 and uncommitted 7. Let's say all the uncommitted go to Romney, for 45. However, is the Santorum delegates don't get behind him, he nets only +24 delegates from the state. If the uncommitted go against him, he nets only +10 delegates from the state. So all of a sudden, Iowa alone cancels out both Massachusetts and Ohio. And so on and so on.

You see, what matters is not how big of a state Romney won, but what the margin was in delegates. Paul can win by racking up overwhelming margins in smaller, caucus states. It is a similar strategy to the one Barack Obama used against Hillary Clinton in 2008. For example, Obama netted 12 delegates out of Idaho by winning the state by 13,000 votes, more than the 11 delegates Clinton netted by winning New Jersey by 113,000 votes. Only Paul's strategy is even more extreme. He loses the caucuses yet still gets an overwhelming delegate margin.

Based on Erc's list, if you reallocate the delegates of the states where the Paul forces could dominate (Iowa, Nevada, Minnesota, Maine, Washington, Alaska) and combine these with delegates for candidates that dropped out, the anti-Romney forces already have 710 delegates. To reach this total I used a conservative conclusion that does not assign Paul any delegates in some states (such as Georgia and Florida) where we know shenanigans are going on. I also allocated Romney all the delegates in some caucus states like Idaho, and gave him his fair share in North Dakota. This also excludes Missouri altogether. If you remove these assumptions, the anti-Romney slate has more delegates currently than the Romney slate.

The real question is whether a large number of pledged delegates in big primary states such as Georgia, Florida, Arizona, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio, are bound to Romney but secretly support Paul. Were these delegates to abstain, causing Romney to fail to reach 1,144 delegates on the first ballot, then on the second ballot, they would be free to vote for Paul. This could produce a Paul majority on the floor. Such an event would be the most dramatic convention in decades, and certain the first dramatic convention to be on live television.

[Beet]

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2012/05/question-time-how-much-leverage-does.html

Yeah, a shorter version of that post is.. "the question is...unanswerable... Rule 37 allows them to keep going 'round and 'round passing, and my personal reading, the second round of passing doesn't technically constitute a second ballot... undoubtedly the RNC and Romney folks have failsafes."

[Beet]

The Paul forces are planning to take control of the Idaho state convention on June 22 to overturn the results of this Spring's caucus there. With all 32 of Idaho's delegates, I estimate that, up until May 1, the Paul forces have 361 delegates, all anti-Romney forces have 742 delegates, and the pro-Romney forces have only 723 delegates.

Including the May 8 results, the Romney forces have 807 delegates, the Santorum+Gingrich bloc has 393 delegates, and Paul+Unc. has 397 delegates. However, this assumes that the results of the June 1-3 conventions in North Carolina and June 8-9 conventions in Indiana allocate Romney his deserved delegates from these regions.

If Paul seizes the North Carolina state convention, then he comes away with an additional 52 delegates. If he seizes Indiana's state convention, he comes away with all of the state's 46 delegates. In that case, there is no way Romney reaches 1,144 on the first ballot.

[Beet]

There's a new website here called http://thereal2012delegatecount.com and it's bad news for my man Romney.

1,660 delegates are TBD in upcoming state conventions.

Paul's been able to capture 75%-95% of delegates in conventions thus far. If he comes anything close to that in the state conventions coming up, he will be nominated on the first ballot.

According to the site, Romney only has 322 "hard" delegates (delegates from states that have finished their process). Paul swept 15/15 CD delegates in Virginia, and will likely sweep another 9 on May 19. That wipes out another Romney state.

And this site is being generous to Romney - for example, it assigns him 8 "hard" delegates in Alaska to just 6 for Paul, but someone on this forum noted awhile back that Paul actually has an absolute majority of the Alaska delegates in support, even though some of them are still bound to Romney. At the convention, they'll be abstaining the first round and going Paul on the second round.

If this site is to be believed, the only major states that the Paulites will not be able to hijack is Ohio.

I'm increasingly believing that Paul not only could, but will win the nomination.

[Beet]

Unless the Paultards win the state party chairs in those states, I expect abstaining delegates will find that their votes end up being cast for Romney anyway.

Right; as I noted in this thread. Romney's best shot (assuming he can't turn it around in getting his people out to the state conventions) may be depending on state party chairs to manage the vote on the floor. Even then it'd be remarkable if there were a majority Paul supporters on the convention floor as Romney was getting nominated.

[Beet]

You have to understand that my #1 issue by far, far, far right now is economic issues (has been since 2008). Obviously I care about legalized pot and strip clubs and all that, but Paul (who btw, is a paleoconservative, not a libertarian, even though many of his supporters are libertarians) and I have a big, fundamental disagreement about core monetary issues. Compared to the difference between Obama and Romney - well, the Paulites are correct that it's much bigger. I think Paul, if he could implement his policies, would tank the economy straight into 15% unemployment, and even if he couldn't he would try. I also recognize that a lot of his ideas are deceptively appealing to people who don't understand economics (which is the 99.9999%). I don't want him to get a big platform.

Now, I really don't think he would win a general. His argument that he didn't author his newsletter for one, is incredibly weak, as are his various denials and changes in position over the years on whether he did or did not. An election with him in it would be incredibly racially polarizing. Also, his congressional record hasn't received scrutiny and if / when it does, I think a big chunk of moderates who currently don't know much about him except that he's a Republican who's libertarian on some social issues and liberal on foreign policy will fall away from him.

But his ideas on economics are so extreme - there's reason why he's rated as the most conservative congressman in decades - that I don't want him getting anywhere near a major party nomination.

[Beet]

No, as I said, even though he's currently polling competitively I don't think he would win a general - even if a Greek crisis caused the economy to stall again. His record is just too toxic.

But as for Congress - I believe the House would pass the privatization of Medicare. In the Senate, it'd be more up to the filibuster. Democrats don't want to rely on the filibuster anyway because they're against it in principle, for valid reasons.