|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 6, 2012 11:26:01 GMT -5
Seems a bit unfair to go against the popular vote, I think the system should certainly be changed to make a constituent's vote binding. Or, even better, get rid of the whole Caucus thing and just do primaries. Every candidate does it and ultimately it doesn't matter. When one guy gets enough delegates to secure the nomination all the other candidates traditionally drop out and pledge all their delegates to the nominee. McCain ended up getting like 70% of the delegates in the primaries/caucuses (and a lot of those came after all the other candidates had stopped campaigning) but ended up getting 98.5% of all the delegates at the nominating convention. There were two delegates who insisted on voting for Romney, fourteen who didn't vote at all and Paul was the only candidate who refused to give his delegates to McCain. All the politicking is basically so if you have a situation where two guys are very, very close in delegates they can sway the vote one way or the other on the convention floor. This won't happen in Paul's case. I predict that he won't release his delegates either. Yet he's supposed to be a great uniter that the party will love.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 6, 2012 11:49:52 GMT -5
Essentially what Paul's strategy is is to have delegates vote a different way than constituents want them to. "His" strategy is to get as many people to be delegates who support him. The job of a delegate isn't to follow what the constituents want to do -- at least not at this level. I understand that this, conceptually, doesn't make a lot of sense -- it's just the way it is. Everyone does it at this level. It's at the state conventions, typically, when everything kind of winds down to "Well who's going to be the nominee? Okay, I'll vote for them." Constituents go to the polls and vote for Romney for example and then Paul goes in and convinces/maneuvers so that the actually delegates who go to the convention vote for him. That's the strategy anyway. Bit dirty, but it's how politics is done and usually doesn't matter. Everyone TRIES to do this, it's just that most supporters of the other candidates aren't as steadfast in their ways as Ron Paul supporters are, which is why you've seen so much rising/falling in the polls from EVERY other candidate, other than Paul, who has really only risen throughout the election. This kind of loyalty to the candidate leads the Paul campaign to be more organized because we don't have to worry that John from down the street might be a Newt Gingrich supporter next week. We typically know he's going to stay with Paul to the bitter end. He might vote for Newt in the general election, but not in the caucus. Once the candidate is picked (which usually happens by Super Tuesday), the other candidates drop out making the whole point moot. Paul won't do this. He didn't do it four years ago. He doesn't play by his parties rules which is why they will unite behind him if he manages to win the nomination. No one cares about that other than you. Seriously, no one. But I actually think it'll be interesting as we go on. Other candidates need to start winning more states or it's going to be the landslide victory that I predicted it would be for Romney from the beginning. However if Santorum, Gingrich or Paul can start to string together a few wins of their own (or even split them up enough just so that Romney isn't winning every state), it's going to really make things tough for Mitt.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 6, 2012 11:51:26 GMT -5
Seems a bit unfair to go against the popular vote, I think the system should certainly be changed to make a constituent's vote binding. Or, even better, get rid of the whole Caucus thing and just do primaries. Every candidate does it and ultimately it doesn't matter. When one guy gets enough delegates to secure the nomination all the other candidates traditionally drop out and pledge all their delegates to the nominee. McCain ended up getting like 70% of the delegates in the primaries/caucuses (and a lot of those came after all the other candidates had stopped campaigning) but ended up getting 98.5% of all the delegates at the nominating convention. There were two delegates who insisted on voting for Romney, fourteen who didn't vote at all and Paul was the only candidate who refused to give his delegates to McCain. All the politicking is basically so if you have a situation where two guys are very, very close in delegates they can sway the vote one way or the other on the convention floor. This won't happen in Paul's case. I predict that he won't release his delegates either. Yet he's supposed to be a great uniter that the party will love. I never said he'd be some great party unifier. That said, no one in this election will be. All I'm saying is that the majority of Republicans are going to vote "against Obama" because, well, they feel that's the biggest priority. It doesn't matter to them, obviously, that Romney's stances on most of the core issues are almost identical to Obama. They're not voting on issues. They're voting "R" or "D" like the good little slaves they are.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 6, 2012 12:59:22 GMT -5
I've said this before. Obama will work with Republicans. Now, he won't work with them as well as someone like Romney or Gingrich would, but he will work with Republicans. Paul won't work with them or the Democrats at all. Why would the Republicans back him?
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 6, 2012 14:36:25 GMT -5
I've said this before. Obama will work with Republicans. Now, he won't work with them as well as someone like Romney or Gingrich would, but he will work with Republicans. Paul won't work with them or the Democrats at all. Why would the Republicans back him? Because he has a "R" next to his name if he wins the nomination. You're over-thinking things. I REALLY think you're underestimating how little people pay attention to what's actually happening. Like I've said, if Paul wins the nomination, it's because there has been a fundamental shift in PEOPLE in this country and that they want their freedom back. I don't think we're there, but that's not going to stop me from trying.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Feb 6, 2012 14:48:43 GMT -5
the GOP, and citizens involved in the party, should really shy away from marginalizing Paul's base and message.. They simply can't afford to.. it will, just as it always has, come down to independents to determine the outcome of the general election and many of Paul's people are part of that group.. whoever becomes the candidate will be gunning for support from this highly energized base.. if they continue to do this, then they will have more problems going forward than Obama and his policies.. they run the risk of losing these important votes to third party candidates..
republicans NEED Paul's strong base to be competitive in the general election
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 6, 2012 14:54:03 GMT -5
The problem is, I don't see any way the Republicans get Paul supporters' votes.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 6, 2012 16:53:04 GMT -5
I've said this before. Obama will work with Republicans. Now, he won't work with them as well as someone like Romney or Gingrich would, but he will work with Republicans. Paul won't work with them or the Democrats at all. Why would the Republicans back him? Because he has a "R" next to his name if he wins the nomination. You're over-thinking things. I REALLY think you're underestimating how little people pay attention to what's actually happening. Like I've said, if Paul wins the nomination, it's because there has been a fundamental shift in PEOPLE in this country and that they want their freedom back. I don't think we're there, but that's not going to stop me from trying. If there was a fundamental shift in people, Paul wouldn't have to politick behind the scenes in order to get delegates. Just saying. He's the only candidate who has not won a primary and it doesn't look like he's going to win any any time soon or impact the nomination at all.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 6, 2012 16:57:00 GMT -5
It's not politicking behind the scenes. This is how the caucus process works, as I've explained time and time again.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 6, 2012 17:30:44 GMT -5
Whatever you want to call it, if he had the people behind him he wouldn't have to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Feb 6, 2012 17:37:25 GMT -5
Whatever you want to call it, if he had the people behind him he wouldn't have to do it. you're incredibly confusing romney has people behind him, yet he is still "politicking" Paul s playing by the rules of the game and staying within the boundaries of it he is not doing anything different than any other candidate
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 6, 2012 18:24:00 GMT -5
The only difference is that Ron Paul's people have the ability to be more organized because the campaign doesn't really have to worry about them leaving and joining another candidate.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 6, 2012 19:20:27 GMT -5
Whatever you want to call it, if he had the people behind him he wouldn't have to do it. you're incredibly confusing romney has people behind him, yet he is still "politicking" Paul s playing by the rules of the game and staying within the boundaries of it he is not doing anything different than any other candidate Romney is not depending on it as his chance to win. Paul is.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 6, 2012 23:28:56 GMT -5
Romney has been the person who I said would win the nomination since day one. Go back and look. Gingrich has risen above him, Perry has risen above him, Bachmann, Cain, Santorum... It's been a rollercoaster of people shooting up and down, trying to keep up with the Romney machine. But at the end of the day, the dude defines the phrase "the one percent" when it comes to his wealth. He's astronomically rich, his friends are astronomically rich and he has the support of Wall Street just like Obama did in '08. It's like the old saying in baseball. Money doesn't buy championships -- but it sure helps. I've stayed with my belief that Romney is going to win the nomination all along. That opinion isn't going to change. However, I'm not going to sit on the sidelines and allow it to happen while going, "WELL HE HAS NO CHANCE, YOU KNOW." People saying that a person has "no chance" encourages other people to believe that they have no chance. The truth is that it's going to be a massive uphill battle for Ron Paul or ANY other candidate to beat Mitt Romney. I've known that since day one. But I'm not someone who's going to have it on my conscience that I just sat around and allowed it to happen. I'm going to do everything I can to help Ron Paul win Minnesota and I'm going to do everything I can to help Ron Paul win this nomination. If I fall short, we all (Paul supporters) fall short together. But at least we did our best to help this country from spiraling down the toilet into economic oblivion and corporate slavery. A photo my wife took from tonight's speech at our seats. Around 3,000 people at the Minneapolis Convention Center. A great moment for the campaign.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 5, 2024 17:47:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2012 23:36:17 GMT -5
I think Paul will bring forth a positive in that he will encourage both Dems and Republicans to acknowledge the evils of bank bailouts/crony capitalism/corporate welfare. The battle between private capitalism and fiscal redistribution will continue on, but as I've said many times before, rulers in America rule from the center. We'll never have a full force Libertarian or communist in office, so hopefully that in the midst of centrism my generation will find a way to find careers, because for the most part it seems like we'll end up a bunch of kids - some with college degrees, some without - but ALL without careers.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 7, 2012 9:22:43 GMT -5
I think Paul will bring forth a positive in that he will encourage both Dems and Republicans to acknowledge the evils of bank bailouts/crony capitalism/corporate welfare. The battle between private capitalism and fiscal redistribution will continue on, but as I've said many times before, rulers in America rule from the center. We'll never have a full force Libertarian or communist in office, so hopefully that in the midst of centrism my generation will find a way to find careers, because for the most part it seems like we'll end up a bunch of kids - some with college degrees, some without - but ALL without careers. I disagree just because he's been a complete non-factor so far. Historically what happens with 3rd parties is they either become big enough that they gobble up one of the other two parties or one of the other two parties adopts all or most of the 3rd parties stances and the 3rd party gets gobbled up. Neither one of those things is happening here because Paul has not rallied enough support to be a threat to either party. Clearly he's not a threat to his own party and he's certainly not a threat to Obama.
|
|
That 80s Guy
Main Eventer
Gnarly!
Joined on: Nov 6, 2010 14:29:43 GMT -5
Posts: 1,546
|
Post by That 80s Guy on Feb 7, 2012 10:28:09 GMT -5
-- I'm a full 100% Ron Paul supporter, I've issued out brochures, bumper stickers, and explained via word of mouth about what good can come from Mr. Paul if he's nominated and ultimately wins the presidency.
However, I'm also aware, as Franlin Rosevelt once put it, "Presidents are Selected, not Elected!". If you notice throu research, a majority of Presidents we've had, have all been related closely. And you take into consideration Lincoln & Kennedy, whom neither were related to any other president, and we all know what their destinies had in store for them - which is why I also fear for Ron Paul's safety since he's following in JFK & Abe's footsteps.
Regardless of what happens this race, Ron Paul has awaken soo many people, they're not idiotic to Romney and Newt being financially backed by crooked individuals and the banksters who run the world as if it were a work. In that sense, Ron Paul has already achieved victory and I do believe he'll go down as a historic figure that respresented WE THE PEOPLE - dispite whatever gibberish the school systems will teach future children about "that crazy guy, what was his name? oh yeah, Ron Paul -somethin' or another-".
seeBS News and all those other outlets can ignore him and limit his face time all they want, but the common American are beginning to tune into alternative media, who are not biased and give each candidate their fair share of time - and when you pay attention, Mr. Paul in this race is like sweet potatos among burgers, pizzas, & wings (worst tasting, but best for you).
|
|
That 80s Guy
Main Eventer
Gnarly!
Joined on: Nov 6, 2010 14:29:43 GMT -5
Posts: 1,546
|
Post by That 80s Guy on Feb 7, 2012 10:30:21 GMT -5
-- To Kliquid: I salute you, brother!
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 7, 2012 13:01:45 GMT -5
I disagree just because he's been a complete non-factor so far. Historically what happens with 3rd parties is they either become big enough that they gobble up one of the other two parties or one of the other two parties adopts all or most of the 3rd parties stances and the 3rd party gets gobbled up. Neither one of those things is happening here because Paul has not rallied enough support to be a threat to either party. Clearly he's not a threat to his own party and he's certainly not a threat to Obama. Again, Paul's numbers vs. Obama are as good as anyone's. With the party nomination, those numbers would only rise.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 7, 2012 13:34:53 GMT -5
I disagree just because he's been a complete non-factor so far. Historically what happens with 3rd parties is they either become big enough that they gobble up one of the other two parties or one of the other two parties adopts all or most of the 3rd parties stances and the 3rd party gets gobbled up. Neither one of those things is happening here because Paul has not rallied enough support to be a threat to either party. Clearly he's not a threat to his own party and he's certainly not a threat to Obama. Again, Paul's numbers vs. Obama are as good as anyone's. With the party nomination, those numbers would only rise. Presuming the party supports him (it won't) and there's no credible 3rd party (which there would be).
|
|