Republican Delegate Math

[Paulie]

More than just FL actually. The math looks like Romney loses about 50 delegates from his winner take all total so far.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Why are they worried then?

MORE Ron Paul Election Fraud 3-24-12 GOP Vote Rigging Hidden Cam - YouTube

THAT'S election fraud? Someone trying to convince others to vote a certain way is what is known as "campaigning".

I didn't title the vid and you missed the point of my post. If Ron Paul had no chance of winning why would they bother to stop him from getting delegates? Why would all three of the other candidates collude and conspire to keep delegates away from him?

 

[BluePhantom]

You've got a few errors, but nothing that really changes things drastically. I think FL forfeits some delegates for moving their primary, for instance.

That has already been taken into account in the calculations. Florida originally had 99 delegates. Their total was reduced to 50 for moving their primary up. I reflected that in the count and gave Romney 50. I already reflected the reduction in delegates for each state that has been penalized in my calculations.

Florida Republican Delegation 2012

The problem is that there's a lot of winner take all primaries left in areas where Santorum isn't going to win.

My point exactly. He could win in Wisconsin but I highly doubt it and the only poll done in the month of March in Wisconsin has Romney up substantially.

2012 Wisconsin Republican Primary - Rasmussen Reports™


Now what I will say about Wisconsin is that it's an open primary so there's the potential for some mischief from the Democrats. Liberal voters could vote in the GOP primary for Santorum, and certainly they have been doing so in other open primaries this year. I'm not sure it would be enough though to change the outcome if Rasmussen's poll is fairly accurate.

The only other argument is that Wisconsin, Maryland, and California, are winner take all only in regard to their at-large delegates. They are direct election states for the remaining. Let's have a look at them in chronological order:


Wisconsin
18 at-large delegates go to the winner of the statewide popular vote
24 delegates go to the winner of the congressional districts. 3 delegate for each of their 8 districts.

Santorum could steal one...maybe two districts in Wisconsin. The 7th and 8th districts are rural and tend to be more conservative than the others. The 3rd district is rural as well but it's voting history doesn't lend itself to "prime Santorum territory"

So I would say the best Santorum could hope for there is to score 6 delegates from two congressional districts reducing Romney's Wisconsin haul from 42 to 36. Unless something significant happens between now and April 3rd, I'd say that's a worst case scenario for Romney right now.

Wisconsin Republican Delegation 2012

Maryland
10 at-large delegates go to the winner of the statewide popular vote
24 delegates go to the winner of the congressional districts. 3 delegate for each of their 8 districts.
3 RNC

I just don't see where Santorum is going to get a damn thing in this state. The 1st and 6th districts appear to be the best opportunity as they are somewhat more rural but even that I think is a long shot. I don't think Santorum will even get any of the RNC here so all 37 are most likely to go to Romney.

Maryland Republican Delegation 2012

California
10 at-large delegates go to the winner of the statewide popular vote
159 delegates go to the winner of the congressional districts. 3 delegate for each of their 53 districts.
3 RNC

I am not sure I want to go into an in-depth analysis of all 53 districts. I do have a bit of a life. But just glancing at the congressional map and considering the rural districts of California (where Santorum has a shot) vs. the urban/suburban districts (where Romney will dominate), it occurs to me that Santorum has chance to steal...oh...the 2nd, 4th, maybe the 3rd (but it cuts pretty close into Sacramento so I doubt it), the 19th (but you have Stockton and the San Francisco suburbs - nice gerrymandering there by the Dems BTW), maybe the 21st (but there's Fresno and that will be will be tough territory for Santorum), 22nd, 25th, 41st, 45th......that's about it.

Certainly Santorum will take some of those I listed and probably one or to that I missed but he won't take all of them. Even assuming he does though that's 9 that I listed and we will throw him two more for a total of 11 districts. So he steals 33 from Romney in California. Added to the six he gave him in Wisconsin that's 39 total.

California Republican Delegation 2012


So at the end of the day Santorum can conceivably....and we have given him the benefit of the doubt here....steal 39 of those delegates from Romney in those "winner take all states" that are actually "hybrid states". If we then adjust the math in post #57 to account for that Romney would only need 93 of those 567 unpledged delegates. That's 16.4%

Now consider that of those 567 unpledged delegates, 165 of them are RNC (80% of which so far are going to Romney) and apply my argument in post #78. Guess what....Romney still has it just on RNC alone. And that's making the completely unrealistic argument that he won't get a single delegate from the unbound caucus states like IA, MO, CO, ME, etc

You said you don't see a clear path to victory.....The deeper I delve into the math, I don't see anything but a clear path to victory.

 

[BluePhantom]

Why are they worried then?

MORE Ron Paul Election Fraud 3-24-12 GOP Vote Rigging Hidden Cam - YouTube

THAT'S election fraud? Someone trying to convince others to vote a certain way is what is known as "campaigning".

I didn't title the vid and you missed the point of my post. If Ron Paul had no chance of winning why would they bother to stop him from getting delegates? Why would all three of the other candidates collude and conspire to keep delegates away from him?

It's conceivable, as Paulie points out, for the followers of a low-support candidate to essentially "steal the state". The process he describes can certainly be done. In fact, that's precisely what Paul supporters are attempting to do in those states where delegates are unpledged. They are attempting to load the state conventions with Paul supporters, ignore the results of the caucus or primary (essentially ignore the will of the people), and give the delegates to Paul.

What I think Paulie and you are missing, and what your video shows, is that the supporters of the other three candidates and the Republican Party of the state are not going to simply sit idly by and let Paul supporters essentially hijack the process to the point where Paul is getting 80% of the delegates from a state where he got 10% of the vote. Paul supporters cry that they are being disenfranchised...no...in reality they are attempting to "stuff the ballot box" in a way and they are experiencing blow back, and people fighting back against their unsavory attempt to do so.

 

[LibertyForAll]

THAT'S election fraud? Someone trying to convince others to vote a certain way is what is known as "campaigning".

I didn't title the vid and you missed the point of my post. If Ron Paul had no chance of winning why would they bother to stop him from getting delegates? Why would all three of the other candidates collude and conspire to keep delegates away from him?

It's conceivable, as Paulie points out, for the followers of a low-support candidate to essentially "steal the state". The process he describes can certainly be done. In fact, that's precisely what Paul supporters are attempting to do in those states where delegates are unpledged. They are attempting to load the state conventions with Paul supporters, ignore the results of the caucus or primary (essentially ignore the will of the people), and give the delegates to Paul.

What I think Paulie and you are missing, and what your video shows, is that the supporters of the other three candidates and the Republican Party of the state are not going to simply sit idly by and let Paul supporters essentially hijack the process to the point where Paul is getting 80% of the delegates from a state where he got 10% of the vote. Paul supporters cry that they are being disenfranchised...no...in reality they are attempting to "stuff the ballot box" in a way and they are experiencing blow back, and people fighting back against their unsavory attempt to do so.

Not following their own rules is what is disenfranchising voters not those following the rules and winning. The rules were created so that they could maintain control with very little of the popular vote when needed. The tables are being turned on them.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter because you are right, they will not and cannot allow Ron Paul to get the nomination. The nomination is secondary to the overall plan. The real story is the thousands who are becoming active in their local GOP and entering into races for GOP committee positions. They have been very successful in some areas see Clark County Nevada for one. In my state a record number of people have put entered into the races since the caucus. Not to mention all the Paul supporters who are now running for public office at every level of government. Paul supporters will have an influence on the political scene for many years to come regardless of what happens at the conventions.

 

[BluePhantom]

Ultimately, it doesn't matter because you are right, they will not and cannot allow Ron Paul to get the nomination. The nomination is secondary to the overall plan. The real story is the thousands who are becoming active in their local GOP and entering into races for GOP committee positions. They have been very successful in some areas see Clark County Nevada for one. In my state a record number of people have put entered into the races since the caucus. Not to mention all the Paul supporters who are now running for public office at every level of government. Paul supporters will have an influence on the political scene for many years to come regardless of what happens at the conventions.

And you may be right...but that's beyond the scope of the topic of discussion for this thread. All that matter in regard to this thread and this topic of discussion is the first half of your first sentence.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter because you are right...

Not to get too arrogant about it...but....you're God damn right I am.

 

[LibertyForAll]

You are only correct because the system is corrupt. When the system is corrupt we all lose. There aren't many people who are fired up about Romney and he is only winning because people believe what the media tells them and go along with the crowd. One thing that Ron Paul is doing that will have long term benefits is shining a light on the corruption and exposing the cockroaches. I am glad he is staying in even if he has no chance and he will have my vote no matter what.

 

[BluePhantom]

You are only correct because the system is corrupt. When the system is corrupt we all lose. There aren't many people who are fired up about Romney and he is only winning because people believe what the media tells them and go along with the crowd. One thing that Ron Paul is doing that will have long term benefits is shining a light on the corruption and exposing the cockroaches. I am glad he is staying in even if he has no chance and he will have my vote no matter what.

Knock yourself out. If he is the man who most accurately represents your beliefs then vote for him. As far as a corrupt system I guess we have two different definitions. I see a system wherein a candidate who has 10% support yet gets 80% of the delegates simply because his followers hijacked the system as far more corrupt and problematic, but you are certainly free to view it otherwise.

 

[LibertyForAll]

You are only correct because the system is corrupt. When the system is corrupt we all lose. There aren't many people who are fired up about Romney and he is only winning because people believe what the media tells them and go along with the crowd. One thing that Ron Paul is doing that will have long term benefits is shining a light on the corruption and exposing the cockroaches. I am glad he is staying in even if he has no chance and he will have my vote no matter what.

Knock yourself out. If he is the man who most accurately represents your beliefs then vote for him. As far as a corrupt system I guess we have two different definitions. I see a system wherein a candidate who has 10% support yet gets 80% of the delegates simply because his followers hijacked the system as far more corrupt and problematic, but you are certainly free to view it otherwise.

The rules were in place before Ron Paul came along. The establishment had no problem using them when it benefited them. Now all of a sudden it's a crime to use the system that they set in place to do the same things they have been doing for hundreds of years but only because its not one of them doing it. Don't hate the player hate the game. If the system is corrupt, so be it let's change it. Let's make it fair and give EVERYONE a chance.

 

[BluePhantom]

The rules were in place before Ron Paul came along. The establishment had no problem using them when it benefited them. Now all of a sudden it's a crime to use the system that they set in place to do the same things they have been doing for hundreds of years but only because its not one of them doing it. Don't hate the player hate the game. If the system is corrupt, so be it let's change it. Let's make it fair and give EVERYONE a chance.

Well first of all the states change their system every single election to some degree. Granted they usually adopt a very similar method as the previous election cycle, but the states are always changing this and changing that. So the system hasn't been in place for hundreds of years untouched.

Secondly, whenever something happens in a state where they realize there is a loophole that can be taken advantage of in order to "stuff the ballot box" (which is precisely what Paul supporters are doing), not only are they perfectly within their rights to address it but frankly, they have an obligation to do so to ensure that the will of the people is being reflected as much as possible.

 

[BluePhantom]

Now what I will say about Wisconsin is that it's an open primary so there's the potential for some mischief from the Democrats. Liberal voters could vote in the GOP primary for Santorum, and certainly they have been doing so in other open primaries this year. I'm not sure it would be enough though to change the outcome if Rasmussen's poll is fairly accurate.

Vote by Party ID
Democrat: Romney = 24% Santorum = 44%

Wisconsin Exit/Entrance Polls - Primaries - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

Santorum could steal one...maybe two districts in Wisconsin. The 7th and 8th districts are rural and tend to be more conservative than the others. The 3rd district is rural as well but it's voting history doesn't lend itself to "prime Santorum territory"

Santorum took the 7th and 8th districts and the 3rd is currently up for grabs...too close to call.

Wisconsin Results - Primaries - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

So I would say the best Santorum could hope for there is to score 6 delegates from two congressional districts reducing Romney's Wisconsin haul from 42 to 36.

Wisconsin: Romney = 30 delegates, Santorum = 6 delegates. 6 currently undetermined

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Republican Delegate Count

Maryland

I just don't see where Santorum is going to get a damn thing in this state. The 1st and 6th districts appear to be the best opportunity as they are somewhat more rural but even that I think is a long shot. I don't think Santorum will even get any of the RNC here so all 37 are most likely to go to Romney.

Romney took all 37 delegates from Maryland. Santorum took counties in the 1st and 6th districts but not enough to overcome Romney.

Maryland Results - Primaries - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com


Can I fucking call it or what?





-