Ron Paul: Why/how is he snapping up delegates? To what purpose?

[Whack-a-Mole]

I suppose this may fit in GQ but considering it is politics I am guessing here is the place for it.

I have been reading lately that Ron Paul and his cohort are managing to scoop large numbers of delegates to the Republican convention in August.

Paul takes 22 Nevada GOP delegates; Romney gets three

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul on Sunday nearly swept all of Nevada’s delegates to the national convention as his supporters swamped Mitt Romney backers at the state Republican convention.

Paul won 22 Nevada delegates to three for Romney, according to vote tallies released Sunday as the overtime convention extended into a second day, finally closing just after noon and after nearly 17 hours of floor action.

Another three official delegates not up for election -- the state party chair and the current national GOP committeeman and committeewoman -- are expected to support Romney.

SOURCE: http://www.lvrj.com/news/paul-takes-...150345275.html

Ron Paul wins majority of delegates from Maine

With Mitt Romney’s nomination all but decided, Ron Paul supporters wrested control of the Maine Republican Convention and elected a majority slate supporting the Texas congressman to the GOP national convention, party officials said as the two-day convention neared its end Sunday. The results gave the Texas congressman a late state victory.

The names of 15 at-large delegates from Maine to the GOP nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., were posted Sunday as votes for the other delegation seats remained undecided. Maine is allotted a total of 24 delegates to the national convention.

SOURCE: http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012...es-from-maine/

To be placed in contention for the presidential nomination at the convention, a candidate must have a plurality of delegates from at least five states. Mr. Paul appears to be getting close to that threshold.

He is expected to make a strong delegate showing in Louisiana, where he received only 6% of the vote, as well as in Minnesota.

If nothing else, Mr. Paul is getting the attention of the Republican National Committee. A RNC lawyer last week wrote a letter to the Nevada GOP chairman, informing him that the Silver State’s standing at the national convention could be challenged if too many Paul delegates were selected.

SOURCE: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/0...-up-delegates/

Near as I can gather if Ron Paul gets enough delegates he can put himself on the ballot at the convention. Except it seems the delegates must vote (at least in the first round) for the person who won that state's primary/caucus.

So, it would seem, a lot of effort for little effect. Romney will be voted in as the Republican nominee for president.

What am I missing here?

FTR I am not a conservative so have no dog in this race beyond some small pleasure at seeing the republican establishment discomfited (even if only a little) and of course there is the whole politics as theater angle that this qualifies for.

[TriPolar]

The Republican National Convention will determine the nominee using a very complicated process. The conventional wisdom has been that Ron Paul wants to use the threat of disruption of the process with his delegates to secure political favors for himself and/or his son. He's been running a libertarian movement within the GOP for years, and they don't mind much, especially since he attracts the young demographic. But he's otherwise ignored. This time he may gather enough delegates for some indulgences.

[Tristan]

And ironically, if delegate they talked to on NPR this morning is any judge, they fully intend that the first vote not be clear cut, or something along those lines, so that they will then be free to vote for whomever they want. Thus, with a really really small minority of the vote, Ron Paul will become the Republican candidate.

This is a HUGE slap in the face to the "libertarian" ideals that Paul is alleged to hold, but I don't think any of his followers have gotten that figured out yet.

[Sicks Ate]

Originally Posted by Tristan

This is a HUGE slap in the face to the "libertarian" ideals that Paul is alleged to hold, but I don't think any of his followers have gotten that figured out yet.

Elaborate, please.

[Voyager]

Perhaps these delegates will get on the various platform committees to try to get libertarian planks voted in? They could propose things popular with the extremists and embarrass the Romney people if they try to quash them.
Or, Paul's nomination strategy might be just as realistic as his economic policy.

[BrainGlutton]

Just this morning I heard on NPR a woman of Paul's faction boasting of having successfully "infiltrated" the GOP. See entryism. (A tactic, up to now, mostly associated with Trotskyists.)

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Perhaps these delegates will get on the various platform committees to try to get libertarian planks voted in?

Is that really that attractive to them? If the Paul People managed to write the abolition of fractional reserve banking and federal civil rights into the platform, it would just make the platform even more meaningless than it already is. I guess it would be a big, loud, noisy spectacle, but it wouldn't actually do anything (not that I think they're above pointless spectacles).

[BobLibDem]

Ron Paul has delusions of adequacy. He won't have the delegates to get anything he wants. What winds up in the platform is what Romney wants in the platform and not a syllable more or less. Even Romney isn't stupid enough to name Paul's half-witted son as his running mate.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

Is that really that attractive to them? If the Paul People managed to write the abolition of fractional reserve banking and federal civil rights into the platform, it would just make the platform even more meaningless than it already is. I guess it would be a big, loud, noisy spectacle, but it wouldn't actually do anything (not that I think they're above pointless spectacles).

If Paul was only interested in what was realistic, he wouldn't have run in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought that if only the American public knew of the evils of fractional reserve banking, they would reject it. Not to mention the evil Fed and the easier to explain gold standard.
It is all about being heard, and perhaps about forcing the Romney delegates to vote against these true blue (sorry, true red) libertarian positions.
Sure the platform is meaningless - it is all about sound bites.

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

Elaborate, please.

Delegates are chosen, and are bound to cast their vote for the individual who garnered the most votes (as is proper). However, there exists the possibility that some shenanigans could go down wherein those votes, and thus the majority if the voters in a given states (say, Nevada) would then be disenfranchised by the Paul team as they happily vote for THEIR guy.

They are hoping, in essence, for an opportunity to FORCE the GOP to run with Paul. As I understand it, forcing folks to do something they don't want to do is anathema to the Libertarian ideal.

[Sicks Ate]

Originally Posted by Tristan

Delegates are chosen, and are bound to cast their vote for the individual who garnered the most votes (as is proper). However, there exists the possibility that some shenanigans could go down wherein those votes, and thus the majority if the voters in a given states (say, Nevada) would then be disenfranchised by the Paul team as they happily vote for THEIR guy.

They are hoping, in essence, for an opportunity to FORCE the GOP to run with Paul. As I understand it, forcing folks to do something they don't want to do is anathema to the Libertarian ideal.

Ok, I'm not being argumentative; I just want to get this clear in my own head.

It appears to me, from the links in the OP, that the 'shenanigans' is simply having more Paul people show up to the caucases/convention. Is that not the case?

From my understanding in Missouri at least, there is a primary but it's doesn't matter. It's a mere formality, so the delegates chosing someone who didn't win the popular vote wouldn't be considered disenfranchisement.

It seems that the Paul folks are working within the system at least in those examples. I find that no more off-putting than the fact that the RNC has been ensuring that Romney will be the candidate all along.

[dngnb8]

Change usually starts as a small snowball rolling down hill. It usually starts small...

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

It appears to me, from the links in the OP, that the 'shenanigans' is simply having more Paul people show up to the caucases/convention. Is that not the case?

In these states, most of the delegates are bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot, no matter who they really support. They only get to vote for Paul if the first ballot isn't conclusive, and if the process works the way it's set up the first ballot should be conclusive for Romney. It's suggested that they plan to somehow disrupt the orderly first ballot to then free themselves to vote for Ron Paul.

[CJJ*]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

From my understanding in Missouri at least, there is a primary but it's doesn't matter. It's a mere formality, so the delegates chosing someone who didn't win the popular vote wouldn't be considered disenfranchisement.

In most states, the delegates are pledged to vote for a specific candidate by the primary results. However the actual people who will be delegates to the convention are chosen separately. Processes vary from state to state, but it is quite possible for losing candidates to get more of "their people" chosen as delegates. The delegates do more than just cast a vote for the nominee; they vote on platform planks, choose the convention chair, and can potentially drive the events of the convention week. If they make enough noise they can, say, tactically delay the nomination until a second/third round ballot or (in an extreme case) scrap for a floor fight.

Paul's delegates will be less likely to fall in line if there are enough of them to foul up the party's carefully-choreographed coronation of Romney. At the very least their support is a bargaining chip Paul probably needs to remain relevant in the party.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Tristan

As I understand it, forcing folks to do something they don't want to do is anathema to the Libertarian ideal.

Well . . . only when it's a government doing it, I think. This is more in the nature of a businesscritter using his positional advantage to squeeze another businesscritter, a practice to which no Libertarian could object, so long as he does not break the law doing it (and even then . . .).

[amarinth]

Originally Posted by Tristan

Delegates are chosen, and are bound to cast their vote for the individual who garnered the most votes (as is proper). However, there exists the possibility that some shenanigans could go down wherein those votes, and thus the majority if the voters in a given states (say, Nevada) would then be disenfranchised by the Paul team as they happily vote for THEIR guy.

That's not the case for the Democrats in my state (it might be for the Republicans, but I would doubt it).

Nevada and Maine are both caucus states. That might make things slightly different than they would be in a state with a primary process.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Tristan

Delegates are chosen, and are bound to cast their vote for the individual who garnered the most votes (as is proper). However, there exists the possibility that some shenanigans could go down wherein those votes, and thus the majority if the voters in a given states (say, Nevada) would then be disenfranchised by the Paul team as they happily vote for THEIR guy.

They are hoping, in essence, for an opportunity to FORCE the GOP to run with Paul. As I understand it, forcing folks to do something they don't want to do is anathema to the Libertarian ideal.

By the same logic, no libertarian should ever enter a pie-eating contest, because if they won, the people running the contest would be FORCED to give them the prize. Contradiction: Exposed!



Were Paul by some miracle to win the GOP nomination, under GOP rules, GOP members would still be free to vote however they like.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by furt

Were Paul by some miracle to win the GOP nomination, under GOP rules, GOP members would still be free to vote however they like.

Yes, but I think the underlying premise is that the Paul supporters might be willing to use various underhanded techniques to make sure Romney doesn't win on the first ballot. That is the problem, not the rules that allow them to vote for their own candidate after the first ballot.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Tristan

And ironically, if delegate they talked to on NPR this morning is any judge, they fully intend that the first vote not be clear cut, or something along those lines, so that they will then be free to vote for whomever they want. Thus, with a really really small minority of the vote, Ron Paul will become the Republican candidate.

This is a HUGE slap in the face to the "libertarian" ideals that Paul is alleged to hold, but I don't think any of his followers have gotten that figured out yet.

No, it is a slap in the face, perhaps, to democratic ideals; but Libertarians care little for democracy as such.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Tristan

This is a HUGE slap in the face to the "libertarian" ideals that Paul is alleged to hold, but I don't think any of his followers have gotten that figured out yet.

No, murdering sixteen year old human rights activists is a slap in the face to libertarian ideals.

[CJJ*]

There is no way Paul can derail Romney's nomination; IMO Paul is gathering delegates in order to influence the platform. Also, by threatening to turn the televised convention into a messy affair, he may be angling to get his son Rand a more prominent position in Tampa--maybe a prime-time speaker's position a la Pat Buchanan in 1996.

[bdgr]

Originally Posted by Grumman

No, murdering sixteen year old human rights activists is a slap in the face to libertarian ideals.

??

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by bdgr

??

I'm referring to the CIA's murder of Tariq Aziz.

It is a damning condemnation of both the Republicans and Democrats that only "Crazy Old Ron" has a problem with this sort of behaviour.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Grumman

I'm referring to the CIA's murder of Tariq Aziz.

It is a damning condemnation of both the Republicans and Democrats that only "Crazy Old Ron" has a problem with this sort of behaviour.

First off, he's not dead yet. Second, he was tried and convicted by an Iraqi court and sentenced to death. And even if you think such sentencing amounts to murder, the U.S. and especially the CIA had nothing to do with it.

Did you maybe pick the wrong name?

[Blaster Master]

I agree with the idea that Paul is just trying to get his message out there. At this point, it's a given that Romney is the candidate, and I don't think anyone but Paul's most diehard fans believe otherwise. So Romney's supporters and those who are simply okay to settle with that will be quieter, but those who aren't happy with some of his positions will be louder. I think maybe Paul thinks if he can demonstrate that his supporters are a large enough bloc, the Republican party will need to do something to appease them for fear of them staying home.

I seriously doubt Paul could get many of his more extreme positions considered, particularly his economic ones, but I wouldn't be surprised if, as a result of his showing, he might not get them to at least quiet down about a couple things that might otherwise farther alienate the libertarian wing.

Either way, I seriously doubt his endgame is, or realistically ever was, any sort of realistic shot at the nomination, just a real shot to have his message heard on a national stage. At least from my perspective, the hype he's generated over the past few elections has definitely grown, so I'd even say he's being moderately successful at it.

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by Blaster Master

Either way, I seriously doubt his endgame is, or realistically ever was, any sort of realistic shot at the nomination, just a real shot to have his message heard on a national stage.

I'm not sure that's true. If so, there was no reason to give up his House seat after this election cycle. He'd be in a better position to keep his message on the national stage if he was still in Congress after losing the nomination.

Of course, there's the pragmatic argument that the Texas Republicans were tired of him and going to field a credible primary challenger, but that would mean he was admitting his defeat at getting his message across in his own district, much less the entire country.

Here in Texas (we're next door to his district), the best we can figure it is that this run is a last ditch, all out effort by a True Believer, and he's going to win or go down fighting.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I suppose this may fit in GQ but considering it is politics I am guessing here is the place for it.

Actually, particularly given the year, Elections is the place for it.

Off you go.

[gamerunknown]

This is fantastic news, everyone knows that the US is a Republic based on representative democracy, not an actual democracy. If the vulgate actually got their demands, why, we'd see such horrendous policies as a redistribution of wealth or universal healthcare! No, far better to have enlightened individuals in place to temper the passions of the people, exactly as the founders intended. Though perhaps the founders were not sufficiently conservative: we could adopt stable systems from our allies, such as Saudi... Something immune to the rancorous cries of the proles, a hereditary form of government.

- Poe smily.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Ron Paul: Why/how is he snapping up delegates? To what purpose?

He has a hoarding problem.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

See, I see it as a way to shore up more Romney-bound votes and for a way for Dr. Paul to get more exposure/pass the torch to Rand. I'm still thinking that Rand is on the short list for Vice President, but I'm just as much of an armchair quarterback as you guys. To backtrack and clarify, I think Ron's delegates have been "going" to Romney for a while now. Paul stopped sending attack ads against Romney for some time here in order to act as a firewall against Santorum/Gingrich. Ron Paul sees this process as a way for him to pass the torch/garner a few more political points and his supporters see it as a super sneaky way to win the nomination, which has a Lloyd Christmas chance of happening.

[Tristan]

Don't get me wrong. If he wasn't a militant, and this occured as his supporters say, then it is a tragic accident, and hopefully will cause for a review of the informant system in Pakistan.

That being said, we don't launch drones into Canada, because Canada doesn't have militant murderers who use it as a staging area to launch attacks in their neighboring country. If Pakistan did it's job as a nation, and cleaned their house, then drone attacks would stop.

As the former is unlikely, I don't see the second happening any time soon. But I digress, as this is far off topic.

[Ca3799]

I see the GOP may deny the Ron Paulites from Maine seats at the convention. Romney's lawyers are saying the Ron Paul supporters didn't follow rules correctly.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Ca3799

I see the GOP may deny the Ron Paulites from Maine seats at the convention. Romney's lawyers are saying the Ron Paul supporters didn't follow rules correctly.

!!! That sounds a lot like Chicago in '68! If that happens, I expect there will be something approaching a riot!

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

!!! That sounds a lot like Chicago in '68! If that happens, I expect there will be something approaching a riot!

Because Paul doesn't get all of the less-than-10-percent-of-Romney's-total delegates his supporters believe they've earned? Come on.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Because Paul doesn't get all of the less-than-10-percent-of-Romney's-total delegates his supporters believe they've earned? Come on.

They're Libertarians. I have met many. Some are nerdy, but some are . . . scary.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Ca3799

I see the GOP may deny the Ron Paulites from Maine seats at the convention. Romney's lawyers are saying the Ron Paul supporters didn't follow rules correctly.

Yes. They broke the "you were supposed to let Mitt win" rule. The nomination process is a sham anyways.

But to the OP, I think Paul just wants to get enough delegates to put his name into nomination, make a prime time speech about how Republicans have lost their way, and then retire into the sunset.

[Chronos]

Quoth Measure for Measure:

1. Since we're in elections... why not substitute approval voting for instant runoff?

You're doubtless aware that any system of voting has paradoces associated with it. And I personally am not fond of the particular paradoces associated with approval voting.

Although really, IRV isn't too great itself. It's better than what we use now, but there are other systems that are strictly better than it. Its main virtue is that, of the systems better than what we have now, it's one of the easiest to understand (which is admittedly an important intangible: People can't trust a system they don't understand).

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I'm thinking that IRV is easier to sell because the ability to rank-order the candidates by preference offers more psychological satisfaction.

Sounds good.

Originally Posted by Chronos

You're doubtless aware that any system of voting has paradoxes associated with it. And I personally am not fond of the particular paradoxes associated with approval voting.

Although really, IRV isn't too great itself. It's better than what we use now, but there are other systems that are strictly better than it. Its main virtue is that, of the systems better than what we have now, it's one of the easiest to understand (which is admittedly an important intangible: People can't trust a system they don't understand).

But are the paradoxes empirically significant? I once read a study about a British Union election where they had the group vote in a number of ways. It turns out that the results were pretty similar... except for first past the post voting. Now it's possible that after a point people were just blindly checking boxes. But I haven't been especially convinced of the salience of these (inevitable) paradoxes in practice, except of course for the spoiler effect in winner-take-all voting.

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Paul is about the least loyal Republican in Congress. ... He won't support Romney

Wha? Ron Paul and Romney are BFF. Neither attacked the other even once during the Republican debates. That makes sense: RP didn't want to piss off the presumptive nominee.

... he's willing to crash the party to further his message...

More seriously, my take might be off. But I'm guessing that RP is in fact not willing to run as a Libertarian independent in 2012 and crash the Republican Party. If he does, my POV is falsified.

I'd like to know in what way he has demonstrated himself to be a " loyal Republican."

Contrast with Gingrich who ran a slash and burn campaign against Romney. Contrast with Nader who ran a slash and burn campaign against the Democrats.

So you accuse Paul of running for personal gain. Why do you think Barack Obama ran?

Obama ran for the same reason that Romney did: they wanted to be President of the United States. Ron Paul ran for the same reason as Michelle Bachmann: they wanted to deliver their message, sort of like Hollywood liberals allegedly do.

Of course there's going to be benefits to running for president but I think it's pretty clear that he's evangelizing at this point.

Maybe we agree more than we pretend. That's no fun!

He doesn't build coalitions? He has worked with Democrats like Kucinich and Frank. Endorsed McKinney and Nader.

What legislation has Ron Paul passed? Serious question. In congress there are sausage-makers, gadflys and dead wood. My take is that Ron Paul is a gadfly. Hey, it's a living.
---------------------------------

I came across an article speculating about Ron Paul's motivation: What Does Ron Paul Really Want?

The underlying reality is that Dr. Paul and his fanbase have already won what they most craved from Republicans: respect. I don’t just mean his hard-earned inclusion in candidate debates, or the civil treatment he’s received from his rivals. In a very real sense, on domestic issues at least, the GOP has moved dramatically in Paul’s direction since 2008. That’s most apparent in discussions of monetary policy. While none of Paul’s rivals in the presidential contest embraced a gold standard or abolition of the Fed, the alleged perils of monetary inflation have been emphasized far more than one might expect in the midst of a recession. As National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru noted in February:

Many Republicans tell pollsters that they will not vote for Paul because of his foreign-policy views. Nobody says that his monetary views are a deal breaker; no pollster even bothers to ask. There is no organized opposition to Paulite views on money within the Republican party or conservative movement, and the people who hold those views hold them intensely.

With the elevation of Federal Reserve conspiracy theory, the Republican Party has added another shard to its collection of cracked pottery. Mission accomplished!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Wha? Ron Paul and Romney are BFF. Neither attacked the other even once during the Republican debates. That makes sense: RP didn't want to piss off the presumptive nominee.

Why didn't that stop Gingrich or Santorum?

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Why didn't that stop Gingrich or Santorum?

Gingrich had nothing to lose. He only wants a cushy spot at Fox News or CNN. More to the point, there's nothing that the Republican Party could do to him. Actually, imposing party discipline on any Presidential candidate is hard.

But Ron Paul is trying to build a mailing list. For those purposes warm words by leading members works to his advantage. More deeply, if he doesn't topple the apple cart, he will be in a decent position to ask for favors. Such as... other mailing lists.

I suspect that Santorum will be forgiven pretty quickly: the #2 candidate is allowed a certain amount of slack after all. Gingrich, OTOH, may have burned his bridges.


ETA: ...unless Romney would rather have Gingrich on the inside of the tent pissing out. Except... Newt might not settle for an ambassadorship and putting him in the cabinet would be incredibly risky.

[The wind of my soul]

To answer the "how" part of the OP:

The campaign headquarters in VA had my contact information, and they badgered me relentlessly to be a delegate. I got ... gosh, maybe four voice mails asking me to be a delegate, and several e-mails as well. I ignored them all, because it struck me as unethical.

The day before the paperwork was due, I came home from work to find all the paperwork I needed to fill out stashed between my doorknob and doorframe on my front door. Apparently, campaign volunteers had actually driven to people's houses with the paperwork, and had I been there at the time, they would have made sure it was all filed correctly, and all I would have needed to do is give them my signature.

[Chronos]

Quoth Measure for Measure:

But are the paradoxes empirically significant? I once read a study about a British Union election where they had the group vote in a number of ways. It turns out that the results were pretty similar... except for first past the post voting. Now it's possible that after a point people were just blindly checking boxes. But I haven't been especially convinced of the salience of these (inevitable) paradoxes in practice, except of course for the spoiler effect in winner-take-all voting.

My preference for methods other than IRV is largely a matter of idealism: If one method is objectively provably strictly superior to another, then it seems silly to a techie like me to ever use the dominated method, even if it almost never makes a difference. In practice, though, I recognize that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and that IRV has a lot higher chance to ever be implemented than something like Condorcet, while still being nearly as much of an improvement over the current system.

I suspect that Santorum will be forgiven pretty quickly: the #2 candidate...

Was that one deliberate?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Unfortunately you need to watch the video on this page but it is interesting. It makes the case that delegates to the RNC convention are unbound and free to vote for whoever they want.

The plot thickens...

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Unfortunately you need to watch the video on this page but it is interesting. It makes the case that delegates to the RNC convention are unbound and free to vote for whoever they want.

I don't see why they have to look for loopholes in the rules.

If a majority of the delegates want Romney as the nominee, then even if they change the rules, they'll vote for him, and that's that.

If a majority of the delegates don't want Romney as the nominee, why can't they change the rules of the Convention in a vote on the floor to unbind all of the delegates?

[independentDemocrat]

he is snatching delegates up to win! with Santourum and Gingrich out their delegates may vote Paul now cuz Romney is scum! Romney is a Democrat in Mormon sheep's clothing lol

[Marley23]

Well, yes, you get delegates to win, but Paul knows he's not going to win. I'm not sure he thought he ever had a chance in this electoral cycle, but if there was, it went away a long time ago. I don't know what the hell "Mormon sheep's clothing" is supposed to mean. Left to his own devices Romney is probably not a far-right conservative, but Mormons are a conservative bunch for the most part.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by independentDemocrat

he is snatching delegates up to win! with Santourum and Gingrich out their delegates may vote Paul now cuz Romney is scum! Romney is a Democrat in Mormon sheep's clothing lol

Whoosh or Poe's Law?

[Marley23]

Paul essentially quit campaigning today and said he'll only compete for delegates through the convention process. His campaign doesn't have much money and I've heard it pointed out that by quitting now, he avoids getting his butt kicked in his home state (Texas) and in his son's home state (Kentucky).

[Bijou Drains]

The Ron Paul dream is over!!

Now he can start his 2016 run, and become the new Harold Stassen.

[Rhythmdvl]

Ron Paul won 12 of 13 delegates in Minnesota's state GOP convention

Looks like it's going to be an interesting convention.