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

[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!

[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).

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

As a resident of Tampa, I'm still holding out hope that all this will somehow turn into political riots in the streets! Like Chicago in '68, only sillier!

Wait till that crazy Utah delegation gets full of root beer! You're in for three nights of unbridled hijinks! Some of them may even brazenly chew gum in public AND expose their elbows!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[furt]

Originally Posted by Telemark

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.

If that's the claim -- some kind of fraud and/or violation of the rules -- then yes (though I don't see any sign that that is what is happening or is intended).

[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.

[Measure for Measure]

From Rhythmdvl's CSMonitor article:

As reported by Jon Ward on Huffington Post, Paul wants several things to be included in the GOP platform at Tampa: a proposal for stricter oversight of the Federal Reserve, a ban on indefinite detention of American citizens, and a provision advocating greater freedom on the Internet.

Not that my political instincts are sound, but those demands seem pretty smart. #3 is a crowd-pleaser. #2 makes Ron Paul sound serious. And the first is possibly toxic, possibly not, but addresses a longstanding theme of RP and his base.

After the 2012 election, I suspect that the RP caucus reps will not simply disperse. I could imagine them running for office in various local capacities. They might just be able to point to some national accomplishments by 2020, which is remarkable for a fringe group. Lefties should pull out their pads and take notes.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

From Rhythmdvl's CSMonitor article:

As reported by Jon Ward on Huffington Post, Paul wants several things to be included in the GOP platform at Tampa: a proposal for stricter oversight of the Federal Reserve, a ban on indefinite detention of American citizens, and a provision advocating greater freedom on the Internet.

Not that my political instincts are sound, but those demands seem pretty smart. #3 is a crowd-pleaser. #2 makes Ron Paul sound serious. And the first is possibly toxic, possibly not, but addresses a longstanding theme of RP and his base.

After the 2012 election, I suspect that the RP caucus reps will not simply disperse. I could imagine them running for office in various local capacities. They might just be able to point to some national accomplishments by 2020, which is remarkable for a fringe group. Lefties should pull out their pads and take notes.

Form a stubborn lefty faction within the Dems and find a candidate (who we know can't win the nomination, and if he did he'd lose the general election, but we'll pretend otherwise) to rally 'round? Would that work? Dennis Kucinich's efforts in that direction have never seemed to accomplish much.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Form a stubborn lefty faction within the Dems and find a candidate (who we know can't win the nomination, and if he did he'd lose the general election, but we'll pretend otherwise) to rally 'round? Would that work? Dennis Kucinich's efforts in that direction have never seemed to accomplish much.

That's why lefties need to take careful notes. I'm guessing that Ron Paul has repeatedly signaled to the insiders that he would never pull a 3rd party stunt if he was treated with a modicum of respect. It also helps that he focuses on stuff that amenable to the Republican base: I noticed pot decriminalization wasn't on the list.

In short, RP is corralling the wackadoodles and fringies for policies that are unobjectionable to the Republican base. He's become an asset to the GOP rather than a threat.


In other news former Governor Gary Johnson is hoping to become the next Libertarian Presidential candidate next fall. Here is his latest ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELWM9...feature=relmfu
I think it's intended to appeal to fence-sitting libertarians.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

It also helps that he focuses on stuff that amenable to the Republican base: I noticed pot decriminalization wasn't on the list.

Dammit, isn't it on any pol's list?!

BTW: Here, Penn Jillette rants about Obama & pot.

[scabpicker]

Funny, I just got a robo call trying to convince me to vote for Ron Paul in the TX Republican primary. That seems odd behavior for a campaign that is technically over. It made sure I was aware that doing so didn't obligate me to vote Republican, and it didn't mention pot or the Federal Reserve. I didn't pay too much creed to the idea that Paul was continuing his campaign with an eye on monkey business at the convention until now. I don't see another reason for a long shot to continue his campaign after declaring it over, though.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by scabpicker

Funny, I just got a robo call trying to convince me to vote for Ron Paul in the TX Republican primary. That seems odd behavior for a campaign that is technically over.

It's a robo call. For all we know, an order was placed and nobody remembered to cancel it.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I can't help wondering, what with continuing news reports of Paulbots grabbing delegate slots in state after state:

Yes, supposedly many of them are technically duty-bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot; but what if they choose instead to abstain from voting at all? If enough delegates refuse to participate on the first ballot to give Romney the required number of votes, could they flip it to another round where they'd be free to vote for their hero?

I know, I know; there's probably something in the rules to prevent it; but do the Paulbots know that? Do they care?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

That's why lefties need to take careful notes. I'm guessing that Ron Paul has repeatedly signaled to the insiders that he would never pull a 3rd party stunt if he was treated with a modicum of respect. It also helps that he focuses on stuff that amenable to the Republican base: I noticed pot decriminalization wasn't on the list.

In short, RP is corralling the wackadoodles and fringies for policies that are unobjectionable to the Republican base. He's become an asset to the GOP rather than a threat.

OK, let's take careful notes. What the Ronulans are doing here is called entryism -- sneak into an established organization and take it over -- a tactic generally associated with Trotskyite socialists, but I doubt they invented it, it's got to be as old as any politics more complicated than "Do what the King says." (But the Trots have never been able to apply it with much success.) Only time I can think of when it has worked in America was when the Religious Right won a lot of low-profile local elections in the 1980s by running its candidates "under the radar," usually as Republicans, dissembling their real agenda and priorities, and the RR built up from that base and thereby became a major power within the GOP. And as an honest lefty, I'd rather have nothing to do with that, thank you.

[bdgr]

http://www.ktbs.com/news/Breaking-Ro...t/-/index.html

So now Louisiana has two sets of delegates...this is going to be interesting.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

OK, let's take careful notes. What the Ronulans are doing here is called entryism -- sneak into an established organization and take it over -- a tactic generally associated with Trotskyite socialists, but I doubt they invented it, it's got to be as old as any politics more complicated than "Do what the King says." (But the Trots have never been able to apply it with much success.) Only time I can think of when it has worked in America was when the Religious Right won a lot of low-profile local elections in the 1980s by running its candidates "under the radar," usually as Republicans, dissembling their real agenda and priorities, and the RR built up from that base and thereby became a major power within the GOP. And as an honest lefty, I'd rather have nothing to do with that, thank you.

AFAICT, the Rondroids are practicing open entryism. Secret entryism doesn't win open respect as the LaRouchites have discovered. Open entryism is almost observationally equivalent with concerned citizenry.

That said, I should add that careful notetakers may indeed discover that the fanaticism of Ron's supporters make his strategies ill-suited for the left, who would be less constrained by inclinations to follow politically professional authority figures.

[Bijou Drains]

Do these Paul nuts really think they are gaining anything? Every time I hear about the party platform I laugh , what percent of voters know what is in the platform? For some reason the media like to talk about the platform but other than policy geeks nobody cares about it. I like politics and have been voting since 1980 but I have never read a platform for any party.

[Measure for Measure]

Louisiana GOP spirals into chaos as Ron Paul delegates injured, arrested. Cops break one RP delegate's hand. Ron Paul HQ tries to calm down their supporters: huddles with Romney. Message to the Rondroid Rubes: Chill out.


In other news, former Governor Gary Johnson was nominated by the Libertarian Party early last month. He just received his first tranche of matching federal funds, amounting to $100,000. Can Gary keep the momentum, momenting?

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Louisiana GOP spirals into chaos as Ron Paul delegates injured, arrested. Cops break one RP delegate's hand. Ron Paul HQ tries to calm down their supporters: huddles with Romney. Message to the Rondroid Rubes: Chill out.

Can you provide a single quote from the Paul campaign that backs up your claim: "Ron Paul HQ tries to calm down their supporters: huddles with Romney. Message to the Rondroid Rubes: Chill Out"? Your second cite is nothing but speculation on the part of a hit-starved blogger.

Also, nothing in either of your cites suggests that the Ron Paul delegates were in the wrong. For example in Louisiana:

It all transpired as as the crowd chanted: “The chairman must remove! The chairman must remove!”

That’s when the convention split.

Paul delegates moved to request more information on the chairman’s decision, but he continued as if they weren’t present. So, they decided then and there to elect a new chairman, picking state central committeeman Henry Herford Jr., a Paul supporter, to lead the party.

When Villere refused to acknowledge the vote, Paul’s delegates picked up their chairs and turned away from him, forming a new convention on the spot and passing a microphone to their new chairman.

Moments later, Herford, too, was seized by police. Camera-wielding Paul supporters surrounded the fracas as Herford pleaded with officers to be gentle due to his prosthetic hip. “I have a handicap! I’m handicapped!” he said as they pulled him to the ground.

Could you provide any evidence of Paul supporters doing anything against the rules?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by bdgr

http://www.ktbs.com/news/Breaking-Ro...t/-/index.html

So now Louisiana has two sets of delegates...this is going to be interesting.

Now that sounds like Chicago in '68!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

In other news, former Governor Gary Johnson was nominated by the Libertarian Party early last month. He just received his first tranche of matching federal funds, amounting to $100,000. Can Gary keep the momentum, momenting?

I dunno, but he's gonna be on The Daily Show tonight. (Unfortunately, there's no Stewart Bump, that's Colbert's thing . . .)

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Can you provide a single quote from the Paul campaign that backs up your claim: "Ron Paul HQ tries to calm down their supporters: huddles with Romney. Message to the Rondroid Rubes: Chill Out"?

Sure. Check out the 2nd paragraph.

“Establishment Republicans sometimes claim that Ron Paul supporters occasionally get out-of-hand. This has been true, and to the extent that some Paul supporters have exhibited poor behavior [it] not only reflects badly on the individuals involved, but Dr. Paul,” wrote Paul campaign blogger Jack Hunter on June 2.

For the original quote see ronpaul2012.com.

Also, nothing in either of your cites suggests that the Ron Paul delegates were in the wrong. ...
Could you provide any evidence of Paul supporters doing anything against the rules?

Did I imply otherwise? I searched google news and couldn't get a sense of whether Louisiana GOP insiders were railroading the proceedings or whether RP supporters were making mountains out of squirrely loopholes. All the reporting has been he said-she said, which is unfortunate. I don't know what happened.

The biggest insight I got was from the You-tube video. To wit: screw the rules. If you want to win, just keep control of the lectern. And make sure the local muscle is on your side. What are your opponents going to do, vote for Gary Johnson? Modern conservatives are way too authoritarian for that, even if the election is stolen from under their feet. Hypothetically.

For those keeping score, one Ron Paul supporter reportedly suffered a dislocated prosthetic hip, while another broke his hand. What's the message that the Louisiana GOP is trying to send?

Mr. Herford -- you are causing my employer some discomfort. And so my employer has me to make clear to you his position. His position is as follows. If you were a publisher my employer would destroy your presses. Since you are merely a typist and it would not be persuasive to destroy your keyboard, my employer has asked me to make it plain to you that every time you secure an additional delegate for Ron Paul -- you shall lose one of your fingers. Krakk.

With apologies to Frank Miller.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Sure. Check out the 2nd paragraph.

“Establishment Republicans sometimes claim that Ron Paul supporters occasionally get out-of-hand. This has been true, and to the extent that some Paul supporters have exhibited poor behavior [it] not only reflects badly on the individuals involved, but Dr. Paul,” wrote Paul campaign blogger Jack Hunter on June 2.

For the original quote see ronpaul2012.com.

How does that back up your claim or the claim of the author? It reads more like a washing of he hands than a directive. Where exactly does the "cuddling" with Romney come into this? If anyone needs to chill out its the establishment Republicans who have resorted to strong arm tactics in order to save Romney embarrassment. I doubt such a request will come from that campaign considering the character of its candidate.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

How does that back up your claim or the claim of the author? It reads more like a washing of he hands than a directive.

Let's take this slowly. Ron Paul met with Mitt Romney in a closed door meeting a couple of weeks ago: presumably they came to some arrangement. Cite. The article speculates that they discussed Rand Paul, but I find that dubious. Anyway, it's clear that Ron Paul wants his followers to cool it. I quote again:

Establishment Republicans sometimes claim that Ron Paul supporters occasionally get out-of-hand. This has been true, and to the extent that some Paul supporters have exhibited poor behavior [it] not only reflects badly on the individuals involved, but Dr. Paul...

I don't see how you can read that in any way as a washing of the hands. RP is attempting to level up: the fringe wackos will only get you so far. So calls for calm -even in the face of what might be strongarm tactics- earn him points with GOP circles.

If anyone needs to chill out its the establishment Republicans who have resorted to strong arm tactics in order to save Romney embarrassment. I doubt such a request will come from that campaign considering the character of its candidate.

Like I said, I don't know what happened. But if the Ron Paul supporters acted in an above board fashion, the problem is with the Louisiana GOP, and not with the Romney campaign. Or so I guess: I figure that Romney has the nomination in the bag and doesn't need to call out the dogs -- and if he did we'd see him do it in more than one state.

Anyway, when there's violence and altercation with the cops, everyone involved looks bad, whether that's fair or not.

[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?