Ron Paul WON Washington State: Margin of TWO TO ONE!

DriftingByTheStorm

prism wrote:

18 tied to February 9 caucuses, 19 tied to February 19 primary, 3 unpledged RNC member delegates

See here,
you are admiting that all the delegates that we are discussing are unbound.


Thus, i would say the vote that occured was a BEAUTY CONTEST.

Woud you not?

Now, the 19th is a different story.

Honestly i did not know (or knew and forgot) that Washington was one of those independent caucus\primary states.

But you are in flat out denial if you don't think Ron Paul just cleaned up on the delegate situation in Washington.

I ask you to offer ANY proof of your own,
Mr. High Falutin.

jlew24asu

lets say all of this nonsense is true. he is still 850 delegates behind??

ledvedderman

jlew24asu wrote:

lets say all of this nonsense is true. he is still 850 delegates behind??

Why do you always got to piss on Ron Pauls parade? I think you are forgetting to take into count the "unbound" delegates that will clearly give him the win.

sweet adeline

this is still my favorite ron paul video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og4eCQlRxXE

DriftingByTheStorm

sweet adeline wrote:

this is still my favorite ron paul video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og4eCQlRxXE

Good stuff.
Though i hope you understand that everything he said was actualy NOT crazy, and that Colbert is attempting humor ... though i think he is being a mild media puppet douche by giving uninformed viewers the false impression that Paul realy is nuts.

I THINK THIS IS THE FUNNIEST ONE, personaly.

DriftingByTheStorm

jlew24asu wrote:

lets say all of this nonsense is true. he is still 850 delegates behind??

& i'm CERTAINLY not denying that Jlew,

I just think it behooves people on here to admit the fucking truth,
when that truth is that (so far as anyone can calculate right now) Ron Paul is cleaning up in the Washington caucus delegate count.

Instead, i'm being called "dellusional", crazy, Bat-shit ... etc.

WTF gives, anyhow?

BTW,
impressive effort by your little bull friends on slow monday here.

ledvedderman

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Instead, i'm being called "dellusional", crazy, Bat-shit ... etc.

Don't forget tin foil hat wearing...

cornnifer

ledvedderman wrote:

Don't forget tin foil hat wearing...

i also don't think anyone has said anything about Kool-aid drinking. Where would be be without that one.

sweet adeline

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Good stuff.
Though i hope you understand that everything he said was actualy NOT crazy, and that Colbert is attempting humor ... though i think he is being a mild media puppet douche by giving uninformed viewers the false impression that Paul realy is nuts.

I THINK THIS IS THE FUNNIEST ONE, personaly.

i'd hope that anyone who watches colbert knows that his whole schtick is satire.

floyd1975

cornnifer wrote:

i also don't think anyone has said anything about Kool-aid drinking. Where would be be without that one.

Sitting around asleep with our heads buried in the sand?

jeffbr

I'm a Libertarian, but decided to play a Republican at this year's caucus. I cast my vote for Paul not because he's my perfect candidate, or because I think he can win, but because the Republican Party has been drinking too much of their own KoolAid and it is probably healthy for them to have to listen to Ron Paul once in awhile.

That being said, based on my statistically invalid sample size of 1 precinct, Paul certainly did not dominate in delegate count. I happened to be elected as a delegate to the county convention for Paul, but here's how our precinct shook out (we had 7 delegates):

Huckabee - 3
Uncommitted - 2
Paul - 1
McCain - 1

The message for me is that the Republican Party activists are not happy with McCain. The uncommitteds both said their guy dropped out and they'll support whomever gets the nod, but wouldn't go so far as to officially endorse McCain. 2 of the 3 Huckabee supporters said the same thing. So it looks like most of them will only grudgingly vote for McCain.

So Paul got 1 out of 7 delegates from my precinct. We started out pooled with 4 other precincts, and I know Paul got 1 out of 4 in another one, and 0 out of 2 and 0 out of 6 in the other 2. Hardly a win, and hardly a victory.

There were no clear winners, but McCain was a clear loser only because he can't count on enthusiastic support from the grassroots. I still think if Obama gets the nod on the Dem side, he wins because most of these Republicans stay home. If Hillary gets the nod, McCain wins, because these people will come out and cast a vote against Hillary.

DriftingByTheStorm

jeffbr wrote:

So Paul got 1 out of 7 delegates from my precinct. We started out pooled with 4 other precincts, and I know Paul got 1 out of 4 in another one, and 0 out of 2 and 0 out of 6 in the other 2. Hardly a win, and hardly a victory.

Well, you did say yourself your sample size is piss poor.

Look, i'm with you.
It sounds improbable.

But all i can do is go on BEST INFORMATION,
and so far that is coming from the Washington State Ron Paul Coordinator,
and so far that observation is "Ron Paul got most delegates" ...

so until MORE information comes in,
i'm going to continue to keep my head up my ass and believe it.

The popular vote certainly doesn't make it entirely out of the realm ... it was Rons strongest showing so far, i believe.

MasterFramer

I just saw a ticker on MSNBC saying hukabee is contesting the Wa results, anyone know why?

ledvedderman

MasterFramer wrote:

I just saw a ticker on MSNBC saying hukabee is contesting the Wa results, anyone know why?

They stopped counting at like 93% or 97% of all the totals counted.

WMA

ledvedderman wrote:

They stopped counting at like 93% or 97% of all the totals counted.

He was only behind by a couple hundred votes, with 1500+ left to count when the count was stopped.

Im still here

WMA wrote:

He was only behind by a couple hundred votes, with 1500+ left to count when the count was stopped.

why wouldn't they count 100% of the vote?

i know it's a dumb question but what the hell

cornnifer

Im still here wrote:

why wouldn't they count 100% of the vote?

i know it's a dumb question but what the hell

Actually, THAT is NOT a dumb question. Finally
i think the Huckster has a right to bitch.

DriftingByTheStorm

cornnifer wrote:

Actually, THAT is NOT a dumb question. Finally
i think the Huckster has a right to bitch.

But when\if Ron Paul does so,
hes a fucking nutjob, right?

Im still here

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

But when\if Ron Paul does so,
hes a fucking nutjob, right?

OMG

this is so true.......

seriously

cornnifer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

But when\if Ron Paul does so,
hes a fucking nutjob, right?

I've never said Paul was a nutjob. Not once.










just his two or three supporters