It's All Over

[Lex Concord]

At least, that's what the media would have you believe.

Romney won Iowa and New Hampshire, so this train can't be stopped.

The problem is, the caboose hasn't even cleared the station on this cross-country journey.

You see, even though Mitt won Iowa, he is guaranteed none of her 28 delegates; they are unbound.

As of this morning, Romney has 7 delegates, Paul has 3, and Huntsman has 2. This is out of 1144 required to win the Republican nomination.

In other words, Romney has 1137 to go for the win, Paul needs 1141, and Huntsman is a mere 1142 shy; hardly an open and shut case.

You will, however, continue to be told of the inevitability of a Romney nomination by nearly every media outlet.

Sadly, based on the way many Americans seem to treat primaries like horse races where the betting windows are open well into the race, it is probably Romney's to lose.

If you're interested in keeping track yourself, check out this page for the breakdown of each state's delegate count and manner of award: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-Del.phtml?sort=t

 

[CarmelHP]

Ron Paul is already defending Romney, he's campaigning for VP.

 

[Bradsknives]

It was over before it even started. It's all about money and Romney has more money in his coffers than all of them combined, plus he has been campaigning for the last 8 years.

 

[jsgolfman]

As Lee Corso would say, not so fast my friends:

Poll: Ron Paul ties Newt Gingrich for 2nd | The State Column

 

[Pocketman]

It was over before it even started. It's all about money and Romney has more money in his coffers than all of them combined, plus he has been campaigning for the last 8 years.

Unfortunate, but likely true.

 

[Zoub]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrFV5r8cs0[/ame]

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

At least, that's what the media would have you believe.

Romney won Iowa and New Hampshire, so this train can't be stopped.

The problem is, the caboose hasn't even cleared the station on this cross-country journey.

You see, even though Mitt won Iowa, he is guaranteed none of her 28 delegates; they are unbound.

As of this morning, Romney has 7 delegates, Paul has 3, and Huntsman has 2. This is out of 1144 required to win the Republican nomination.

In other words, Romney has 1137 to go for the win, Paul needs 1141, and Huntsman is a mere 1142 shy; hardly an open and shut case.

You will, however, continue to be told of the inevitability of a Romney nomination by nearly every media outlet.

Sadly, based on the way many Americans seem to treat primaries like horse races where the betting windows are open well into the race, it is probably Romney's to lose.

If you're interested in keeping track yourself, check out this page for the breakdown of each state's delegate count and manner of award: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-Del.phtml?sort=t

Great information! I'll be checking back on this site.

I for one, am quite tired of the MSM telling us who is "electable" and who is not. Last I checked, Ron Paul won twelve (12) elections for Congress, so who is the MSM (who have not won elections) to tell us that he cannot be elected? Essentially, the media wants to pick the candidates so that either statist pig they select continues the anti-liberty agenda of the globalists.

Like Paul or not, he is not a globalist and he will not follow that agenda, which IMO is why he has been deemed "unelectable."

 

[Lex Concord]

Ron Paul is already defending Romney, he's campaigning for VP.

I know and understand why you say this, and you could be right.

It just doesn't really jibe with the Paul campaign very publicly asking all other non-Romney candidates to drop out and support him in order to defeat Romney.

 

[Jaredjosh]

Ron Paul is already defending Romney, he's campaigning for VP.

Possible, but could it also be that Paul is just being honest. As far as the candidates go the only one I believe to be somewhat honest is Paul.

 

[mbills2223]

Possible, but could it also be that Paul is just being honest. As far as the candidates go the only one I believe to be somewhat honest is Paul.

I agree. I think Dr. Paul wants to focus on the issues that really matter. He defended Cain when he was under fire also. I know it's not necessarily the same, but it isn't something that Romney should be under fire for. Seems to me like Dr. Paul defended capitalism by defending Romney.

Edit: Just struck me to add this: It isn't like Dr. Paul to do something with a hidden motive. He typically does/says things because he believes it's right.

 

[strahd71]

i too think its over, and that it prolly was over a long time ago, i'm not happy about it, romney certainly isnt my choice but i'll vote for him to get obama out.

having said that i dont think i will ever feel dirtier than i did voting for McCain...........

jake

 

[Wink and the Gun]

i too think its over, and that it prolly was over a long time ago, i'm not happy about it, romney certainly isnt my choice but i'll vote for him to get obama out.

having said that i dont think i will ever feel dirtier than i did voting for McCain...........

jake

Agreed. Romney isn't ideal, but he's certainly better than Obama.

 

[Cerberus]

Agreed. Romney isn't ideal, but he's certainly better than Obama.

How so? He believes in many of the same policies? Trade for unknown evil over the evil you know? Most people won't.

 

[buckstopshere]

Ron Paul will be in it until the end. I don't think it's over by any stretch. Great find OP. Rep inbound.

Dr Paul recently won the straw poll in Idaho which carries more delegates than Iowa and NH. That won't be until March but if he can keep it up until then, he's going to be a force!

I'm hearing there will be 2 SCOTUS justices appointed during the next Presidential term. Who better than a constitutionalist to be the one nominating those judges for ratification? Especially considering the 2a as an individual right was upheld 5/4. Can we be certain that ole Mittens will make the right choices?

 

[buckstopshere]

Agreed. Romney isn't ideal, but he's certainly better than Obama.

I'm just curious and not being a jerk, in what ways do you think Romney is better than Obama? In fact, in what ways is he different?

Big govt? Same
Spending? Same
2a? Only marginally better I guess but historically anti-2a (note he became a lifetime NRA member recently like that's fooling anyone)
Military Spending? Same

I'm just curious. I haven't heard a satisfyingly factual answer to this yet.

 

[J_Wales]

Great information! I'll be checking back on this site.

I for one, am quite tired of the MSM telling us who is "electable" and who is not. Last I checked, Ron Paul won twelve (12) elections for Congress, so who is the MSM (who have not won elections) to tell us that he cannot be elected? Essentially, the media wants to pick the candidates so that either statist pig they select continues the anti-liberty agenda of the globalists.

Like Paul or not, he is not a globalist and he will not follow that agenda, which IMO is why he has been deemed "unelectable."

Well said.

 

[rambone]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD_ybaXhXno[/ame]