Ron Paul won Washington state

[Braznor]

nm

 

[BoberFett]

Dullard's analysis looks correct. What I find most interesting is that no matter how well Paul does in any given state, it seems that to some he's still just a "kook" for whom nobody votes. He practically tied the leading two candidates which tells me that he does in fact have support beyond the internet, despite what ignorant trolls like Pabster and Sinsear would have you believe. Whether you agree with him or not, there's a growing faction in the Republican party that is dissatisfied with the current crop of neocons, crooks and intolerant religious zealots that currently control the Republican party. Paul's run makes that clear.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Perry404
The point is that the information I have provided is relevant and as far as I know accurate. The two statements, "Paul lost" and "the vote hasn't taken place yet" cannot both be true.

What you have posted is not accurate. Why? First the primary vote isn't done. So, your post, from the thread title, of "Ron Paul won Washington state" is not accurate. No one has won that state yet. Second, if you consider the caucus only, Ron Paul still didn't win that. Ron Paul MAY win the state, but he is currently in 3rd in Washington State after the caucus. In order for him to win, he has to come from behind in the primary.

It states specifically that "According to the state tally,McCain won 26 percent of delegates, Huckabee garnered 24 percent"
That's 50%.
How many other candidates are left on the Republican side to split the other 50% of the delegates? The math seems fairly simple to me.

The math is simple, if it is actually done. So, lets do it. The caucuses give roughly half of the republican delegates in Washington. Here are the caucus results.:
[*]McCain: 26%
[*]Huckabee: 24%
[*]Paul: 21%
[*]Romney: 16%
[*]Uncommitted: 13%
[*]Math time: total = 26% + 24% + 21% + 16% +13% = 100%. Yes, the math works out, it was simple to add up to 100%. Paul is currently in 3rd.

Paul may sway those uncommitted delegates. Paul may do well in the primary. Ron Paul may win Washington state. But until that happens, any statement that "Ron Paul won Washington state" is a misleading lie.

All this aside I don't appreciated being called a liar. I may be wrong but I am not making things up out of thin air. Let's see someone else do the math.

I did the math, not that there was much to do. If you don't want to be called a liar, don't make a statement that isn't true. The statement that Paul won Washington isn't true at this point. No one has won Washington.

Originally posted by: Perry404
Why would I? I've been a conservative Republican my entire adult life.

Why? Because the Republicans haven't been conservative since the ~1950s when there was a split in the Democrat party. A massive portion of non-conservative democrats swapped parties (from Democrat to Republican) during that time. Sure, their high-spending and other non-conservative ideas (and thus the voters support) meant that many republicans won. Most of the presidents since then were Republicans for example. But, it also meant that Republicans haven't truely been conservative for 50-60 years. Why switch? Switch so that you can be in a party that is truely conservative instead of a party that pretends to be conservative and then does the exact opposite when in office. I'll let the proposed 3 trillion dollar budget speak for itself even though budgets aren't the only non-conservative part of today's Republican party.

I will give you that Dullard and your post was well done.
Obviously results are inconclusive or there would be no debate.
I couple things I know however. The most important thing being is that some of those undecided votes that you say he "may sway" do not in fact even need to be swayed because they are Ron Paul stealth votes. I know this for a fact. This was a strategy worked out beforehand.
I am also convinced that there are enough of them to put him in first place.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Perry404 have you considered joining the Libertarian party?

Yes, please do. Registration is right this way, watch your step. No, the walls are padded for decor purposes only. Are you cold? Try on this jacket, it's a nice tight fit. There you go. There you go.

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Perry404
It states specifically that "According to the state tally,McCain won 26 percent of delegates, Huckabee garnered 24 percent"
That's 50%.
How many other candidates are left on the Republican side to split the other 50% of the delegates? The math seems fairly simple to me.

All this aside I don't appreciated being called a liar. I may be wrong but I am not making things up out of thin air. Let's see someone else do the math.

In WA 50% of Republican delegates come from caucuses (with RP getting 0%) and 50% come from primary voting (on Feb. 19th IIRC).

The other 50% isn't RP, it hasn't been voted on yet. RP has won 0% in WA so far.

I've got news for you, many of Rons delegates are stealth delegates. Do you know what that means?
Also none of the delegates are bound.

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Nice find. So it's safe to say that Ron Paul has won nothing. Time to lock this thread and it's misleading title up.

What find? lol. The only one who has posted any relevant information in this thread is me. I'll bet there isn't one person in this thread who even understands the delegate process, the primary or the caucus in Washington state and this includes myself.
Also not one person has been able to put forth any delegate information whatsoever(aside from myself).

As for the rest of you keep up the bullshit and lets see how this plays out.
At least DaveSimmons has attempted to formulate an educated opinion even if it is wrong. The rest of you are for the most part good for mindless insults and little else.

I don't have a doctorate in political science or anything, but I'm pretty sure that 21% of the vote doesn't translate into a win, regardless of how many stealth delegates decide to vote for him. And regardless of whether or not they're bound, you're not going to see thousands of them switch over. That 21% is pretty impressive, but to claim that he won, or could still win, is just silly. :beer:

edit:

Originally posted by: Perry404
I couple things I know however. The most important thing being is that some of those undecided votes that you say he "may sway" do not in fact even need to be swayed because they are Ron Paul stealth votes. I know this for a fact. This was a strategy worked out beforehand.
I am also convinced that there are enough of them to put him in first place.

Perry, you seem like a moderately intelligent individual, so I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and let you realize how crazy that must sound to everyone not privy to your secret information. If you still want to stand by your statement, let's just wait for the convention to see how much higher that 21% will go.

But seriously, how is pretending you lost a good strategy for winning?

 

[LTC8K6]

It's a caucus, though.

It's not like it was a primary.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Dullard's analysis looks correct. What I find most interesting is that no matter how well Paul does in any given state, it seems that to some he's still just a "kook" for whom nobody votes. He practically tied the leading two candidates which tells me that he does in fact have support beyond the internet, despite what ignorant trolls like Pabster and Sinsear would have you believe. Whether you agree with him or not, there's a growing faction in the Republican party that is dissatisfied with the current crop of neocons, crooks and intolerant religious zealots that currently control the Republican party. Paul's run makes that clear.

He's seen as a kook because of some of his supporters. This thread is a good example.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Dullard's analysis looks correct. What I find most interesting is that no matter how well Paul does in any given state, it seems that to some he's still just a "kook" for whom nobody votes. He practically tied the leading two candidates which tells me that he does in fact have support beyond the internet, despite what ignorant trolls like Pabster and Sinsear would have you believe. Whether you agree with him or not, there's a growing faction in the Republican party that is dissatisfied with the current crop of neocons, crooks and intolerant religious zealots that currently control the Republican party. Paul's run makes that clear.

He's tied the leading candidates in one state. He has 16 delegates.

His internet support does not translate into the polls. We've seen that over the past month.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: LtPage1

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Perry404
It states specifically that "According to the state tally,McCain won 26 percent of delegates, Huckabee garnered 24 percent"
That's 50%.
How many other candidates are left on the Republican side to split the other 50% of the delegates? The math seems fairly simple to me.

All this aside I don't appreciated being called a liar. I may be wrong but I am not making things up out of thin air. Let's see someone else do the math.

In WA 50% of Republican delegates come from caucuses (with RP getting 0%) and 50% come from primary voting (on Feb. 19th IIRC).

The other 50% isn't RP, it hasn't been voted on yet. RP has won 0% in WA so far.

I've got news for you, many of Rons delegates are stealth delegates. Do you know what that means?
Also none of the delegates are bound.

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Nice find. So it's safe to say that Ron Paul has won nothing. Time to lock this thread and it's misleading title up.

What find? lol. The only one who has posted any relevant information in this thread is me. I'll bet there isn't one person in this thread who even understands the delegate process, the primary or the caucus in Washington state and this includes myself.
Also not one person has been able to put forth any delegate information whatsoever(aside from myself).

As for the rest of you keep up the bullshit and lets see how this plays out.
At least DaveSimmons has attempted to formulate an educated opinion even if it is wrong. The rest of you are for the most part good for mindless insults and little else.

I don't have a doctorate in political science or anything, but I'm pretty sure that 21% of the vote doesn't translate into a win, regardless of how many stealth delegates decide to vote for him. And regardless of whether or not they're bound, you're not going to see thousands of them switch over. That 21% is pretty impressive, but to claim that he won, or could still win, is just silly. :beer:

edit:

Originally posted by: Perry404
I couple things I know however. The most important thing being is that some of those undecided votes that you say he "may sway" do not in fact even need to be swayed because they are Ron Paul stealth votes. I know this for a fact. This was a strategy worked out beforehand.
I am also convinced that there are enough of them to put him in first place.

Perry, you seem like a moderately intelligent individual, so I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and let you realize how crazy that must sound to everyone not privy to your secret information. If you still want to stand by your statement, let's just wait for the convention to see how much higher that 21% will go.

But seriously, how is pretending you lost a good strategy for winning?

Look I'm not betting my life on anything yet I will always stand by my statements because they are always put forth to the best of my understanding.
Ironic how the media can declare a winner when there isn't one and nobody says a word. Also my information is not secret yet it is low key because the strategy that many were employing was meant to be.
In many circumstances going uncommitted is a sound strategy or many of those committed to Ron Paul would never get beyond the delegate selection process to the next level.

 

[jonks]

I was originally hoping this thread would die, but perry just keeps getting funnier, so please keep it alive. My contribution:

Chuck Norris was hypnotized by RP to "activate" and take out Huckabee if he won the nomination. No word yet on who the RP mole in the McCain camp is. My bet's the wife, she looks a little dazed usually.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Dullard's analysis looks correct. What I find most interesting is that no matter how well Paul does in any given state, it seems that to some he's still just a "kook" for whom nobody votes. He practically tied the leading two candidates which tells me that he does in fact have support beyond the internet, despite what ignorant trolls like Pabster and Sinsear would have you believe. Whether you agree with him or not, there's a growing faction in the Republican party that is dissatisfied with the current crop of neocons, crooks and intolerant religious zealots that currently control the Republican party. Paul's run makes that clear.

He's seen as a kook because of some of his supporters. This thread is a good example.

This forum is full of kooks supporting the other candidates. I guess that makes them kooks as well.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Dullard's analysis looks correct. What I find most interesting is that no matter how well Paul does in any given state, it seems that to some he's still just a "kook" for whom nobody votes. He practically tied the leading two candidates which tells me that he does in fact have support beyond the internet, despite what ignorant trolls like Pabster and Sinsear would have you believe. Whether you agree with him or not, there's a growing faction in the Republican party that is dissatisfied with the current crop of neocons, crooks and intolerant religious zealots that currently control the Republican party. Paul's run makes that clear.

He's tied the leading candidates in one state. He has 16 delegates.

His internet support does not translate into the polls. We've seen that over the past month.

There's no denying that. But this forum has at least a dozen trolls who constantly claim Paul has nothing more than 3%. That's a flat out lie and the Washington results proves it.

The antiPaulbots can keep denying it, but their fantasies have nothing to do with reality.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Dullard's analysis looks correct. What I find most interesting is that no matter how well Paul does in any given state, it seems that to some he's still just a "kook" for whom nobody votes. He practically tied the leading two candidates which tells me that he does in fact have support beyond the internet, despite what ignorant trolls like Pabster and Sinsear would have you believe. Whether you agree with him or not, there's a growing faction in the Republican party that is dissatisfied with the current crop of neocons, crooks and intolerant religious zealots that currently control the Republican party. Paul's run makes that clear.

He's seen as a kook because of some of his supporters. This thread is a good example.

This forum is full of kooks supporting the other candidates. I guess that makes them kooks as well.

Learn 2 comprehend. I didn't say RP was a kook. I said he is seen as a kook to many because of some of his supporters. I like RP but he has a problem where alot of his supporters do more harm than good. He won WA? Yeah ok..that is a good example.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
There's no denying that. But this forum has at least a dozen trolls who constantly claim Paul has nothing more than 3%. That's a flat out lie and the Washington results proves it.

How many total people have been at the caucuses + primaries? I mean total people, not some small segment. Count only those people who have voted so far. Now, of those, how many of those voted for Paul? Right around 3%.

Of course, we can spin those numbers a lot. Of the total people who voted for Paul, 100% voted for Paul! Of the total people who voted for Republicans in the Washington caucus, 21% voted for Paul. Of the total people who voted in the Washington caucus, nearly 10% voted for Paul.

All those numbers are true. So, pick and choose which one you want to use. I happen to most perfer the first number since it is the most useful for the national election. So far, ~3% of voters in the caucuses and primaries have voted Paul.