Hate to burst any bubbles here but the fact that the nat'l campaign caved to RNC/Romney demands to not challenge the NV convention to forcefully says a lot.
Pay attention. What guarantee does the campaign get to make sure that NV is among our 5 state minimum to have RP on the RNC nominating ballot in August? Remember, the vast majority of NV delegation is bound to Romney making it (albeit technically) a Romney win.
What's the difference here b/w Nevada and Iowa that prompted the strong RNC intervention? The overturning of state rules to hand the entire delegation over to Ron Paul. This would've set a precedent across the country that would have encouraged similar changes in winners.
Does this mean that RPHQ had given up on at least party of their delegate strategy? Not necessarily.
It could mean that the RP campaign is confident about preventing Romney from reaching 1,144 delegates - which would be great news! And this decline to push for unbinding delegates serves to mend bridges for the eventual nominee Ron Paul (or Rand Paul 2016).
But most cynically, it could also mean that the campaign staff is trying to ingratiate itself to the would be nominee camp to secure itself future employment (gotta say it).
If Mitt wanna be a smart dude,now is the time for him to step-up and wire transfer into Ron Paul campaign bank account a few million bucks.
ReplyDeleteBest news I heard all day!
ReplyDeleteBwahhh haaa haaa ha I LOVE IT!!!
ReplyDeleteHate to burst any bubbles here but the fact that the nat'l campaign caved to RNC/Romney demands to not challenge the NV convention to forcefully says a lot.
ReplyDeletePay attention. What guarantee does the campaign get to make sure that NV is among our 5 state minimum to have RP on the RNC nominating ballot in August? Remember, the vast majority of NV delegation is bound to Romney making it (albeit technically) a Romney win.
What's the difference here b/w Nevada and Iowa that prompted the strong RNC intervention? The overturning of state rules to hand the entire delegation over to Ron Paul. This would've set a precedent across the country that would have encouraged similar changes in winners.
Does this mean that RPHQ had given up on at least party of their delegate strategy? Not necessarily.
It could mean that the RP campaign is confident about preventing Romney from reaching 1,144 delegates - which would be great news! And this decline to push for unbinding delegates serves to mend bridges for the eventual nominee Ron Paul (or Rand Paul 2016).
But most cynically, it could also mean that the campaign staff is trying to ingratiate itself to the would be nominee camp to secure itself future employment (gotta say it).