Did Mitt Romney Commit A Felony By Failing To Correctly Report His Status at Bain Capital?

[RobertNashville]

Sorry, I was under the impression he received more votes than the other candidates, excluding Romney of course.

??? - I'm not sure what source you are looking at but RP is last in the delegate count (at least out of the top four).

[strickj]

??? - I'm not sure what source you are looking at but RP is last in the delegate count (at least out of the top four).

You're both wrong.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

[RobertNashville]

You're both wrong.

http://elections.nyt...aries/delegates

http://www.realclear...te_count.html��

I'm not sure why the difference but I don't see that it matters much.

Edited July 13, 2012 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

??? - I'm not sure what source you are looking at but RP is last in the delegate count (at least out of the top four).

Ah, thanks strickj. I see now Santorum is second. Any idea why that chart show 210 Delegates remaining?

[sigmtnman]

So RealClearPolitics is defacto? It's strange that many main stream media sources have different numbers. How are these numbers not the same.

Edited July 13, 2012 by sigmtnman

[strickj]

Either way, both Paul and Gingrich are close losers. Give or take a delegate or two

Edited July 13, 2012 by strickj

[sigmtnman]

It's all good. Haters gonna hate.

[RobertNashville]

So RealClearPolitics is defacto? It's strange that many main stream media sources have different numbers. How are these numbers not the same.

I didn't say they were defacto anyting and I don't think anyone else did.

I'm sure if you want to dig into the details the minor difference in numbers can be explained...I did see that RCP is showing some states as still "open"; maybe the Times is making an assumption about those states and where the count will ultimately be?

[sigmtnman]

I didn't say they were defacto anyting and I don't think anyone else did.

I'm sure if you want to dig into the details the minor difference in numbers can be explained...I did see that RCP is showing some states as still "open"; maybe the Times is making an assumption about those states and where the count will ultimately be?

No, you did not. I was just asking as I'm nor familiar with who realclearpolitics is and thought you may have insight. The first few google links gave different numbers.

Well regardless of who the second place loser is, this is an interesting topic.

[mikegideon]

No, you did not. I was just asking as I'm nor familiar with who realclearpolitics is and thought you may have insight. The first few google links gave different numbers.

Well regardless of who the second place loser is, this is an interesting topic.

Pretty simple. You can find just about anything you wanna hear on the Interwebz . If you don't like one source, hunt for another that makes you feel better.

[sigmtnman]

Aint that the truth.

It almost makes you wonder if the dark ages are not upon us once more.

[mikegideon]

Aint that the truth.

It almost makes you wonder if the dark ages are not upon us once more.

Naw. Your goggles are just covered in BS . I keep a rag with me just for that.

[RobertNashville]

No, you did not. I was just asking as I'm nor familiar with who realclearpolitics is and thought you may have insight. The first few google links gave different numbers.

Well regardless of who the second place loser is, this is an interesting topic.

I've heard of Real Clear Politics for a long time...not sure where I first heard of them though.

There are certainly plenty of sits out there purporting to have the GOP delegate count but I don't know which one is really the most accurate.

[sigmtnman]

Naw. Your goggles are just covered in BS . I keep a rag with me just for that.

I tried that, but it wound up covered with vomit all the time.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

No, you did not. I was just asking as I'm nor familiar with who realclearpolitics is and thought you may have insight. The first few google links gave different numbers.

I think I first saw RCP around the Y2K election but could be mistaken. At first the only thing RCP did was to accurately keep statistics on most national races. For instance there was a page listing the results of every presidential poll done for an entire election cycle, Date-ordered and regional breakouts. I think there were also markers describing whether polls were partisan, likely-voter versus registered-voter, etc. There were running averages of the polls and graphics of the data.

RCP also tabulated the same kinds of data for each house and senate race. On election day they were a good place to find what percentages of votes had been counted on each state, and the famous red-blue mapping. After elections excellent post-mortem statistics.

Nowadays RCP has added news sections which have some original news content and lots of links to news articles, news videos, and links to selected blogs of interest.

At the beginning RCP tried to be non-biased but seemed to me to have a little bit of left-wing bias, though they didn't cheat on the numbers as best I could tell. A few times early on I saw the fellow who started RCP on TV and he seemed to be a left-leaning political statistics nerd.

But the last few years as best I can tell it is as straight-down-the-line unbiased as you can find on the web. Maybe the owner has left-wing bias or maybe not, but the site seems real even-handed every time I've looked..

Not that it matters, 10 primaries were winner-take-all, accounting for 455 of Romney's 1473 delegates. So in those 10 primaries one would have to dig a bit to locate the runner-up. Of the remaining primaries, quite a few are "non binding" meaning that the primary was basically a beauty contest and either the state party leaders will tell the delegates how to vote, or the delegates can vote however they want regardless of the vote totals in the primary. Other states, the delegates have to vote whoever won that state, at least in the first or second round if it is a contested convention.

According to RCP, neglecting the 10 winner-takes-all primaries (dunno who came in second on those)-- Ron Paul won 2 states and was second-place in 11 more. One little detail that usually doesn't matter, dunno how it was done, but in lots of states the actual delegates are voted-on separate from the candidates. So for instance it would be possible to vote Santorum, but also vote for all the delegates who "like" Ron Paul. It was like that in TN. Maybe they do that so people can hedge their bets? Or maybe some obscure technicality. If you like Romney best and Ron Paul next-best, you could vote Romney and then vote all the Ron Paul delegates. Thataway if the convention goes past a first vote and it looks like Romney will lose, your Ron Paul delegates will most likely switch vote to Ron Paul rather than Santorum or Gingrich or whatever.

Anyway, it happened to work out that a bunch of Ron Paul delegates will be going to the convention, even if they are sposed to vote for somebody else on the first vote. Probably nothing "historically odd" will happen other than rubber-stamping Romney, but I think there are enough Ron Paul delegates that it could get a little weird on national TV in front of god and everybody if those delegates were inclined to make a ruckus.

I'm really not a paul-bot or conspiracy nut, but its surprising Paul made so good a showing, considering that everybody including Fox News studiously ignored Ron Paul and starved him of "free coverage". He was on TV, but not nearly as much as the candidates more-favored by Rupert Murcoch. Jon Stewart was about the only one who didn't "studiously ignore" Ron. For instance it was laughable when panels of famous wise talking heads were doing post mortems and would talk endlessly about who came in first, third, and fourth, but never mention Ron Paul won second for an entire 15 minute segment. Duh, that is kinda obvious even if you ain't a paranoid nut-case conspiracy guy!

[sigmtnman]

Thanks for taking the time Lester. I did a quick search after Robert brought them up and it appears Forbes owns 51% of RCP.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Obama and the lyng Libs are getting really desperate. It's going to get really nasty by November.

Edited July 13, 2012 by ThePunisher

[mikegideon]

Obama and the lyng Libs are getting really desperate. It's going to get really nasty by November.

Yep. I had that same feeling earlier today. Let it get nasty. It's been brewing long enough.

[E4 No More]

Have you noticed the the general approach to a Lib debate is to shout down the opponent? I watched Bill O'Reilly last night with a NAACP official, and that's all the dude did was try to shout O'Reilly down. They don't need to make sense, they just need to run their mouths constantly until their opponent gets tired of listening to it.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Have you noticed the the general approach to a Lib debate is to shout down the opponent? I watched Bill O'Reilly last night with a NAACP official, and that's all the dude did was try to shout O'Reilly down. They don't need to make sense, they just need to run their mouths constantly until their opponent gets tired of listening to it.

That would have been something to see, seeing as how O'Reilly am a world-class shout-downer. If shouting-down is symptomatic of a weak argument (a proposition with which I don't disagree) then O'Reilly has some dang poor debating skills.

[E4 No More]

Perhaps motormouth would be a better description. Just keep running your mouth spouting whatever comes to mind in a rapid manner so the opponent can't get a word in edgewise. O'Reilly flat called the guy a liar - which was incredibly funny - but that just derailed the conversation further rather than the guy proving what he said was true.

[MacGyver]

Obama and the lyng Libs are getting really desperate. It's going to get really nasty by November.

The RNC hasn't really cranked up, yet, and it makes me wonder what they're brewing. They've got Fast and Furious and an economy teetering on the edge of a cliff.

I keep thinking that all this administration lacks for a Watergate is a Deepthroat. November is still a long way away.