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

Delegate count as of tonight. Romney has almost 900 and Paul has 80.

The delegates as posted by a pro Paul website.

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

Romney, Obama there really isn't that much difference. Both of em are pieces of caca.

Having Robamney as president will do you absolutely no good. He will slash into SS, cut funding to the FDA, EPA, slash into medicare, lower taxes on the wealthiest 1% while doing nothing to lower your taxes, he will cut taxes for mega corporations while doing nothing to help small businesses, he will do nothing about criminal immigration. At the end of the day he is a joke and so are his loyal subjects and I use subjects literally.

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Mitt Romney leads the delegate count by a large margin regardless of what source you trust, but voters likely have wondered who is correct.

To be clear, Romney captured the presumed-Republican-nominee title when Rick Santorum darted from the race, and it became especially clearer when Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that he would officially shut down his run on May 1. That leaves only Ron Paul, and he can't overcome Romney's delegate count.

A side-by-side comparison of TheGreenPapers.com, The Associated Press, CNN and RealClearPolitics.com show varying delegate counts that fluctuate generously for some candidates and appear identical with others.

But how does one parse through the tedious state conventions, caucuses, and primaries to determine a hard number of delegates that decide the true winner of a party's nomination?

"Very early on [in the summer of 1999], it became rather apparent that actually explaining how the voting in primaries or caucuses (and subsequent conventions), etc. translated into candidate X getting so many National Convention delegates might make the site that much more useful," Richard Berg-Andersson, TheGreenPapers.com staff member, wrote in an email.

TheGreenPapers.com, unlike its valuable delegate-counting counterparts, devotes an entire page to each U.S. state, district and territory to explain their particular delegate processes involved -- the sum of which ultimately decides the major party nominees.

In the above graphic you will note that TheGreenPapers.com allocates the least number of delegates to Romney in comparisons against the AP, CNN and RealClearPolitics.com. Part of the reason is that TheGreenPapers.com doesn't speculate about delegates in caucus states that have held straw polls, but haven't officially selected national delegates.

In Minnesota, for example, TheGreenPapers.com gives 20 delegates to Paul and two to Santorum (as formally chosen at the congressional district conventions held in the past month), but leaves three as uncommitted (the state party leaders) and 15 available (because the state convention doesn't select national delegates until May 18).

On the other hand, the AP gives 18 to Paul, 16 to Santorum, three to Romney and one to Gingrich.

"At the state convention, [Minnesota] will select 13 at-large delegates. We make that initial projection on Feb. 7 about what would happen at the state convention if everything stayed the same, and I just leave that as is until we get to the state convention," said Stephen Ohlemacher, an AP reporter who does the delegate counts most people are familiar with.

So Santroum still holds a lot of delegates for the AP's Minnesota caucus projection because the Feb. 7 straw poll projects Santorum to grab a lot of national delegates in the state convention. Santorum will likely lose those delegates as he is no longer in the race.

Based on the average of the four different outlets, here's how the candidates stack up (rounded): Romney 812, Paul 74, Santorum 254, Gingrich 138 and Unbound/Uncommitted 251.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11511590/2/2012-delegate-count.html

Just like Jimmy Carter, blink 3 times and keep on with the nonsense.

doing nothing about criminal immigration,,,,that`s been going on for decades.

SS, has been dwindling & dipped into to DEATH, it will die.

cutting funds isn`t the end of all things, those ppl waste money like it`s free,,,because to them IT IS.

having Romney, or Obama will do me no good.

Yes but some people will fight to change the law regarding the republican written and passed legislation that allowed for the pilfering of SS, Obama and Romney are nor those people.

Not all republicans are on the take from lobbyists and will actually do something about our wide open border.

Cutting funds to certain programs is no big deal unless your a politician then it could be a death sentence, cutting funding to federal agencies because big business pays congress, the president and the parties to do so is.

Some people just don't get it!

Romney HAS won about 600 delegates and many of those delegate slots are being filled by RP supporters who will vote "abstain" on the 1st ballot, freeing them up to vote for RP on the 2nd ballot.

It's NOT on the MSM elite channels of press, but with just a little effort, a person can find the truth! Robme and the GOP are furious, and the GOP is doing EVERYTHING it can (including breaking their own rules) to try to stop it......it's NOT working!

RP has and is taking the majority of delegates from every state, even Robme strongholds!

RP is winning MOST of the caucus states, and filling a majority of the delegates slots in the primary states.... even slots bound to Robme!

He can have 1000 delegates, but if they refuse to vote for him, and choose to abstain, what good are the numbers?

Try doing a little research LP . You might not be laughing so hard!

Besides.... RP HAS won a plurality of 5 states now, and more coming.....HE WILL BE ON THE BALLOT IN TAMPA!

Very interesting!!

I'm done feeding into the Paulloons since even websites that support Ron Paul and have NO connection with the MSM are putting Romney at over 800 pledged delegates and counting.

Oh and BTW, Ron Paul even stated recently he wont win the nomination.

In 2012 presidential campaign, during which he acknowledged it was unlikely that he would win the Republican Party nomination, Paul again asserted that he was participating in the Republican Party on his own terms, trying to persuade the rest of the party to move toward his positions rather than joining in with theirs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#2012_presidential_campaign

I can start my own wiki page and claim Barack Hussein Obama's ancestors were the first two humans to step foot in N. America! Do you wanna use that wiki page too? Mitt Romney sucks!

“A rogue convention? How GOP party rules may surprise in 2012”
by Rob Richie, Elise Helgesen

On November 25, we co-authored a Politico commentary called “A rogue convention? How GOP party rules may surprise in 2012” that struck a chord with many readers. Those highlighting or responding to our piece include the Washington Post’s The Fix (calling it a “must read”), Andrew Sullivan’s The Dish in “The Daily Beast”, the influential conservative website Hot Air, Election Law blog, Ballot Access News, and political analyst Michael Barone. You can read a torrent of comments about the piece at some of these links. We also have had reactions directly from representatives and members of the RNC.

Our piece focuses on the Republican National Committee rules governing how delegates are chosen for the Republican national convention next August and what those delegates are bound to do – and not do -- at the convention. Our conclusion is that RNC rules conflict with the conventional interpretation of the meaning of upcoming primaries and caucuses, and may well lead to challenges to seating delegates at the Republican convention next summer.

While not predicting a “brokered convention,” we explain the legal and political arguments for why it might happen. The combination of Rule 38, widespread use of winner-take-all primaries, and a Republican electorate that to date is not thrilled with its announced presidential candidates may invite a convention challenge. Some critics, like Barone, have claimed that we misread Rule 38’s prohibition against what’s called “the unit rule,” but in fact they misunderstand our point.

Barone say we have it wrong that the unit rule ban doesn’t allow state parties to use winner-take-all primaries in which the plurality winner of a state earns all that state’s delegates. But we aren’t claiming that the rule prevents winner-take-all primaries (at least after April 1st, as the party in 2010 did vote to prohibit winner-take-all primaries before April 1st except in the four states given special rights: Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and, the one state using a winner-take-all primary, South Carolina).

Rather, we explain that the RNC rules’ provision on the unit rule make it clear that delegates aren’t bound to vote according to how most delegates from their state are voting. In fact, delegates can vote according to their own judgment and conscience, and that this is most likely to take place in a state where a state party’s winner-take-all rule has allowed a candidate to win all delegates primarily due to a split in the majority vote, or due to votes cast by non-Republican voters participating in the contest.

To explain our case, we look to the language of Rule 38, which was adopted in its current form in 1964. The rule states: “no delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.” The unit rule does not prohibit a state from using a winner-take-all primary in the same way that Rule 15(b) prohibits most states from using a winner-take-all primary when holding a contest earlier than April 1st. However, the unit rule does prohibit binding delegates to vote according to how a majority of delegates from their state vote – again, a scenario most likely to occur in a state using the winner-take-all rule.

As set out in the Rules of the Republican Party, delegates have the ability to vote according to the delegates’ preference, even if that is contrary to the outcome of each state’s primary. According to one source, the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008 stated: “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” Thus, if a delegate were to challenge his or her ability to vote as a free agent, he or she would have grounds under Rule 38.

For further clarification on the meaning of Rule 38, it is instructive to look to the debate in 1964 when the RNC debated whether to strike the Rule 38 language from a proposed amendment that was adopted that year. The debate begins on page 64 of this source. The RNC voted 59 to 41 to keep the rule in the amendment, noting that it helped to clarify a longstanding practice that a delegate was free to take exception to the roll call, and was free to vote his or her preference. Those who sought to strike the rule feared that its inclusion in the rules would give delegates freedom from both a non-existent legal obligation and a moral obligation to vote according to instructions from their state. However, even these opponents of the rule admitted that there never has been any legal obligation for a delegate to do so.

The contrast between the actual Republican Party rules governing its convention and most people’s understanding of the role of the primaries underscores the way that the party system has changed rapidly in today’s modern era. Many of the RNC rules come from a time when conventions chose nominees and the party was a meaningful institution, representing an association of individuals coming together, articulating platform positions, and choosing candidates to stand for those positions.

With that understanding, the rules governing a party are those of a private group, not a government entity. A private group should have the right to nominate candidates however it wants, which is a fact that some analysts like Barone seem to have difficulty grasping, Last March, for example, Barone went so far as to criticize current nomination grounds under the bizarre pretext that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t spell out what parties should do. He wrote, “The weakest part of our political system is the presidential-nomination process. And it’s not coincidental that it’s the part of the federal system that finds least guidance in the Constitution.” Not only does the Constitution leave electoral rules quite vague - with nothing on how U.S House Members should be chosen beyond the fact of being elected, for example, and nothing whatsoever on how states must pick electors to the Electoral College -- but it would be strange indeed for the Constitution to mandate how private associations should pick their leaders.

Even though it certainly matters today whether a presidential candidate is a Republican or Democrat, parties are less meaningful as associations and much more important as “brands” in an electoral politics driven by consultants, big money, and, the one upside, more voters. To many in the major parties, party conventions now are essentially showcases for candidates determined before the convention. In this atmosphere, selection of candidates can take place in a winner-take-all manner because candidates and their backers do not care if elected delegates accurately reflect the differences of opinion among Republican voters. When conventions don’t really matter, state parties can blithely dismiss the impact of RNC penalties like losing half their delegates due to advancing the date of their primary, as is the case for several states holding primaries next year.

We believe that this difference between the letter of the rules and the way they have come to be interpreted could lead to some surprises in 2012. Regardless of whether it happens, we think the broader conversation about the role of parties as institutions is important, as we value people coming together in organized associations. You can see related writing about this topic on a paper Rob coauthored last year on California's new Top 2 law and our suggestions of better ways to strengthen association rather than weaken it.

We will be writing more on this topic, and will continue to follow the Republican contests closely. The latest polls, with dramatic changes almost week to week, suggest that it could be a wild ride that just may not end until the final days of the Republican convention in Tampa.

See you at the convention when RP is handed the crown!

Ill write in Paul. I will never again vote based on anything less than my core principles of liberty and freedom from big government.

This is what "winning" looks like?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-draws-small-sleepy-crowd

You can't help but notice that the press corp outnumbers the attendees.....

I always thought it looked more like this....

http://destructionist.wordpress.com/category/ron-paul-draws-10000-at-ucla-rally/

I think the big question is where do the delegates that supported candidates that dropped out go? What Paul needs to do is just keep Romney from getting the 1100 or so he needs to guarantee a nomination. That alone would be a victory.

That's the point!

Even the delegates "committed" to Robme are RP supporters!

Under rule 38 of the National (not state) GOP laws, delegates ARE NOT BOUND by state convention rules at the National debate in Tampa!

Should the rules be altered by the GOP elite, there is still the option to "abstain" causing a 2nd vote where they are unbound

Its the little things that matter.

I don't think it will happen (because I think a lot of politicians are corrupt) but I would love to see it happen. I would love nothing more than RP to get nominated. I think you might even get record poll numbers if he was.