Understanding Ron Paul: Earmarks

By Dan Beaulieu 
Written by: Regulate the Regulators

Twitter

 "I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"  –  Ron Paul

One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.

For this reason I present to you my series:

Understanding Ron Paul 


In Defense of Ron Paul: Earmarks

Written by: Regulate the Regulators

Many people have brought up Ron Paul's manifold requests for earmarks to be appropriated for his district as evidence of his "hypocrisy." (You can see a list of these requests for 2007 here.) This charge is easily refuted.

First of all, what is an earmark?

Most often, it is pet projects that lawmakers seek for their districts and states. It can include road projects, water and sewer funds, community development grants, military base improvements and grants to local hospitals, universities and nonprofit organizations. 

Earmarks can be tax breaks aimed at a specific company or research grants for a single employer. Such companies often reward lawmakers with campaign cash. In the case of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., it was bribes. (1)

How do they work?

In the case of appropriations bills, there is an application process. Lawmakers fill out forms and say which projects they want the most. Staff and lawmakers scrutinize to make sure everybody's following the rules and to weed out bad ideas. The party controlling the House or Senate gets about 60 percent of the earmarks allocated to each chamber. (1)

Some rice farmers from Congressman Ron Paul's district were in his office the other day, asking for this and that from the federal government. The affable Republican from south Texas listened nicely, then forwarded their requests to the appropriate House committee. It may or may not satisfy their requests in some bill dispensing largesse to agricultural interests. Then Paul will vote against the bill. (2)

Do they increase the budget?

The misconception seems to be that members of Congress put together a bunch of requests for project funding, add them all together and come up with a budget. The truth is, [...] [t]he total level of spending is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members' requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members' district or state. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. (3)

[...] [C]utting the number of earmarks does not cut spending. An earmark is a congressional provision that directs federal agencies to spend funds already authorized on specific projects. If the funds aren’t earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayer’s money is spent. This point cannot be stressed enough because even the writers at the Wall Street Journal do not understand it. After quoting a spokesman from Paul’s office reminding them that earmarks do not directly increase spending, the WSJ reports, "On the other hand, good libertarians should want to start cutting somewhere." Didn’t Paul’s office just point out that cutting earmarks does not cut spending? (4)

The Brookings Institution’s Paul Cullinan, research director of the Budgeting for National Priorities Project [says] [...] that earmarks "might be an allocation issue" rather than a spending issue. And Scott Lilly, a senior fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress, told us that "there’s no evidence that if you took earmarks out, federal spending would go down." (5)

Is Ron Paul a hypocrite?

On net, therefore, the quid pro quo of earmark trading is likely to increase government spending. Yet considering that Dr. Paul always votes "no" on the appropriations bills he requests earmarks for – as his critics concede – he is not involved in this negative aspect of the earmarking process. No amount of earmarks promised to him will convince him to vote "yes" on the bill. (4)

You know, the big issue is the spending. If you don’t like the spending, vote against the bill. (6)

[...] Ron Paul's claim that he is meeting two obligations is a position I wish most people in congress took. He has a duty to represent his district. He also has a duty to protect the constitution. (7)

Are earmarks a large portion of federal spending?

[...] [A]ccording to most estimates, earmarks constitute less than 2 percent of the [2009 Obama Spending Act's] total spending. (8)

Are earmarks bad?

Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. (9)

[...] [I]t is the responsibility of the Congress to earmark. That’s our job. We’re supposed to tell the people how we’re spending the money. Not to just deliver it in the lump sum to the executive branch and let them deal with it. And then it’s dealt with behind the scenes. [...] Earmarks really allow transparency and we know exactly where the money is being spent. (6)

It's kind of like if your spouse says she's going to the store and will purchase $100 of groceries. You request that she picks up steak for one of the meals. She still spends $100, but you've at least had your say on what you get to eat. Eliminating earmarks takes all of the spending decisions out of elected officials and puts them in the hands of unelected officials. (10)

[T]he drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the powers of the purse because the drafters feared that allowing the branch of government charged with executing the laws to also write the federal budget would concentrate too much power in one branch of government. (11)

Do we need earmark reform?

[...] [A]ll members should support efforts to bring greater transparency to the earmarking process. However, we must not allow earmarking reform to distract us from what should be our main priority — restricting federal spending by returning the government to its constitutional limitations. (11)

In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better. (12)

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in 2007's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Cutting even a million dollars from an appropriations bill that spends hundreds of billions will make no appreciable difference in the size of government, which is doubtless why politicians and the media are so eager to have us waste our time on [earmarks]. (13)

Read more informative articles from: Regulate The Regulators

Back to Understanding Ron Paul Index

Follow @transfer_point

Understanding Ron Paul: Government Spending Vs. Private Spending

By Dan Beaulieu

Twitter

 "I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"  –  Ron Paul

One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.

For this reason I present to you my series:  

Understanding Ron Paul



Government Spending

We hear about government spending daily, we hear it from radio hosts, TV pundits, from President Obama and we hear it countless times in the GOP debates. However, the government must spend some money, so what is good spending and what is bad spending? I honestly don’t believe that any other political figure understands this better than Ron Paul.

Essentially, when our government spends money, say, to create a jobs for instance. They go about it differently than the private sector would. As the private sector creates a job purely out of demand, the government creates a job simply to create work. This is counterproductive and actually creates job-loss in the private sector. To understand this notion thoroughly I offer a short chapter from a book written by Henry Hazlitt titled “Economics in One Lesson”.

 

(more chapters on youtube)

As Mr. Hazlitt illustrates, government cannot create a job without first taking one from the private sector. This simple notion can be easily proven through elementary mathematics, the government cannot magically create jobs. If the government takes money, for any purpose whether it be for foreign aid & war or be it research & development it is always at the peril of the tax payer and private sector jobs.

To reiterate, when the government takes money from the taxpayers pocket, it results in less money that can be spent as a consumer in the private sector. If your buying power is diminished then fewer products are sold and there is less demand for production. When production falls, layoffs ensue shortly after. Unemployment rises.

Ron Paul would decrease this by doing away with 5 extremely wasteful bureaucracies. Departments that when scrutinized are obvious failures and ultimately job destroyers.

Back to Understanding Ron Paul Index

Follow @transfer_point


 

Primary Schedule and Delegates

By 1836

RonPaulForums.com 

Tweet

Rules affecting delegates:

Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada may begin their delegate selection primaries, caucuses, and conventions on Wednesday 1 February 2012. All other jurisdictions may begin their processes on the Tuesday 6 March 2012. Violating this directive results in 50% of the delegates to the national convention being stripped. Iowa's, Colorado's, Washington's, Minnesota's, and Maine's delegates are not tied to their caucus dates, so these states including Iowa will not suffer a 50% penalty despite holding caucuses before said dates.

ALL nominating states allocating delegates based on statewide vote prior to April 1, 2012 must allocate delegates PROPORTIONALLY.

DELEGATE TOTALS INCLUDES EFFECTS OF THE PENALTY
CAUCUS STATES ARE DENOTED AS SUCH
TOTAL DELEGATES AFTER PENALTIES: 2,287
PLEDGED DELEGATES: 1,784
UNPLEDGED DELEGATES: 503

DATE	STATE	DELEGATES	# PLEDGED/UNPLEDGED
Jan 3	Iowa	28 delegates (caucus)	28/0
Jan 10	New Hampshire	12 delegates	12/0
Jan 21	South Carolina	25 delegates	25/0
Jan 31	Florida	50 delegates	50/0
Late Jan	Louisiana	46 delegates	18/28*
Feb 4	Nevada	28 delegates (caucus)	25/3
Feb 4-11	Maine	24 delegates (caucus)	0/24
Feb 7	Colorado	36 delegates (caucus)	36/0
Feb 7	Minnesota	40 delegates (caucus)	0/40
Feb 28	Michigan	30 delegates	30/0
Feb 28	Arizona	29 delegates	29/0
Mar 3	Washington	43 delegates (caucus)	23/20
Mar 6	Alaska	27 delegates (caucus)	24/3
Mar 6	Georgia	76 delegates	76/0
Mar 6	Idaho	32 delegates (caucus)	32/0
Mar 6	Massachusetts	41 delegates	38/3
Mar 6	North Dakota	28 delegates (caucus)	0/28
Mar 6	Oklahoma	43 delegates	40/3
Mar 6	Tennessee	58 delegates	55/3
Mar 6	Texas	155 delegates	152/3
Mar 6	Vermont	17 delegates	17/0
Mar 6	Virginia	50 delegates	50/0
Mar 6-10	Wyoming	29 delegates (caucus)	0/29
Mar 10	Kansas	40 delegates (caucus)	40/0
Mar 10	U.S. Virgin Islands	9 delegates (caucus)	6/3
Mar 13	Alabama	50 delegates	47/3
Mar 13	Hawaii	20 delegates (caucus)	17/3
Mar 13	Mississippi	39 delegates	36/3
Mar 17	Missouri	52 delegates (caucus)	49/3
Mar 20	Illinois	69 delegates	56/13
Apr 3	Maryland	37 delegates	37/0
Apr 3	Washington, D.C.	19 delegates	16/3
Apr 3	Wisconsin	42 delegates	42/0
Apr 24	Connecticut	28 delegates	25/3
Apr 24	Delaware	17 delegates	17/0
Apr 24	New York	95 delegates	81/14
Apr 24	Pennsylvania	72 delegates	0/72
Apr 24	Rhode Island	19 delegates	16/3
May 8	Indiana	46 delegates	27/19
May 8	North Carolina	55 delegates	55/0
May 8	West Virginia	31 delegates	28/3
May 15	Nebraska	35 delegates	32/3
May 15	Oregon	29 delegates	26/3
May 22	Arkansas	36 delegates	33/3
May 22	Kentucky	45 delegates	42/3
June 5	California	172 delegates	169/3
June 5	Montana	26 delegates	0/26
June 5	New Jersey	50 delegates	50/0
June 5	South Dakota	28 delegates	25/3
June 12	Ohio	66 delegates	0/66
June 26	Utah	40 delegates	40/0
TBA:
	American Samoa	9 delegates
	Guam	9 delegates
	N. Mariana Islands	9 delegates
	Puerto Rico	23 delegates

Notes:
* Louisiana has a somewhat confusing Caucus-then-Primary process to select delegates, the caucus being some as-yet-announced time in late January and the primary being on March 24. Unpledged delegates may be allocated to a candidate on the basis of the primary vote if the candidate receive more than 25% of the vote in the primary on Mar. 24, otherwise they are unpledged. (Republican Party of Louisiana, State Convention Rule 20b)

Open Primaries/Caucuses
(Where Independents and Democrats Can Vote)

Open primaries and caucuses offer us the best opportunity to take advantage of Ron Paul's popularity with independent voters. Below is the list of open primaries and caucuses, to be updated as necessary.

Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii (caucus)
Idaho (caucus)
Indiana
Iowa* (caucus)
Massachusetts**
Michigan
Minnesota (caucus)
Mississippi
Missouri (caucus)
New Hampshire
North Dakota (caucus)
Ohio***
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington (caucus)
Wisconsin

*Iowa caucus open to anyone who wants to register Republican at the caucus location
**Massachusetts primary open to unaffiliated voters, not Democrats
***Ohio primary allows voter to change registration at the polling place by completing a statement confirming the change in his/her political party affiliation (source)

18 Key States for Ron Paul Getting Delegates
Along with some predictions of how we might realistically be able to fare. I am not excluding Nevada or Iowa because they are not important. But in terms of delegate counts, they won't hold a candle to many others. Iowa and Nevada will have already occurred, and for any of the following to be relevant, we have to do fairly well in the earliest states. That isn't what this analysis is fundamentally about. We all know that to win the nomination, we have to do well in January.

Maine - Caucus state. At this point in the process, early February, you'd expect there to be no more than three candidates. Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and someone else. Given that, it is reasonable to expect that Ron Paul would be able to win a high percentage (perhaps as high as 50%+) in the low-turnout Maine caucus. But it gets more interesting. ALL of the 24 Maine delegates are UNPLEDGED. Therefore, if Ron Paul supporters are well organized, we might get even more than that – perhaps a solid majority of these delegates. At this early point, we could expect perhaps 12 delegates out of Maine.

Colorado - Caucus state. Although all delegates here are pledged, there are 36 of them. Even if we only get 33%, that is 12 delegates. But again, the caucus format is good for us. We can perhaps hope for as many as half, or 18.

Minnesota - Caucus state, 40 delegates and all of them UNPLEDGED. This state is critical, and that's doubtless why the Ron Paul campaign set up an office there. If good organization exists, we could reap the benefits of this poorly-attended caucus. We might get as many as 30 delegates out of here. Huge state, the most important for us before Super Tuesday

Washington - Caucus state. 43 delegates, 20 unpledged. That means that we can expect to do very well anyway, in addition to the added bonus of organization turning out some extra numbers of unpledged delegates through the party process. Let's say 25 delegates from here.

Alaska - Low turnout caucus state, on Super Tuesday. Critical win if we are getting the nomination. 27 delegates, 24 pledged, and we can feel confident to win most of them. Let's say 15 delegates here.

Georgia - Super Tuesday Primary, 76 pledged delegates. Unlikely we would win here, especially if either Newt or Cain is still in it (both from Georgia). But in a three way race, we might get 15 delegates.

Idaho - Caucus state, Super Tuesday, 32 pledged delegates. Same assumptions apply... we should be able to pull off half. 16 delegates at minimum.

North Dakota - Caucus state, Super Tuesday, 28 UNPLEDGED delegates. Another important state for us. We can hope to get a large number of delegates via strong organization, perhaps as many as 20.

Texas - Second biggest state, primary, Super Tuesday. Mitt unpopular here. Depending on who is left, Ron could do well. Regardless, this is an important state. Almost all delegates are pledged of the 155 total. We ought to be able to get 50 delegates.

Wyoming - Caucus state, all 29 unpledged, right after Super Tuesday. We could pull off 20 delegates here.

Kansas - Caucus state, 40 pledged delegates. We could get half, 20 delegates.

Missouri - Biggest caucus state, Mar 17. 52 delegates. At this point in the process, if there are still 3 candidates, we should be able to get around half of the delegates, 26.

Illinois - Primary state, Mar. 20. 56 pledged plus 13 unpledged. If we can get a majority of the unpledged, and do decently well in the primary, we could leave with at least 20 delegates.

Louisiana - Caucus-then-primary state, caucus being in late January, primary Mar 24. 46 delegates, 28 unpledged. Strong organization could yield a majority of the unpledged, in addition to whatever showing in the primary. Louisiana has complicated rules for delegate allocation which can be seen in the footnote below the delegate schedule. However, one would expect our strong organization to pull off a good showing overall. We should hope for 25 here.

New York - Primary state, Apr. 24, which is the second big primary day on the schedule. 81 pledged plus 14 unpledged. A decent showing and good organization might get us as many as 35 delegates. A realistic scenario for that would be to get 31% of the primary vote (25 delegates) and 10 of the 14 unpledged.

Pennsylvania - Primary, Apr. 24. Believe it or not, Pennsylvania could end up being a top priority as the nomination wears on. That's because although this is a primary state, ALL 72 of its delegates are UNPLEDGED. With strong organization, we might get as many as half of them, or even more. Let's say 36 delegates.

California - Primary, June 5. If we are going to win this thing, it will come down to the wire. California has 172 delegates, almost all of which are pledged. But we may show well here. Regardless, we can at least expect 50 delegates, whether it is a two or a three man race at this point.

Ohio - Primary, June 12. Second to last primary. All 66 delegates are unpledged, making this a top organizational priority if we are going to win. With strong organization, we could win at least half through the process, so let's say 33.

Remember the delegate totals:
TOTAL DELEGATES AFTER PENALTIES: 2,287
PLEDGED DELEGATES: 1,784
UNPLEDGED DELEGATES: 503

NEEDED TO WIN THE NOMINATION: 1,144

The 18 States that add up
If Ron Paul were to do as well as I posit in these 18 key states, a realistic scenario if the campaign goes fairly well, then he picks up 466 delegates, or 40.7% of the total he needs to win the nomination. That may seem like a ridiculous figure, but it actually isn't: given our strong organizational and hard support base advantages, it is realistic if the nomination is going fairly well. It doesn't by any means assume that we are dominating. Actually, this scenario only gives Ron Paul 42.3% of the delegates from these 18 states. Given the strengths of the organization and support, I think that's wholly realistic.

Given these 18 states: Ron Paul has 466 delegates

In order to win the nomination, Ron Paul then needs 678 more delegates. Where do they come from?

The Other Primaries

There are 1,185 delegates left in the pool of delegates. 678 is a staggering 61.5% of that figure. It is extremely unlikely that Ron Paul will do that well in the remaining states, almost all of which are primaries. How well might he do?

If we give Ron Paul an average 30% of the vote, which is very realistic for these primary states in a three way race and certainly modest in a two-way race, then he picks up 355 additional delegates. A wild card is how delegates are allocated, which isn't by any means decided. But for the purposes of analysis here, it is reasonable to assume they are allocated proportionally (and a number of them are). Even if it is winner-take-all, the assumption is not unrealistic, because you would figure that with around 30% of the primary votes Ron Paul would be winning some of those states, even if not many.

Given 30% of the vote in the other contests: Ron Paul then has 821 delegates

That total still leaves us 323 delegates short. Where will those delegates come from?

One could certainly say, "well, we just do better than what you are saying we will do." Okay, that's one scenario. It is certainly possible that in the caucus states, we could do better. But what if we don't? Remember, I'm assuming that Ron is only able to compete in most of these states, but by no means to win. I'm assuming that caucus states are our best bet and that even there, we aren't completely dominating. This is not intended to be an "unrealistic" scenario by any means.

The Remaining Delegates

The remaining delegates will come from other candidates that drop out of the race. This is because when a candidate has won pledged delegates, those candidates become unpledged and free to vote for whomever they choose at the convention after their candidate drops out and releases them. That candidate may not officially release his or her delegates until the convention, or it may be the moment they drop out. But most likely, unless the candidate held a very large number of delegates that could prevail in a brokered convention (more on that in a moment), they will release their delegates.

My assumptions to this point have been that this will be a three-way-race after South Carolina headed to Super Tuesday, and that after that, possibly only a two-way race between Ron Paul and some frontrunner X. It may in fact be that the three-way race goes all the way through the nomination battle to the convention, or that it goes through the April 24 primaries. Let's take a look at three possible scenarios.

NOTE: Each of these scenarios assumes that there are at least 4 candidates through to the Florida primary. I think that is very realistic. NONE of these scenarios do not work if you replace "third candidate x" with "third and fourth candidates" because a 3rd and fourth candidate could easily take the same number of delegates and then release them as I assume a third to.

Scenario 1: Three Way Race Through Super Tuesday
If a three way race persists through Super Tuesday, then by its very nature you would expect a third candidate to take around a third of the votes. Perhaps less, perhaps more. I think it is entirely reasonable that this would be the case, however, given that through Florida, you will have more than three candidates and in the case of Super Tuesday, a likely third candidate would have a serious shot of winning Georgia over Romney and Paul (Cain or Gingrich).

The primaries/caucuses from Jan 3 to Mar 6 have a total of 842 delegates. When looking at the 18 states, we gave Ron Paul only 201 of the 846 delegates in these states, because we didn't include all of the states and the ones we did, we assumed as realistically as possible.

If a third candidate/other candidates who drop out before Super Tuesday can be assigned 30% of the total delegates from these states, which is realistic, then we can say those other candidates have 253 delegates. That is not enough for Ron Paul to win the nomination, even if most of the unpledged delegates who had worked through the process were Ron Paul supporters. Giving Ron Paul a realistic half of these newly unpledged delegates only gets him to 127. Adding that to the aforementioned total of 821, and we are at 948, still 196 short of the 1,144 we need.

HOWEVER. If, at that point, the third candidate were to drop out, as this scenario implies, then we would likely fare better than 30% in the remaining states. The "key 18" of the remaining states only gave Ron Paul 265 delegates out of their total of 641, but that is out of the rest of the entirety of the states remaining, which is out of a total of 1445.

Therefore, 1445-641 = 804 delegates up for grabs in those remaining contests not spelled out in the "key 18" analysis.

We previously gave Ron Paul 30% of that total, which equates to 241 delegates out of the 804.

What happens if Ron Paul is able to garner 40% of the total? In that case, he wins an additional 80 delegates, putting him at a total delegate count of 1028. But that's still short of 1,144.

What if he garners half? Then he gains another 160 delegates, a total of 402 out of the 804, and is at 1,108. STILL short of 1,144. In order for Ron Paul to win under this scenario, given our 18-state predictions and the reality of the race, he would need to get another 196 delegates, or a total of 54.4% of the delegates remaining.

I do not see that as likely against Romney. Therefore, we have to bet that under this scenario of a three-way-race through Super Tuesday, Ron Paul would need to do fairly well in the remaining primaries (around 40% of the primaries, at least) and have a larger number of the unpledged released delegates.


Scenario 2: Three Way Race Through Apr. 24

The next big primary date after Super Tuesday is April 24. it includes New York and Pennsylvania, among others. What happens if there is a three-way race through then? There are only 709 delegates left after April 24, so this is about two-thirds of the way through.

If the third candidate (plus others) are again assumed to get 30% of the states through April 24, then that is out of 1578 delegates = 473 delegates. Hey, now we're talking serious numbers.

For the primaries through April 24, we assumed Ron Paul would get in the 18 key states covered up until then (that is, every key state but California and Ohio, both of which vote later) 383 delegates out of 864 total delegates in those states.

We also assumed 30% of the vote in the other states, which are composed of 714 delegates (1578-864key=714), so through April 24 we assume Ron Paul has 214 from those states.


If the third candidate drops out after Apr. 24, given organizational effort to achieve half their unpledged delegates, that is 237 delegates. Adding that to our previous figure derived from all the primaries of 821, we get 1058. Much closer than before.

If Ron Paul outperforms in the remaining states, and gets a few more unpledged delegates, or performs better in the previous contests, it becomes more reasonable to say he gets to 1144 without a hitch. Because at that point, we are only 86 short.


Scenario 3: Brokered Convention

This one is tough. That is because it is hard to say whose delegates would go where.

A brokered convention means that we would have at least two candidates go into the convention with sizable pluralities but neither a majority, or perhaps three candidates do very well and have large numbers.

We could assume that if it were three candidates, it might be Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and either Gingrich or Cain or Perry. If Ron Paul does as well as we assumed him to do, he has 821 delegates through the process itself, with 30% of the vote in non-key-delegate states and 466 delegates from the others.

If Ron Paul goes into the convention with 821, or 35.9% of the delegates,

and Mitt Romney goes in with 880, or 38.4% of the delegates,

and Third Candidate (Perry/Cain/Romney) plus the others go in with 586, or 25.6% of the delegates,

then it really starts to get interesting. Remember, you need 1,144 to win.

At that point, someone has to give. Sometime or another. Several interesting things could occur, none of which could be easily predicted, and not all of which are positive. However, such is the nature of a brokered convention: it's dirty.

1. Third Candidate drops out, Ron Paul picks up a 323 of the released delegates, and wins.

2. Third Candidate drops out, Romney picks up 264 of the released delegates, and wins.

3. Romney drops out, Third candidate picks up vast majority of Romney's delegates plus other candidates'.

4. Romney drops out, Ron Paul picks up some of Romney's delegates (323 only, remember) plus others' and wins.

5. Balloting goes on and on until state party rules either release delegates or delegates change their minds and their votes. In this case, all hell breaks loose, but this is where organization really benefits Ron Paul. Because in reality, a number of "Romney delegates" can be Paul supporters who got through the process. Once their state rules release them at the national convention, they could vote for Ron Paul. However, if they are bound to vote for Romney, their votes go to him regardless.


Conclusion

Of course, none of this is set in stone. These numbers could end up being way off, and I hope Ron Paul does much better than these predictions.

However, I hope you'll take a few things away from this.

1. It is possible for Ron Paul to win given delegate numbers alone.
2. It is going to be hard for Ron Paul to win.
3. We have to do everything in our power to get this man elected, because he is the most liberty-minded candidate with a real chance of getting elected who has ever stood for election to the office of president in modern times. It is, indeed, possible. But only if we work for it.

Hopefully these numbers give you an idea of the daunting task we face, but a bit of optimism that with the right organization and amount of work, that it could be done.

Phew.