That Old Time Caucus Strategy

By -
Let's say Ron Paul's "caucus strategy" plays out perfectly, and he wins overwhelming victories in all of the remaining caucuses. Meanwhile, Romney takes all of the delegates from every remaining primary. How will that work out in delegate count?

Romney: 955
Paul: 98

(Yes, we might expect Paul to pick up a handful of delegates in a few proportional primaries, but, really... this was supposed to be a winning strategy?!)

Comments

  1. Jim12:01 PM

    Don't you care about freedom, Gene? Don't you care about the constitution?

    ReplyDelete
  2. jeremy h.9:10 PM

    Gene, so is this a prediction? Ron Paul will get no more than (roughly) 98 delegates?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah9:13 PM

      Well, the above would mean he would get 98 MORE delegates, above what he has now (which number is disputed).

      I have offered a $1000 bet that Romney will beat Paul by at least 600 delegates.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous12:14 AM

      "I have offered a $1000 bet that Romney will beat Paul by at least 600 delegates."

      A portion of which goes toward the 'Help Bob Murphy get to Columbia' fund.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more