Ron Paul still being in the race has nothing to do with support. He is just a vain, stubborn person that knows he has nothing to lose by not calling it quits. It also shows his lack of concern about the republican party's need for unity.

Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with support. Ron himself said that he would only concede either by defeat at Convention or if his support and funding dried up. Neither has occured. Ron knows his grassroots is, and has been the key to a successful nomination.

Exactly. And best of all, any anti-McCain votes will (most likely) go to Ron Paul. Bottom line, until McCain gets that 50% +1 majority vote in September, IT AIN'T OVER!!

Number one, after the way the GOP has been treating him, that should be the least of his concerns at this point. Number two, the GOP is corrupt to the core and needs a serious housecleaning. Once the corrupt folk are gone, then they can talk about unity.

P.S. Contrary to popular belief, the GOP doesn't like McCain at all. OTOH, put Ron Paul in a debate with Hillary or Obama, and he will run circles around both of them (just like what he did with Ben Bernanke last week--for the second time). :D

That would be interesting. All of the news organizations have already given Hillary the win....

I think the interesting remaining question is the TX Caucus. I heard that it was a zoo. I wonder how they did it the last 4 or 5 presidential elections where this process was used...:confused:

Hillary is still in it but the only remaining states that she has a prayer to win are PA and IN. Yes, they have a lot of delegates but look at her net gain after winning TX AND OH, virtually nill!

OK, I have not decided on a presidential candidate, but I have to say, every time I see Hillary, she seems to have a different face (she seems to change her tune as the wind blows). Do others have different perceptions?

Not interested in a circular argument.

BTW per RRO a majority vote is not 50 percent plus 1. It is simply more than half.

There is no circular argument; I think we are in agreement that until September, the GOP nomination simply has not been decided, irrespective of what the MSM would otherwise like for you to believe. Period, the end.

Uhhh, 50 percent + 1 = more than half. :confused: Again, we're in agreement. But I don't want to get into a circular argument either. :D

No we are not in agreement. Period, the end.

If 355 votes are cast, 50 percent would be 177.5. The majority would be 178. Using your formula the base would be 177.5 plus 1 equaling 178.5. Rounding up (since you can't have half a person,) the winner would need 179. Elections have been lost because of this misinterpretation.

[QUOTE=mccoyred;1612630]

I think the interesting remaining question is the TX Caucus. I heard that it was a zoo. I wonder how they did it the last 4 or 5 presidential elections where this process was used...:confused:

/QUOTE]

Well, here in Texas, this type of response to a primary election was unprecedented. I caucused last night and waited in line for two hours. The line at that elementary school snaked from the halls to the parking lot outside. Truly amazing! This was minor compared to a few places in Houston and surrounding cities. In fact, at one high school in Houston, the caucus did not end until 3am. It was a crazy experience but it was also an awesome experience. I have lived in that neighborhood where I caucused for over 20 years. I have never seen a turnout like that before. Ever. Of course, people got testy and the precinct judges were a little under prepared for the volume of people that showed up. Nonetheless, voices were heard and it is definitely something I will tell my children (when I have them) and grandchildren about. Results are still pending as to whom will receive the 1/3 of delegates on the line for the Texas caucus.

My sister called and told me something very similar to your experience. She said she had been in line for 2 hours and there seemed to be hundreds in front of her. She said that (at this time it was 8:56), they (election PTB) were beginning to "shut down".

Earlier last night, I spoke with a Sororfriend in the area, and her friend interrupted our call to say that there were hundreds in line waiting to caucus where she was.

You all like to do things BIG in Texas. :rolleyes: :D

I heard on TJMS that in Ohio, precints ran out of ballots. There were also cases when voting on paper, there are stipulations that voters must follow. For instance, when voting on paper the ink can't bleed through the paper. :confused: huh?

I know Louisiana is on the bottom of the list for many national lists, but I am so glad we have had voting machines, and these new computerized machines. You just click on the area and CAST VOTE! :D

I really don't understand why every state has not come into the 21st century with technology. :confused:

Ohio used to have voting machines but last Spring they voted to do away with it from what I remember hearing on the news while in Ohio last May.

TonyB, can elaborate more for me.

Are you referring to the touch screen voting machines?

Yup, I forget you're in Ohio too.

Because with technology data can be more easily manipulated than with paper ballots and be less likely to leave an audit trail. I actually saw video of a congressional testimony for an electronic ballot contracting company where the contractor was being asked questions on whether the data could be manipulated and he was saying yes it could.

I wouldn't be so quick to give credence to electronic ballots if I were you.

I'll leave you all with this quote:

"Those who cast the ballots decide nothing. Those who count the ballots decide everything." - Joseph Stalin.

I try to forget, too. :D:o:D

The last two primaries I've participated in had touch screen voting machines.
One was a little more antiquated than the other.

The new secretary of state wants Ohio to go back to paper ballots. I'm not sure how many counties have done so (if at all).