(Just forestalling those who don't get it and then say, "Utah doesn't have any coastline!" The above poster was making a WWII reference.)

Well, nobody had an answer, so I went and looked it up:

(d) When at the close of a roll call any
candidate for nomination for President of the United
States or Vice President of the United States has
received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the
convention, the chairman of the convention shall
declare that the candidate has been nominated.

That's from part of Rule 40 in their 2008 convention rules. ( http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf )

So that's not a majority of votes of those present, but a majority of all possible valid votes.

There are rules about alternate delegates and such, but I think, if Tampa's convention operates under the above rules, there's this possibility: If enough of the delegates pledged to Romney are actually Paul supporters and every single Romney-pledged Paul supporter simply walks out just before the first ballot, they could deny Romney the majority, and so further ballots would have to be held. And delegates would not all be bound in whom to vote for, from that point on.

(I searched the document for "quorum" and found no instances of the term. Perhaps the concept is addressed, and I've missed it. And, to reiterate, these are the 2008 rules, not the 2012 ones.)

So c'mon MSNBC professionals! Please set me straight on this.

His own party? He is a Libertarian that runs as a Republican. That's what I call a political coward. Run on what you believe in not what might get you elected.

As a Democrat, I'm delighted that the Pauleroids are doing everything possible to demonstrate Mitt's political ineptitude to a grouchy nation this summer. But their constant whining about "Dr. Paul isn't going to win only because teh evul corrupt coopted MSM isn't fair to him and prevents people from doing their own conversion-inducing research on his super-brilliant unified general theory of freedum and everything else!" is an unpleasant sauce for it.

Republicans have shown over and over again that they have utter contempt for, and even active fear of, democracy so watching their Second World authoritarianism-disguised-as-democracy game-rigging used against them is kind of fun. But make no mistake, this isn't about "showing up and voting for what you believe." It's about disenfranchising millions of Republican primary voters who thought their primary votes for Romney would translate into convention delegates who were actually for Romney. (Well, or at least as much for Romney as its possible for anyone to actually be.)

The GOP party bosses set themselves up for this by trying to maintain mechanisms in their rules that would let them steal a convention from the Republican voters if, for once, they ceased doing what they were told and got all unruly and started believing their opinions counted. The GOP has always run their party this way. That's what the old "winner take all" rules were about--making sure the convention was just a coronation of the candidate favored by the party bosses and money men and using the primary process to impart a phony facade of democratic legitimacy. The elites thought they could keep that "flexibility" even after they cautiously relaxed their "winner take all" deathgrip by making sure they could bugger the delegate count after the primaries if necessary to keep someone unacceptable to the elites off the ticket.

A comparable kind of power also theoretically still exists in the Democratic Party "superdelegate" rules, but, as Hillary discovered in 2008, the mere suggestion that it might be used to nominate someone who didn't win a majority of the primary and caucus votes is so toxic to Democrats that it is, in reality, unusable. Republicans, however, assume their authority-loving rank and filers will still just fall into line, albeit with a little grumbling, when their betters tell them to. And now, the Paul zealots are using those rules against them and there's much sweet, schadenfreudey goodness to be had in watching it.

But the characteristically self-serving and self-righteous assertions by the Pauleroids that this is anything other than a brazen coup attempt by a minority, albeit against people who are normally not at all adverse to minority coups when it puts the "right people" into power, is rank hypocrisy which I find hard to stomach even when deployed against rank hypocrites.

The delegates who "stole" the conventions in Nevada and Maine were elected at their precinct caucuses in February. This is the will of the people in these states. These are the delegates that they directly elected to represent them. If mitt Romneys folks wanted to win these conventions perhaps they would have found a few people willing to stand for their guy as delegates...they didn't. The most they did was send threatening letters, and then try some after the fact cheating. In fact, if anyone was stealing anything it was the Romney folks attempting it.

How has Ron Paul been treated "unfairly" by the media? Can you provide evidence that meets this definition of "unfair" treatment?

It seems to me the media has treated Ron Paul very fairly. If people actually understood libertarianism and libertarian ideals you would probably have a LOT less people supporting Paul. Do Ron Paul advocates realize this? Most people like social security, medicare, the military, national aide, participation w/in the UN, equal rights, the civil rights act, etc. Most people do not like what libertarians stand for and advocate. W/ that said are there some things that Ron Paul advocates that people would agree w/? Yes, absolutely. Such as reforming the fed, legalizing marijuana, and restricting our military conflicts w/ the world. So you aren't really being objective here. You're not wanting Ron Paul to be analyzed on the basis of what he says and treated like Romney or Obama- what you want is the media to put Ron Paul on television, allow Ron Paul to talk unquestioned, and then have the media praise what he states as being scientific, real, and good.

You would NOT like it if the media asked Ron Paul to, let's say, back something up that he claims w/ facts. You would NOT like it if the media played clips showing Ron Paul's hypocrisy. You would NOT like it if the media covered Ron Paul's racist and sexist history. So when you say the media ignores him you aren't actually whining that the media isn't giving him enough attention. You're whining that the media isn't giving him the attention that YOU want him to get. And that's entirely different.

In fact the entire reason why you posted this was to reject that the media was in fact giving Ron Paul attention. Why? Because you don't like what the media has to say about Ron Paul. This is what I can't stand about Ron Paul fans: you whine that Paul isn't getting coverage and then the second he gets coverage you whine that the coverage isn't "fair." That's because Ron Paul advocates and does things that people do not agree w/ more often than he advocates and does things that people agree w/. When the negatives are brought to light you realize he's not perfect and then you attempt to protect him by screaming it's media bias. You made this bed, now sleep in it. Seriously people.

We're upset because when we win, the media says it's "hijacking", "Hijinks" or using "arcane rules".

We're upset because when Ron Paul draws a crowd of 11 thousand at UCLA, the media reports "hundreds of people were there"

We're upset because the mainstream media, the corporations who own them, and the corrupt cabal in washington have decided already who you get to choose from.

We are having none of it.

The truth is that Ron Paul is the only one who the people support. If there are so many Robamaney supporters..... Where are they? How come we so easily outnumber them in every caucus we attend?

How come every single state that has selected delegate to the national convention has overwhelmingly sent a majority of Ron Pauls supporters?

Ron Paul has We The People.

All Robamaney has is money.

He couldn't even hold us off in his own state. How's that for popular support?

The People are Rising.

Ron Paul Revolution!

We REFUSE to just go along. Heck, most of us aren't even really republicans!

Ron Paul or none at all.

PS - I CHALLENGE you to show me Ron Paul being Hypocritical.

Never happened.

Rules be damned! The GOP rules were that no primary held prior to the Super Tuesday primary could be a "winner take all" primary. Should the GOP follow its own rules and require portional delegates in Florida, et.al.?

This is the Greedy Old Party! Rules be damned, it is Buyer Wins All!

Amen, but it is not just the Republicans. Both parties are available to the highest bidder. It has become just an illusion of a choice. After this election I am going to refuse to consider any canidate that the media does no pre-emptorially decide is an "unelectable nut" usually these are the folks who threaten the insiders (except when they are actually nuts...which does happen)

Your attack on Benen is misplaced. While GE owns NBC, it is doubtful that GE influences Benen or Rachel relating to any Ron Paul discussions. Now, if you want to talk about what the corporate & D.C. insider viewpoints influence, I suggest that you address the complete lack of honestly on NBC/MSNBC relating to Israel and the Palestinians.

Besides that, Ron Paul should never be allowed to run for anything as a republican as he is not a corporately owned warmonger.

Yeah, itsh all a big conshpirashy. Not even possible that millions and millions have done the same research on Dr. Paw's brilliant, wonderful, orgasmic vision for America's future and recoiled in horror from what's really just sociopathy dressed up as an ideology.

Do you really think most votes do their research on canidates prior to voting? I wish it were so. I find most voters in general are woefully misinformed, most don't even klnow the positions of the politicians they profess to love so dearly. Let's just be honest, most people go into that booth, and vote for the guy from the party they identify with whose commercials they has seen the most of, and th e most recently. I doubt more than one person in 20 can stomach politics enough to dive into the swamp and swim around in it...they avoid it entirely. Of course I am justr speaking out of knowledge of my family and friends...so I may be off....But I doubt it.

Actually @Josh you are probably correct on that assumption.

@Chicago: Why should we not be at war w/ Syria right now? Or Sudan? Honestly I want you to tell me why we should not be involved in those countries. Do you know what the word "genocide" is? Why should we stand by while genocide is being committed? And this is good? This is a good thing that America should shoot for? To allow genocide to be committed? Honestly what did you think you were arguing here? What moral high ground do you think you're standing on while you chastise everyone else? Seriously? Now that would be one thing if you were saying that you don't want us involved w/o raising taxes to pay for the wars, or you don't want us involved unless it's an act of the US Congress, or unless it's an act of the international community, or that you want us to try diplomatic means to get involved before choosing war, or that you don't want us just going to war for the sake of going to war. But saying we shouldn't get involved simply because you're upset about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is just ignorant of what's going on in the world and kind've abusive. We have the largest, most powerful military that has ever existed in the history of mankind. On what planet do you live that you think that military doesn't carry w/ it responsibility to stop genocide? I guarantee you there are people serving in the US military right now who would love a chance to stop the genocide in Sudan or in Syria. Now maybe they don't want to go to war w/ Iran- I'm not at all arguing here that the military industrial complex isn't at play and telling us when to go to war and w/ whom. If it weren't in play we would've been in Sudan already. But what I am saying is that when genocide is being committed we have a responsibility to act. The fact that other completely pointless and stupid wars have gone on does not negate this responsibility.

The whole point of a delegate process is to make sure that the most informed end up making the final decisions

This is an arrogant assumption that you have no basis for claiming.

but keep in mind that money and media influence can buy a popular vote.

...and it can't buy the delegate vote because...?

It is not reasonably possible to pay enough people enough to show up at all these conventions

But it is reasonable to assume that the popular vote (which is a far, far larger portion of the population) can be paid to vote for one candidate versus another?

Honestly most people voting for Romney are doing so based on the presumption that he has a better chance of beating Obama, most of them have no clue what his positions on the issues are

On this we agree

heck Obama should be barred from the Democratic party since he is really more of a socialist

No he is not. Obama has been one of the most conservative POTUS' that we've had in modern history. Obama has not passed any socialist policies, but he has passed a great deal many of pro-market and pro-conservative policies. I dare you to point out a policy that Obama has passed that is actually socialist. In fact I bet I can pre-empt your response: you're going to say the affordable care act. The affordable care act was not a government take over of healthcare. And if you are going to complain about people being uninformed then you should probably be informed before making wild accusations. Obama has never advocated a socialist policy in his entire political career nor has he ever passed socialist policies. And as an apparently "informed" voter I would expect you to know this.

then Romney should be barred, because he is a democrat (no really, check out his positions on the wedge issues which define the parties)

And how do you make this assertion? Romney has changed his position on every single major policy he has ever advocated for. He has been both for and against abortion. Both for and against gay marriage. Both for and against contraception. Both for and against the Affordable Care Act. The only way you could be making this assertion would be if you were cherry picking facts. In which case you are, again, bashing people on the basis of their ignorance while ignoring your own.

You Obama supporters calling Romney a flip flopper need to find another argument.

Obama flips and flops at least as much, if not more.

Cutting the deficit in half, most transparent administration in history, the whole hrca debate will be televised, we're going to end the wars, patriot act is bad, superpacs are bad, I will go through hrca "line by line", etc.

I could go on and on.

The only candidate not flipping and flopping like a beached trout

is Ron Paul.

Surprised at what? Certainly the Paul campaign told everyone what they intended to do, but there's a difference between informing people about your cockamamie plan and actually pulling it off.

So now Ron Paul supporters hate Christians? What???

By 'Zionists' he means Jews. And by dragging Occupy terminology into it he's advancing the meme that OWS is antisemitic. There's a lot of wingnuttery packed into that little comment.

It's not necessarily a pipe dream, but it's hard to accomplish because the left, by it's very nature, is disorganized and against establishment. It's kind've like asking why you can't heard cats. The left is typically comprised of people that question leadership and people who pride independent thought. This is fundamentally different from the right which prides itself on being authoritarian in it's application of policy. That is why the slogan "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" exists. It's not an attack on either end- it's just a recognition of how the left versus the right work. The right will be more loyal to their political ideology and this makes them more vicious in the way that they go about it. The left will be more disloyal and be more willing to compromise and share views. Being too rigid is bad and being too compromising is bad. I don't know how you would delegate between those two extremes, but it does appear that's what you'd have to do in order to get the left to organize.

Leftists can be ideological as well, but we've seen how that goes and by and large have learned the appropriate lessons. The right have learned nothing from their failures of ideological rigidity, except the false belief that failure only means they aren't yet ideologically pure enough.

The gay and lesbian community is as full of hateful twerps as the rest of the general population.

So your response here is that since you don't like the descriptive terminology the blog used to then attack a person who had nothing to do w/ this particular blog post as being ugly? And this shows that you are superior exactly how? Did you even think this through before you insulted Maddow or did you just spew it in a poutrage that Paul isn't being represented the way that you have decided (arbitrarily and arrogantly so) he should be?