The Texas congressman gave an exuberant speech last night, in which he acknowledged his second place finish - terming it a "virtual tie" with Romney" - and arguing that even if the final totals have him trailing Romney that he believes his delegate strategy is working.
As usual, Paul is the most understated of his supporters.
His campaign today contested the Romney victory, and Maine Republicans very well may have to reverse their declaration of Romney's victory once all of the votes are counted. Call it Iowa 2.0.
The reason is that Washington County, a Paul stronghold, the caucus was postponed until Feb. 18 due to an expected snowstorm. Top GOP leaders in Maine have vowed to not count those votes in the final total, but there is no way Paul devotees are going to let the state write off 16% of the electorate in what is currently a 200-vote victory for Romney.
Meanwhile, pundits continue to argue that Paul's caucus strategy is failing because he hasn't been earning first place finishes. Of course they are — because they don't understand how the delegate process works.
Many of the caucus states — Maine and Minnesota included – use a "non-binding" system, meaning that delegates are not required to cast their convention vote based on the popular vote of their county. If Paul is able to amass the most volunteers to go to the convention on his behalf, it's just as good as having won the popular vote.
As a top Paul advisor told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow earlier this week:
We think we've won in Iowa, we won in Minnesota, we won in Colorado, and Missouri is yet to be seen. And we think we probably won in NevadaAnd in even more good news for Paul, one of the more recent national polls from Reuters placed him in second place nationally, drawing 21% of GOP support — the highest level of support Paul has ever gotten in a national poll.
Alexander, you've suggested that Paul has hit his glass ceiling and that his voter base will be incapable of expansion. But could his Maine finish and his national poll surge (documented by Reuters) prove the opposite?
No comments:
Post a Comment