Las Vegas Sun

January 25, 2015

Currently: 67° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Rand Paul: Nevada one reason Ron Paul is staying in presidential race


Leila Navidi

Rep. Ron Paul shakes hands with Ceasar Elpidio, the president and founder of the Filipino-American Veterans of America, after Paul spoke at a rally for Philippine-American veterans at the Leatherneck Club in Las Vegas Friday, Feb. 3, 2012.

WASHINGTON - Hope means Nevada to Ron Paul — or at least to his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who is citing Nevada as one of the top reasons why his dad should still stay in the presidential race.

When asked by a Bloomberg reporter Monday about the growing inevitability of Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee, the younger Paul urged her to put off drawing such conclusions until June because before then, the Ron Paul campaign “may well win Nevada; they may well win Iowa.”

Iowa's delegates are still up for grabs, because the Hawkeye State's caucuses are non-binding, meaning the delegates that are selected to go to Tampa in August are not obligated to vote proportionally to how the public voted on the first ballot. Nevada's delegates are bound for the opening vote, but not for any vote thereafter: incentive for Paul supporters to fill as many of the 28 Nevada delegate positions as they can to turn any subsequent ballots -- if there are any -- toward Paul.

Paul has never won Nevada at the state's caucus sites, but his team did manage to stage a coup for delegates in 2008 after flooding the state party convention, which was shut down in response. In 2008, Nevada's caucuses were non-binding.

At this February’s Nevada caucuses, Paul came in with 18.8 percent of the count, worth 5 delegates. Romney drew 50.1 percent, worth 14 delegates. Paul did increase his raw vote count over his showing in the Silver State in 2008, while Romney’s raw vote count fell.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 7 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. I actually think he's the only one that could give Obama a serious run. He has some ideas that are really "out there" but at least he has integrity and states what he thinks, not what he thinks people want to hear.

    I like Obama well enough, so I'll be voting for him again, but Ron Paul is an interesting man and I believe he wants to serve the country, not himself. The other Republican candidates? Their motives, especially Gingrich's, seem suspect to me. Your mileage may vary.

  2. I've always wondered if anyone can actually admit they were wrong for past votes they've made? I'll admit it, I voted for Bush twice! Then Obama, so I'm not loyal to either party. I do have a problem with our controlled media and their constant attempts at underplaying Paul and his campaign. I ask those Republican's who love their country so much,"Do you really know what the other candidates truly stand for? Do you truly get the sense of knowing them and understanding them?" The answer is "No" plain and simple. Often we fear what we don't understand and what most uneducated American's don't understand is the Constitution and the reasons our founding fathers did what they had to do. It's kind of like Catholics who think because their Catholic they don't have to read the bible and just believe what the priest tells them. I've read it page to page, but I'm not Catholic but I sure have made a lot of them feel dumb when they try to lecture me on scripture.

  3. I am pleased that Ron Paul has contributed to the process and conversation during this more than strange primary season and I am pleased that he inspired so many young and heretofore uninvolved citizens to become active in the political process.
    But, alas, Ron Paul and the Moral Majority have some things in common and that is a duality of conflict. The Moral Majority is in all actuality neither of those things individually or collectively; and Ron Paul is not the answer to the ills of this nation nor is he able to compete in the same arena with President Obama. Magical thinking is appropriate in children's problem solving schemata, but it has no place in the adult world of problem solving.

  4. thethinker,

    Ron Paul may have some defects, but he raises other valid points and I sincerely hope that he and his supporters have a voice at the upcoming Republican convention. I disagree with him on social issues, but his views on foreign relations and the economy are important and I feel need to be listened to.

    I am neither a Republican or a Democrat, I am a Whig. But since my party has not yet regained a place in power I want both of the major parties to field the best candidates possible for the good of our country.

    The Republicans could do a lot worse than having Ron Paul as the nominee.

  5. The Ron Paul Revolutionaries have so many major problems, way too many to list, but let's just start with BASIC MATH! Oh, wait, on second thought I've really got a lot of better things to do with my valuable time - LOL!

  6. This country needs a man of integrity. One that doesn't change his views like the wind and speaks from the heart. If he can't be president or vice president he would make one heck of a great Secretary of the Treasury.

  7. Ron Paul does have some good ideas on domestic issues but, when it comes to foreign policy, he would be a disaster. He would out-wimp Jimmy Carter and possibly even Osama Obama. What was it Kenny Rogers sang? Oh, yeah, "You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em." Ron, Newt & Rick - it's time to fold 'em!