I've been writing up a summary of the GOP Primaries, and I'm noticing that Ron Paul supporters often have a different interpretation of the results than I get elsewhere. I don't have a lot of regular access to Ron Paul supporters, so I don't really understand the reasoning behind it all. Maybe someone here can help me.

Take the Missouri caucuses. The main perspective I've been hearing about tells a story about Ron Paul supporters preventing normal operation of the caucuses and preventing any results from being assembled (like so). But Daily Paul has Ron Paul taking 48 of the 53 delegates, but without a source for the claim. The New York Times won't declare results of the caucuses (just February's primary), Fox News doesn't list Missouri with the other March primaries, and the Washington Post says "Results unavailable." Where does this claim of 48 delegates for Paul come from, does anybody know? I couldn't find any official results at the Missouri Republican Party's website.

Collegestudent22 mentions the Virgin Islands, and Romney winning by delegates but not by popular vote. But technically, Ron Paul didn't win by popular vote, either: "Uncommitted" did. Votes that were essentially for no one outnumbered votes for Ron Paul or Romney. So while there's a reasonable argument to say Romney didn't win, there's still no reasonable basis to say Ron Paul did. Or am I wrong?

Collegestudent22 then seems to argue that if winning by delegates is winning overall in the Virgin Islands, the same should be true in every other territory and state. That's reasonable. But is Paul ahead in Iowa, Nevada, and Wyoming by that standard? Of Iowa's 28 delegates, Romney and Santorum have at least dozen each (Sources: Fox, NYT, WaPo); even if Ron Paul had all 4 of the rest, that's not a lead. The same pattern shows up in Nevada and Wyoming. So, in light of those results, how do you reason that Ron Paul should be declared the winner in those states? If the MSM is lying, where's the truth?

collegestudent22 wrote:In that case, I understand that Paul won Iowa, is currently winning Nevada and Wyoming, as well as some other caucus states where his delegate percentage surpasses the popular vote.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Paul didn't win more delegates than Romney in Iowa, Nevada, or Wyoming (source). Also, according to your own source, Paul didn't win the popular vote in the Virgin Islands: "Uncommitted" did. That means VI voters wanted their delegates to be free to vote for whoever they wanted more than they wanted them bound to vote for Ron Paul.

Am I misreading something?