Skip to comments.RNC: Gingrich Leads Santorum in Primary Delegates
Posted on 03/08/2012 10:28:35 PM PST by Fred
A new official delegate count being kept by the Republican National Committee reveals that Newt Gingrich has won more "bound" delegates in the presidential primary than Rick Santorum.
Gingrich has won 107 delegates compared to Santorum's 95, according to the RNC's count, which was made after Super Tuesday. That effectively puts him in second place behind front-runner Mitt Romney.
But the RNC does not count delegates from states like Iowa in its total, according to the Huffington Post, which first reported the story. The Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses did not officially allocate any of the state's 28 delegates to the national convention.
Many state caucuses are held in a similar manner.
Even though Gingrich has only won two primary contests, in South Carolina and Georgia, and former Sen. Santorum has won seven -- in Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Misssouri,
Read more on Newsmax.com: RNC: Gingrich Leads Santorum in Primary Delegates Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Not to mention the fact that he will scare away the social liberals (of both parties) in droves. And many on FR will cheer him for it, because doing so allegedly “returns Biblical values to the White House.”
The world is flat! The world is flat! The world is flat!
And the weird, unhelpful animosity therein between supporters of the Two. Viable. Non-Mitt candidates. Over a fleeting discrepancy.
Exactly why Mitt is going to win the GOP nomination. Scripted to the minute.
You know, if 5 wasn't enough, next time let's double down and run 10 conservative candidates and 1 Rockefeller. Because that worked out so great this time.
Even if it is untrue, they are so close now that it doesn’t matter... and Gingrich has gotten more total votes... and Gingrich is the more reliably conservative candidate.
When the Gingrich surge spluttered in Florida, I started backing Santorum as the most viable anti-Romney.
Now Santorum himself has failed to deliver and I’ve gone back to Gingrich.
I just want someone to take out Romney. I know the odds of that happening are long, but Rick has lost the argument as being The One to do it.
He’s not The One. He’s just a Church Lady who appeals to other church ladies and that’s proved not to be enough.
I’m back with Newt.
I would feel more comfortable if Newt would win a state that wasn’t quite so red. If Newt wins the nominee which if Santorum doesn’t, I want Newt to, he has to win something outside of deep red states. I don’t know if FREEPERS know that the general election requires that the nominee gets a total of 270 electoral college numbers throughout the United States. So the general election will be a goal of getting 270. Newt was in third place in Ohio. Can he beat Obama in Ohio? Florida? Iowa? That is the question. Santorum will win Ohio and Iowa for sure. Santorum has been winning states that we need to get to the magic 270.
You will need steelfish if Newt gets the nomination. I am sure that 99.9 percent of the FREEPERS will go full bore in support of Newt if he gets the nominee. This is the primary. A time where people get to vote for who they want, but after the general get together. That used to be that way anyway.
Not fishy fox if for Obama and Romney. They don’t want Newt.
THese are Primaries, not states, that are being won. They are Primaries within states. That is not the same thing as winning a state in a general election.
In these Primaries, Newt’s opponents are Romney, Santorum and Ron Paul.
Romney overwhelmed Newt with negative ad lies, then Santorum walked into the breach that Romney had created and became it’s chief beneficiary.
Newt got off message in response, but he is back on message.
Before all this happened, Newt was poised to either win or do well in a number of states that are the type you keep harping on.
You take a small snippet of a fair point, but you forget everything else when you post your questions and worries.
And nobody dares to question or speak concerns about Santorum to you, or you scratch their eyes out.
Newt Gingrich, one on one, against Obama.
That is exactly what is needed.
Like Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter, when they said early on that Reagan could not beat Jimmy Carter.
In the end, it wasn’t even close.
Because the RNC is pimping for Mitt to win and by propping up Newt(who came in third or 4th in 9 out of 10 super Tuesday states and has only one his home state and the neighboring one) they hope to divide the conservative vote.
Not happy with Santorum or Newt as the only alternatives to Mitt but...someone has to stop mittens and Rick has won a number of states all over the country. Newt has quit on Kansas and is putting all his marbles in Alabama and Mississippi. If he fails to win there I think its time to give it up.
I just looked up the 1980 primary and Ronald Reagan won 44 states in the Republican PRIMARY. That is incredible. I would not be worried a second if Newt was at the end going to win 44 states. George HW Bush won 6. During the general is when people stupidly said that Reagan would not beat Carter.
Over the next few days and weeks, many of the unbound delegates Santorum has won will become bound. These are places where Santorum has already won once. Do you see Newt gaining more than Santorum in these places?
.... Soft Delegate are nothing more than their ticket has been punched to the State Convention.
Newt has already said he will be going after these Soft Delegates
Tsk tsk.....Go Newt Go!!!!! Go!!!! Go!!!!!
Good...I wish it were Newt....
Yes! Excellent tagline...i need to steal that.
You're not alone....I'm hearing this on the street when conversation moves toward the Primary.
Go Newt Go!!!!!
It would appear that the RNC is finally stating what you have been saying all along.
Gingrich Santorum Romney Paul Uncommitted Pl Unpl Pl Unpl Pl Unpl Pl Unpl Pl Unpl 115 13 118 46 366 37 35 38 4 0
Not by this conservative.
Correct. Newt was supposed to come here to Kansas this week, but pulled out after mentioning that he was “going to win the state” on Tuesday night. SO since that happened all the momemtum is in Rick’s corner for a ne asy because the state has turned veen more conservative than usual and Myth also pulled out of coming here. Paul has no chance. But of course, up here in Johnson county, Paul has to unfortunatley appear at every caucus site, all high schools to speak. Nothing one can do about it.
Correct. Newt was supposed to come here to Kansas this week, but pulled out after mentioning that he was “going to win the state” on Tuesday night. So since that happened all the momemtum is in Rick’s corner since the state has turned more conservative than usual and he has abig bas of support and Myth also pulled out of coming here. Paul has no chance. But of course, up here in Johnson county, Paul has to unfortunatley appear at every caucus site, all high schools, to speak. Nothing one can do about it.
Some folks inside the Super PAC have thought this all along too. Perhaps they have counted too much on this, because public perception is a powerful force that they might have ignored somewhat. But it IS encouraging to see the RNC say this.
Only Gingrich has the intellect and oratorical skill to beat Obama.
Newt should remain in to shake the gop establishment up and obtain some negotiating power at the convention. He has a more conservative plan than any other candidate running and a much more conservative record.
The points you make are great points, but I do not expect the RS fan base to either understand it, or admit that they do - if they do. There are two ‘voodoo votanomics’ tactics RS and his folks use.
First: The whole Santorum campaign has been on the vaporous impact of an 8 vote “win” in Iowa or calling a caucus with a teeny tiny voter base a “STATE” that has been won. They call an 8 vote win in a tiny Obama loving state the equivalent of losing by many hundreds of thousands in a swing state like Florida. And yes, the dupes in the nation and the dupes on Fox News play right along with this.
Second: they equate the ability to win a GOP primary in a swing state as the equivalent of winning the General Election in that state. It has NOTHING to do with it. Frankly, winning a swing state in a primary and in a general quite often are totally the opposite type campaign.
As part of that nonsense, they try to minimize the impact of Newt winning RED states in primaries. Actually, primaries should ONLY be in red states because that shows who will gin up turn out and enthusiasm in the general potentially. And huge conservative turn out is our ONLY chance of success in the coming election for President and every other office.
And this is a fact: there is only 1 state with a good turn out this year versus 2008: SC. Who won that one?
But again, I’ve seen no evidence of the ability nor the desire on the part of some to understand this. The notion that 30 thousand folks in Minnesota is a “win” just like 625 thousand in SC is a “win” is just below the level of comprehension that I care to force my self to access. Lots of folks LIVE there.
don’t forget FL where Newt should get half of those votes, won more counties, i remember one person never winning a county in FL, very important state I might add, who was that now?
Seems FOX, the establishment really thought they had done enough of their attacks to put Newt down and yet he’s still there, so sorry FOX, GOP and the RINO’s, Newt still has support from us down here
FOX has done so much attacking against Newt with the establishment after SC they have lost all credibility when it comes to this issue.
Hell it takes them all their time to even mention Newt and even a blind man can see that.
Agreed. I laughed when I saw that, too.
All Santorum know how to do, is BS about himself and his record. His organizational skills are an embarrassment.
He has also failed to qualify in 4 more of the upcoming states also. On the day of the primary, the reports come out that he “beats” Romney by 2 points in the popular vote, (Ohio) but after the official delegate counts come out, he only gets a fraction of the count he was originally projected to have. (Soft count/Hard count)
It is almost funny, watching Santorum’s fanatical and very ignorant following, keep trying to convince the rest of us, how we need to drop everything and follow him.
That's the biggest problem Santorum has, is there are too many of us out there who know how to think and research things thoroughly before we “jump” into anything.
Newt will be on FNS with Chris Wallace this week.
Romney, if honest and consistent, would be the anti-Reagan. He used to bill himself as such.
Santorum is the “not Reagan”. I know he would try to match himself up with Reagan in some respects, and in a few he would match up.
But in terms of coming across as a Reagan-like figure, only Newt does that.
When the American public got a face full of Reagan vs Carter, which included the Carter RECORD and the two men’s personas, it was no contest.
But Reagan was said to be incapable of beating the incumbent back when he was a mere struggling candidate.
Oh my, was THAT perception ever WRONG.
For a reality based assessment, see post #79.
That’s why they ‘got’ you with their propaganda. It’s trash to ‘thinking’ folks.
Santorum, have a conscious and drop out! Your political career and ‘take one for the GOP E team’ is no match for AMERICA’S. For once, think of AMERICA first, not yourself.
ANYONE BUT NEWT is the cry of those against WE THE PEOPLE as The GOP E is hell bent on keeping control.
And some who cry WeThePeople will never get they are being played like a fiddle with supporting slick Rick.
It's not time for the media to go after him - according to 'the plan'. They have to wait until Newt is sure of defeat first. Otherwise, it would have happened already.
Some folks will do almost anything to prop up his failing campaign. Coming in 3rd or 4th in most races with a win in only two states isn’t a strategy for victory.
I agree, but I would term it a ‘flailing’ campaign.
Did you note the big hoopla about Romney and global warming this morning? Wow, folks jumped on that like sharks on chum.
Why the next thing you know he’ll be sitting on a bench with Nancy Pelosi.
Bwa ha ha ha...
27 posted on Friday, March 09, 2012 12:54:56 AM by Mariner: “That's some of the silliest sh!t I ever heard.”
Okay, today gets to be my day to make some of my fellow conservatives mad.
I've read the New York Times for many, many years. It **IS** the agenda-setting newspaper in Washington on both sides of the aisle. Liberals read it because they like and agree with it. Most conservative leaders read it (or have their staff read it and give them clippings and/or summaries of key stories) because they need to understand why liberals think the way they do, because they need to see the strategy and planning being discussed by liberals, and because once a subject hits the New York Times, it will be part of the national agenda being covered by lots of other news media.
I realize lots of conservatives outside Washington do not read the New York Times. However, a huge amount of what we read in more conservative media outlets is written because it's responding to something the New York Times investigated that nobody else was covering effectively on the national level, or the New York Times found out about something somebody else was covering and placed on the national media agenda something that was previously a fairly minor story. Speaking for myself, I'd like to read the article that started the ball rolling to get an early warning of what we're going to face.
I've seen that personally with a story I was covering back in the 1990s that was getting a lot of attention in the local news media and denominationally-related church media. The New York Times got wind of the story, sent their reporter out, ran a front-page story, and suddenly it was front-and-center on everybody’s agenda who had reason to be interested. That happens every day on a regular basis — if the New York Times considers something newsworthy, everybody else on that news beat starts paying attention. They set the agenda for lots of other media, and that sets the agenda for lots of people in politics.
Beyond that, the New York Times still spends large amounts of money doing investigative work. Lots of that investigative work really **IS** good shoe-leather, document-reading, fact-checking stuff that benefits the political process. I see that even here locally outside a military installation in rural Missouri — the New York Times covers stories about military appropriations and defense policy that nobody else is covering, and that I need to know because it has direct impact on the future of Fort Leonard Wood.
My main problem with the New York Times is not that it does what it does, but that no conservative newspaper exists doing the same thing. Yes, they have a bias. Who doesn't? But when nobody else is doing the job, they're the only game in town.
Like it or not, and I definitely do not like it, there simply is no other newspaper in the United States that has the influence of the New York Times for a general market. The Wall Street Journal does in its narrow focus of economic and business coverage (which has political implications, of course), but other than business coverage, the New York Times is still the leading newspaper of record for the Washington political scene.
Please stop that.
Nobody has said Santorum thinks the world is flat. If you think Santorum’s ideas are in the same category as flat-earthers, have the courage to say so, and attack his ideas with facts, not bad names.
When I have a problem with Gingrich (and I don't have many) or with Romney or Obama, I don't make fun of the men. I deal with their ideas and try to refute them.
Your comments do nothing to make your candidate look good but they may help make you look bad. Fortunately most people know that Gingrich is a very smart man who doesn't use your tactics.
Years ago people screamed that the earth was flat, all of that screaming did not change the fact the the earth was not flat. Now, all of this loud talk that the media are correct in their misreporting delegate counts is not going to change the fact the RNC’s correctly count their own delegates.
If the Sanctimonium shoe doesn’t fit, I suggest you take it off your foot!