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 ...
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!