Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rick Santorumís delegate woes: Trying hard in some states; in others, not so much
Wapo ^ | 030812 | Felicia Sonmez

Posted on 03/08/2012 10:46:35 PM PST by Fred

Rick Santorum won’t be winning any delegates in four of Illinois’ 18 congressional districts next month. But, at least in the 13th District, it won’t be because he didn’t try.

Former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). (Julie Denesha/Getty Images)On Jan. 6, the state filing deadline, a Santorum volunteer had brought to the board of elections an envelope containing nominating petitions for a slate of three Santorum delegates in the 13th, the State Journal-Register reports.

But the petitions were never submitted. A volunteer inadvertently failed to take them out of the envelope, the Journal Register reports, and the envelope wound up in the trash.

Even if those petitions had been handed in, the Journal-Register story said, it’s possible they would have been challenged. The Santorum camp was only able to round up some 50 signatures for its slate of delegates in the district, well short of the 600 required.

All in all, the Santorum campaign’s organizational missteps mean that it is already at a deficit of at least 30 delegates in the races playing out over the next month – even before voters in those contests have cast their ballots...

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: delegates; emptyvest; getoutnewt; getoutrick; gingrich; kenyanbornmuzzie; mittromney; newtgetout; newtgingrich; newtsplittingthevote; newtteaparty; rickgetout; ricksantorum; ricksplittingthevote; romneylite; santorum; teaparty; teapartynewt; whatanidiot; whatasnob
“Well, as you know, those delegates had to be filed in Virginia and all the way back in early part of December,” Santorum said. “And, you know, look, I’ll be honest, I mean, I was running across the state of Iowa and, you know, sitting in 2 percent of the national polls, with very, very limited resources, you know, we didn’t have the ability to go out.”
1 posted on 03/08/2012 10:46:39 PM PST by Fred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Fred

Ineligible for over 20% of the delegates of a very delegate rich state...I believe about 75.


2 posted on 03/08/2012 10:51:18 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred

Oh! it’s the volunteers fault!


3 posted on 03/08/2012 10:53:08 PM PST by mylife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred

Big deal. If anyone thinks Romney isn’t going to walk with this state that has an open Primary, they are kidding themselves. Rahm will make sure everyone in Chicago votes Milt. They also have a goofy distribution of delegates.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/files/resolution-re-selection-of-delegates-to-2012-national-convention3-1.pdf


4 posted on 03/08/2012 11:22:35 PM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred
if Santorum wins big in the state next week, he won’t be eligible for all of Alabama’s 47 bound delegates.

Santo has delegate problems all over the US. Voting for him will be useless if he can't get the delegates to back his votes.

5 posted on 03/08/2012 11:29:19 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

The delegates go to the one who takes second in the district. Therefore Santorum could win Illinois by 60% and Romney will still win the delegate battle there.


6 posted on 03/08/2012 11:43:45 PM PST by Thunder90 (Romney barely won in OH with a 12-1 money advantage, he can't beat Obama that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Santorum will likely have to challenge the delegate count at the convention, as well as Florida’s and Virgina’s allocation (attempt to disallow VA’s delegation). Romney will automatically win those delegates from the districts where Santorum did not qualify if Romney takes second there.


7 posted on 03/08/2012 11:46:05 PM PST by Thunder90 (Romney barely won in OH with a 12-1 money advantage, he can't beat Obama that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Sigh. I wish someone would have said something about Santorum’s delegate troubles before. /s


8 posted on 03/08/2012 11:47:22 PM PST by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fred
How about those Gingrich delegates from Virginia!

Oh, wait... Newt has the same problem.

What a bogus post.

9 posted on 03/09/2012 12:37:14 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred

When I ran as an alternate there when Reagan ran. You vote twice. Once for the popular vote, and once for the candidates slate of delegates.


10 posted on 03/09/2012 2:02:52 AM PST by mosesdapoet ("The best way to punish a country is let professors run it. Fredrick the Great p/p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred

Go away Santorum!


11 posted on 03/09/2012 2:16:54 AM PST by Katarina ( Only RINO's left to vote for. God help us all. Glad I got to vote for Perry! God bless Rush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Rick Santorum will still win, he has to win or Obama will.

The ultimate issue is Obamacare and Rick is the only one (not counting The Nut) who has standing in it's opposition.
The main unconstitutional outrage in Obamacare is the individual mandate—an outrage Mitt Romney invented and Newt Gingrich supported.
Rick Santorum has no such weakness—a weakness Obama’s billion will inflate for both Mitt and Newt into cynical hypocrisy.
I like Newt but he can't get past Romney much less Obama—a vote for him is at best, a vote for a noble lost cause.
But by all means vote for your chosen candidate—just be ready for the “I told you so’s” from we Santorum supporters in the end.

12 posted on 03/09/2012 2:48:02 AM PST by Happy Rain ("Better add another wing to The White House cause the Santorum clan is coming.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fred
Newt ahead of Santorum in Delegates

Delegate Totals

Hard Totals/ Soft Totals Explained.

13 posted on 03/09/2012 2:59:12 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I thought I heard that Virginia went through Newt and Rick Perry's signatures with a fine tooth comb---something they NEVER had done before, and certainly didn't do to Romney or Paul. They didn't do it to Santorum. because he didn't submit any signatures. Why didn't he? What possible reason could there be for him to ignore a huge state like Virgina? Obviously, back in December he was simply not serious about really running for President.
14 posted on 03/09/2012 3:57:27 AM PST by Mangia E Statti Zitto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fred
Cheering on willard, yes sir!, Anyone that thinks a state delegation is not going to vote the way the people voted do not now anything about how the game is played. The idea in primaries is to win before the floor vote, dang!!
15 posted on 03/09/2012 4:11:04 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mangia E Statti Zitto

Confused much, both willard and paul had mor signatues than needed. Rick was short and newt had 1500 signatures out of a phone book.


16 posted on 03/09/2012 4:14:13 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

That is rick perry was short, santorum never tried, did not have the money at the time. http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/12/more-on-the-virginia-primary-ballot-fiasco/


17 posted on 03/09/2012 4:18:22 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
I agree Newt's attempt to get on the ballot came up short. But at least he tried! As I said before, Santorum couldn't even be bothered to collect ANY signatures. And you think this guy is ready to take on Obama.

Santorum and VA ballot

18 posted on 03/09/2012 4:30:20 AM PST by Mangia E Statti Zitto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mangia E Statti Zitto
It is either him are willard, mr 14%, who has 40% negatives. And would lose to obummer by a bigger margin than mccain.
19 posted on 03/09/2012 4:38:50 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; Cincinatus' Wife

Newt DOESN”T have the same problem.

We are informed enough here to know that.

The single exception of VA, where they monkeyed with the system and only those who had run before...Romney and Paul...were excused from the signature checks...DOESN’T equal Santorum’s delegate problems in various states.

ANd in VA, Santorum did not even try.

Like a chirping bird who thinks any old song will do so just keep chirping away, that’s what the statement that Newt’s VA ballot trouble = all of Santorum’s delegate trouble, reminds me of.

Doesn’t FLY here, we know better.


20 posted on 03/09/2012 4:39:07 AM PST by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fred
Pray, pray, and pray some more for a 100% ProLife president - that particular attribute of character is MOST important.

Never underestimate the power of prayer, things can change overnight and they will with enough prayer. If not, we'll end up with Obamney.

Without a return to the founding and supporting Judeo-Christian principles, this nation will fall like ALL other atheistic, pagan, unGodly nations in the world have all throughout the history of the world. What does it take to get through to people? Why do you think God would treat us any different than them? Why do we think God will allow us to kill innocent defenseless little boys and girls and the elderly and the disabled and the too costly, etc, yet condemn all other nations for doing that? Are we really that unbelieving that we think there is no God and no repercussions for our paganism and secularism?

Our nation is in this predicament, because of its loss of morality and yet many Americans, and Freepers alike, still cling to their atheistic socialist secularist stances that brought us to this brink of destruction.

A little hard-headed...thick in the skull...hard in the heart...dense, one can say.

Here's the source to the success of this nation, apparently many need to be reminded: Pray to God, the Father Almighty, for mercy and pray for God's grace to this nation, for the sake of His sorrowful Passion.

Eternal Father, we offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Your Dearly Beloved Son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. Amen.

We must stop turning a blind eye to evil and stop electing those who promote the gravest of evils. He's not going to tolerate it any longer at all.

21 posted on 03/09/2012 4:57:35 AM PST by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

RNC: Gingrich Leads Santorum in Primary Delegates

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/gingrich-leads-santorum-delegates/2012/03/08/id/431949


22 posted on 03/09/2012 6:27:16 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mangia E Statti Zitto
Obviously, back in December he was simply not serious about really running for President.

Poppycock. He didn't have the MONEY. He was spending it all in Iowa. Santorum has done more with less than any other candidate. If Newt didn't have Sheldon Adelson behind him, we wouldn't be having this conversation and Romney would be toast.

23 posted on 03/09/2012 6:43:26 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
Newt DOESN”T have the same problem.

The only difference is Sheldon Adelson.

24 posted on 03/09/2012 6:45:30 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
Newt DOESN”T have the same problem.

The only difference is Sheldon Adelson.

25 posted on 03/09/2012 6:46:59 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

Thank you Jack. I’m praying for Rick’s victory.


26 posted on 03/09/2012 6:58:55 AM PST by Mountain Mary ("This is OUR country and WE will decide"... Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

Actually, Democrats are organizing to vote for Santorum.


27 posted on 03/09/2012 7:04:28 AM PST by unspun (It's the Sovereignty, Stu... | We are Gulag Bound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fred

Sorry folks, Santorum has turned out to be a ‘default’ candidate, who’s only credit to even still being talked about is the pure lack of confidence the Republican electorate has with this entire field. This is a guy who never seriously took on the task to attain the office of President. Never ready for prime-time.


28 posted on 03/09/2012 8:11:17 AM PST by LibFreeUSA (Pick Your Poison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; All; napscoordinator; Antoninus; CharlesWayneCT; writer33; Lazlo in PA; cripplecreek
23 posted on Friday, March 09, 2012 8:43:26 AM by Carry_Okie: “Poppycock. He didn't have the MONEY. He was spending it all in Iowa. Santorum has done more with less than any other candidate. If Newt didn't have Sheldon Adelson behind him, we wouldn't be having this conversation and Romney would be toast.”

Carry is right.

Politicians, like generals, routinely have problems because they're trying to fight with the lessons learned from the last war.

That's why we have the Army War College to try to figure out future threats, but even with billions of dollars in the Pentagon budget, that isn't enough to predict the dynamics of future wars with precision. Nobody could have anticipated the massive role of IEDs in the current conflict. Almost nobody had Islamofascism on their radar screens during the 2000 presidential campaign, way back before 9/11 hit us. Once Iraq did get on our radar screen, we made major mistakes about the presence of weapons of mass destruction, the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's generals revolting, and other things as well. It's not as if our military leaders are stupid; they simply have no way to know with certainty which of our enemies will pick a fight and how they'll choose to fight that fight.

Politics is the same way. Most of us understood that the collapse of the McCain-Feingold restrictions on campaign financing and the Citizens United decision enabling Super PACs would affect the 2012 presidential campaign, but it has done so in unanticipated ways.

What happened very late in the day, after the campaign was already beginning to see actual voters going to the polls, was that two key conservative donors, one each for Gingrich and Santorum, decided they would use the new financing rules under the Citizens United court decision to make it possible for their candidate to have a fighting chance, rather than being destroyed by massive negative advertising campaigns paid for by Mitt Romney's money. That money was not available to Santorum or Gingrich until recently, and both candidates are still struggling with screwups dating back to the days when they were running campaigns on a shoestring and Rick Perry was the only conservative candidate with any kind of significant financial backing.

It used to be that an underfinanced grassroots candidate who won Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina would get a huge boost, not just in momentum but also in finances and volunteers, as donors flocked to a perceived winner who shared their values and supporters of withdrawn candidates signed up with others close to them on the ideological spectrum.

Now, however, the massive money that Mitt Romney has thrown into the campaign has changed the dynamics.

Yes, Santorum got money and supporters after his virtual tie in Iowa. Yes, Gingrich got the same after winning South Carolina. The problem is that this year, with Mitt Romney throwing money into massive negative advertising campaigns, the candidates have been forced to spend their money in high-dollar advertising costs. While money did come in after the early-state victories, it wasn't enough to buy ads as well as pay staffers for necessary duties like collecting signatures and other on-the-ground things.

From what I can tell, Newt Gingrich got snookered in Virginia by a deliberate screwup with one paid person. It looks like something somewhat similar happened in Illinois with a Santorum volunteer, though it appears to be an honest mistake rather than deliberate deception.

All of us in business have made bad hiring decisions. Stuff happens in campaigns, and when you don't have enough money to be double-sure everything has been done right, sooner or later your failure to double- and triple-check will blow up in your face.

I've written some severely critical things on Free Republic earlier about the signature screwup in Virginia. That is one of my biggest problems with both Santorum and Gingrich — it is simply inexcusable, even though it's understandable due to a lack of money. We simply do not have conservative candidates with the caliber of campaigns we should have had this year.

I'm very unhappy about that, and even if we don't hold it against Santorum and Gingrich, President Obama will.

What's the lesson to be learned? Apparently the lesson is that if you want to run for president as a challenger to the establishment, you have to find one or more key financial backers with very deep pockets long before the first votes are cast in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I'm not sure I like that answer, but as of today, it looks like it's the only way to run a campaign if you're an insurgent going up against a moneyed powerhouse like Mitt Romney.

29 posted on 03/09/2012 8:16:15 AM PST by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

I was thinking the same thing. The Gingrich supporters on this forum have been his biggest obstacle to my support.


30 posted on 03/09/2012 8:57:23 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I will say that I like Newt Gingrich, and think he would be at least a marginally better candidate than Santorum; he might also be a better PResident, in some ways but not in others.

IF Gingrich had been on my ballot in Virginia, I would have happily voted for him.

If Gingrich had competed in and won the states Santorum won, I would be happy, because it would mean we had coalesced.

He didn’t, and that’s the only reason I’m not “on board”. He’s skipping too many states, he’s got a strategy that guarantees nobody but Romney can win the nomination outright. But if he managed to pull off big wins next week, and managed to get back to polling first, and people stopped feeling negative about him, I’d be very happy.

So nothing his supporters do here makes any difference to my support of any candidate.

But part of me hopes that Santorum does it instead, simply to spite some of the Newt supporters here. And while I wish he had not collapsed in the polls, part of me wasn’t too upset, simply because of his supporters.


31 posted on 03/09/2012 9:28:47 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I understand your stance here, and I think it’s an entirely reasoned approach. We agree on some of it, and disagree on some of it, but I find that disagreement mild and appreciate the comments.

Thank you.


32 posted on 03/09/2012 9:36:41 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

BTW: It does bother me that he is skipping states. His strategy does seem to be paying off, but there are times when you can be too cute by half, and he’s verging on that quite strongly with me.


33 posted on 03/09/2012 9:38:18 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Fred
Once again it's not Santorum's fault. This time it's his volunteers. /s

Virginia? Didn't even submit paperwork. DC? Not on the ballot. Ohio? Lost delegates he earned because of paperwork. TN? He had not a single delegate on the ballot. IL? Similar to Ohio... where else does his campaign have problems?

34 posted on 03/09/2012 10:36:49 AM PST by newzjunkey (Santorum: 18-point loss, voted for Sotomayor, proposed $550M on top of $900M Amtrak budget...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Yours is the bogus post.

Virginia was a different story. Like Perry, Newt submitted more than enough signatures, a larger than expected number deemed invalid by the party. Santorum didn't even bother.

In TN? Newt had a slate of delates on the ballot. While Santorum won the state, he had NO delegates on the ballot. He has to depend upon the party to give him some.

Is Newt losing delegates he earned through votes cast because of the campaign's paperwork failure as happened in Ohio with Santorum, as may happen in Michigan and elsewhere?

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil... sainted Santorum can do no wrong. /s

35 posted on 03/09/2012 10:45:10 AM PST by newzjunkey (Santorum: 18-point loss, voted for Sotomayor, proposed $550M on top of $900M Amtrak budget...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Exactly, and when a Santorum robot loses the debate, they start throwing tou are evil and follow satan crap...


36 posted on 03/09/2012 2:38:43 PM PST by Fred (http://whenmittromneycametotown.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Yours is the bogus post.

Your usual your hand-waving crap.

The real difference here is Sheldon Adelson's money, without which Newt wouldn't even be in this race any more. Money pays for organization, which puts the people in upcoming states to get the ballot qualification work done. The "failings" you attribute to Santorum's lack of viability had to do with lack of a paid organization. He had to make touch choices to work within limited means and made more victories out of it, by far, than Newt has realized. By contrast, there is no lack in Newt's history of pandering after issues fashionable among campaign donors, not to mention following their ephemeral changes in direction.

Newt's failing in Virginia was lack of organization as well, as competent campaign organization would have assured ballot qualification. You know very well he was deserted by his own hirelings early in the campaign. That is either lack of discernment in hiring lack of leadership reflecting Newt's well known propensity to PO the people who work with him. Take your pick.

37 posted on 03/09/2012 2:49:24 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: trappedincanuckistan
Sigh. I wish someone would have said something about Santorum’s delegate troubles before. /s

The media concentrated on Newt missing a Missouri beauty contest where no delegates were being awarded.

The media ignored Santorum's delegate problems in Ohio, Illinois, Tennesee...

Random mistake I'm sure /s

38 posted on 03/09/2012 5:27:41 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Thunder90
The delegates go to the one who takes second in the district.
What? What does the winner get? Kraft cheese?
39 posted on 03/11/2012 2:55:04 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson