Skip to comments.Santorum wins Kansas GOP caucuses, gains blunted by Romney's island victories
Posted on 03/10/2012 1:25:53 PM PST by Mr. KEdited on 03/10/2012 3:58:29 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
click here to read article
Can you cite me an example of were unbound delegates awarded to a candidate didn’t support their guy at the convention?
Hey CharlesWayne, that was a pretty nasty statement you said Gingrich made. I nicely asked for a source, do you have a source or did you make it up? We don’t have much of a choice when it comes to the MSM reporting garbage, but I don’t see any reason why it should happen here.
” As Gingrich says, anybody can win in backwards middle-america states that nobody gives a damn about.”
Too bad the KS GOP didn’t do a MI GOP and give Rick the remaining delegates:
Santorum: Won all 4 CD’s (3*4) and got 51% of the vote (.51*25) plus the 3 bound Superdelegates for a total of 28 delegates.
Romney got 21% of the vote (.21*25) for 6 delegates.
There’s 6 delegates left over. I believe they should all go to Rick, but I know they won’t. Looks like they just did it again based on the vote (.51*6) = 4 and (.21*6) = 2 to give
Rick 32 Delegates and Romney 8.
I was playing on and exagerating the excuse Gingrich made for why Santorum was able to string together a set of 1st and 2nd-place finishes in February while Gingrich pulled 4th in most contests:
Im taking Rick Santorums advice, Mr. Gingrich said Sunday on CNNs State of the Union. He stayed in, he was running fourth in every single primary, suddenly he very cleverly went to three states nobody else went to, and he became the media darling and bounced back.So, the question is, why did Gingrich think "nobody else went to" Colorado and Minnesota? And why did Gingrich skip Michigan, and Kansas, and so many other states?
But seriously, I was just helping the Gingrich folks by posting the objections they usually make when Santorum beats Gingrich in a contest (which has happened in all but a handful so far).
BTW, the quote from Gingrich is also factually incorrect, as Santorum had not actually had a string of 4th-place finishes. His finishes were 1st, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, prior to his 3 wins.
Back to your original question -- as a rule, if I am actually quoting someone, I will actually provide quotes and a link.
Yes, having the younger Santorum as the veep seems to make more sense for building a small dynasty. Gingrich would be quite elderly after 8 years. However if the “people” are happier with Santorum as the GOP presidential candidate, that is what makes sense for winning an election.
Oh, come on, throw me a bone here, I’m trying my best to come up with a good excuse....
Yes it does
The problem with the “good little Christian family man” is the word “good”. A serial adulterer who talks real good is far better, dontcha know.
I thought if you won a majority of the vote you get all the delegates?
I certainly hope Newt doesn’t really think that way, although some of his fervent supporters here seem to
Sweaterites, the others left because they didn’t care. This is a non-binding thing and most people don’t even vote in it. The actual delegate selection is a later event.
If you go to Tennessee, don’t make the mistake of calling any one of them a Yankee. But then you “Virginny” types would not know that. LOL!
National Convention Delegates are bound unless released by the candidate. [Section VI. 1.]
This is a non-binding thing and most people dont even vote in it. The actual delegate selection is a later event.
Check the following link for a little knowlegde on the Kansas Caucuses.
As Gingrich says, anybody can win in backwards middle-america states that nobody gives a damn about.
Gingrich didn’t say that. I dare you to provide a link showing he said that.
Oh, so the character of the candidates doesn't matter to you
Santorum is a good family and it is absurd to attack him or conservatives for finding that to be an admirable quality.
Your comments sound a lot like the one Obama made about conservative voters clinging to their Bibles and guns. It's absurd these sort of comments are being made here.
It seems that there is a few anti-christians among the freeper ranks. Their motto is anybody who is immoral.
While I think CW’s sarcasm was obvious to anybody that’s not wrapped too tight, I think it’s fair to say that he captured the tone of Newt’s dismissing the MO primary as a “Beauty contest” when asked why he didn’t participate there.
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.