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

Skip to comments.

Is Newt Gingrich helping or hurting Mitt Romney?
Renew America ^ | 03/15/2012 | Adam Graham

Posted on 03/15/2012 7:40:58 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt

Newt Gingrich in the wake of two losses in deep South States is seeking a justification for remaining in the race. When challenged by Brett Baier, Gingrich was unable to name a single state that he could win. Indeed, after playing hard as a "Southern Candidate" Gingrich has lost three straight Southern States including two deep South States near his home state of Georgia, so it's hard to imagine Gingrich winning elsewhere. Still Gingrich claimed a role in the race.

His argument for continuing is that he and Senator Rick Santorum are playing a "tag team" that is denying Romney the nomination. Gingrich argues that should he leave the race, his supporters will split between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney and that Romney will turn all of his considerable resources on defeating his remaining foe-Santorum.

The second argument is fatuous. Campaign ads have not been running against Gingrich for some weeks, at least not in any number. The vast majority of its fire has been on Senator Santorum already and will remain so, particularly as Gingrich is no longer a serious threat.

The first argument is worthy of some consideration. The idea that the presence of two conservatives in the race has hurt Romney's progress is at least mathematically accurate. One can't take Newt Gingrich's total support and added it to Rick Santorum. Without Gingrich in the race, some of Gingrich's support would go to Romney. One poll showed with Gingrich gone, 56% of his supporters would go to Santorum, 27% to Romney and 16% to Ron Paul. Nate Silver of the New York Times did an analysis on this basis that showed that while Santorum would have won Ohio and Alaska without Gingrich in the race, Romney would have netted more delegates because most of the contests up until now have proportionally allocated their delegates.

However, in Alabama and Mississippi, this may not have been the case. Both states allocated congressional districts and an at-large delegation proportionally. With 56% of Gingrich supporters going to Santorum, Santorum would have won Alabama 51-36%, and Mississippi at 50.2%-39%. Santorum would have captured all the at-large Delegates for both Alabama and Mississippi as well as won a majority in most of the eleven congressional districts in the two states, leaving Romney with perhaps as few as six to twelve delegates as opposed to the twenty-three he won through Gingrich's presence which left the winner with less than a majority.

Looking down the road, there are even more states that are either winner take all by Congressional District or winner take all by state. In addition, Nebraska and Montana will elect their delegates at their June State Conventions, so their primaries are non-binding. However, any chance that Santorum will have of getting delegates in these states will be greatly enhanced by winning the primaries. So, Gingrich splitting the vote isn't going to help.

Of course those states that have proportional allocation with a relatively low threshold to obtain delegates that allow Gingrich to theoretically help stop Romney by winning voters who would have otherwise supported the former Massachusetts Governor. On the other hand, those that are winner take-all by Congressional District or proportional with a threshold above 15% are likely to have Gingrich advancing the cause of Mitt Romney by splitting the conservative vote and allowing Romney to win a plurality.

How do the remaining states line up?

Gingrich's Presence Will Help Romney
Illinois
Louisiana (Proportional-25% threshold)
Wisconsin
Maryland
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Indiana
West Virginia
Nebraska
Arkansas (Proportional, but if a candidate wins a majority, they get all delegates.)
California
New Jersey
Montana
South Dakota (Proportional-20% threshold)

Gingrich's Presence will hurt Romney:
North Carolina
Oregon
Texas

Gingrich's Presence Will Likely Help Romney
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
Kentucky
New Mexico

In fourteen states including California, the presence of Newt Gingrich will help Mitt Romney pick up delegates either by stopping Santorum from winning a majority of the vote (in Arkansas), enabling Romney to win either statewide or in congressional districts, by taking votes from Santorum in proportional contests where Gingrich is unlikely to reach the high delegate thresholds.

In three other states, the pure proportional nature of the contests and lack of thresholds means that Gingrich is marginally hurting Romney by filching a few delegates that would have gone to the former Massachusetts Governor. If we assume 12% for Gingrich in Oregon and Oregon and 20% in both Texas and North Carolina, that would give Gingrich forty-four delegates, of which twelve would have gone to Romney otherwise.

The five other states are somewhat harder to call. While Rhode Island and New Mexico divide their delegates proportionally at fifteen percent of the vote, results in other contests in these regions suggest Gingrich is unlikely to meet the threshold given the momentum in the race, so his presence is most likely to only reduce Santorum's delegate haul rather than generate any of his own.

Connecticut and New York are dicier. Both states offer some delegates as winner take-all by Congressional District. The remaining delegates (ten in Connecticut and thirty-four in New York) are awarded to the winner of the state if he wins a majority. If no one wins a majority, the delegates will be split proportionally among all candidates winning 20% of the vote or more. Romney is expected to win both states. However, Gingrich's presence could cost Santorum districts in upstate New York. In addition, if Romney finishes solidly under 50% in both states, Gingrich would cost Santorum at-large delegates.

There is one scenario under which Gingrich's presence could hurt Romney slightly. If due to a Gingrich split, Romney wins in New York, but not with a majority (say with 48% and Gingrich wins 10%), Gingrich could help Romney win a Congressional District or two in upstate New York while at the same time he could hold Romney under 50%, allowing Santorum to pick up slightly more at-large delegates in one or both states.

Kentucky is also complicated. The state awards eighteen delegates winner-take-all by Congressional District and Gingrich's presence could help Romney by splitting the conservative vote. On the other hand, it awards twenty-four statewide delegates proportionally with a fifteen percent threshold that Gingrich would probably still be able to get to. However, Gingrich would be unlikely to win enough proportional delegates that Romney would have otherwise won to make up for throwing even one Congressional District to Romney.

The math is simply against Newt Gingrich having a positive impact in terms of stopping Mitt Romney. Overall, Gingrich is now Romney's best friend in this race.

However, the race is more than math. There is psychology and how voters and activists feel about the race. More victories and wider margins make conservatives feel more confident that Romney can be stopped. Santorum won three of ten states on Super Tuesday, a majority of the vote in Kansas, and single digit wins in Mississippi and Alabama. Without Gingrich, Santorum would have won five of ten states on Super Tuesday to Romney's four, a super majority in Kansas, and won both Alabama and Mississippi outright by double digit margins over Mitt Romney. This situation may not have changed delegate math much, but it would have increased conservative sentiment that Mitt Romney wasn't so electable after all and that he could be beaten.

Conservatives can win in fight for someone under one banner, rather than working under multiple banners and attempting to be too cute by half in playing strategy games.

The results are clear, as is the way forward. If conservatives want to nominate an alternative to Romney, their only hope is to unite behind Rick Santorum.



TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: delegatemath; newt2012; newt4romney; nottromney; santorum2012; votenewtgetmitt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 next last
To: true believer forever

According to that statement, we need to pin our hopes on Romney running out of money and his support cratering. At the same time we just heard today or yesterday that Adelson said he will not be sending any more money to Newt’s SuperPAC.

I think Newt’s been doing a fantastic job in the media since the last debate, but only got one more delegate than Romney did in MS and AL. If Romney never gets more than 25% of the vote in any upcoming state except Utah, then we could deny him the nomination with both Rick and Newt in the race. But that’s a strategy based on hope. I don’t see a track record or math that points to that happening. And I know Newt himself has made some arguments about delegates that are just wrong, like suggesting him and Rick might be able to get Ron Paul’s delegates at the convention.

So as of now the analysis from the Newt camp seems overly optimistic. I understand the emotional investment they have, but I’m a facts-and-figures guy. I can’t stake the future of the country and the Republican party on hope. We can plan on a strategy that lets Newt and Rick win at the convention even if the general popularity of the candidates stays the same from now on, or we can avoid making any sacrifices and hope for a Hail Mary pass, when the odds and delegate allocation rules say that decision is likely to lead to a flat-out Romney nomination by June.


61 posted on 03/15/2012 10:25:37 PM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

ANd what about Mr. Romney compared to Obama, Yashcheritsiy.

Do you think he’s more ‘electable’?


62 posted on 03/15/2012 10:27:18 PM PDT by JSDude1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty; All; AmericanInTokyo; napscoordinator; writer33; Antoninus; cripplecreek; ...
10 posted on Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:54:37 PM by Utmost Certainty: “That won’t last for long. Watch for a backlash coming Santorum’s way that knocks him off his pulpit as a general panic sets in at the prospect of this fascistic dweeb becoming the nominee.”

HOLD IT!!!!!

Fascism is not just a nasty word like “dweeb.” It has a definition, and when applied to an Italian, it's about as offensive as accusing a German of being a Nazi.

You're talking about the son of an Italian, Aldo Santorum, who left Italy as a child when Mussolini was gaining power, and then served in the United States Army, fighting fascism in World War II, and then using the GI Bill to become a career Veterans Administration psychologist.

Criticize Rick Santorum for his policies if you want. But do not attack him for being “fascistic.” Some comments cross the line and this is one of them.

I do not make comments like that about Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, or even Mitt Romney. I believe all are loyal Americans even though I seriously disagree with Paul and Romney. (Actually, I like a lot of things about Gingrich.) You have no business attacking Santorum’s commitment to American freedom, and that is what you are doing by calling him “fascistic.”

63 posted on 03/15/2012 10:28:53 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

Excellent point. Well stated.


64 posted on 03/15/2012 10:30:56 PM PDT by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller

There won’t be a brokered convention if Newt’s presence splits the vote.


65 posted on 03/15/2012 10:40:56 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Keyes2000mt; All; Mariner; C. Edmund Wright; CharlesWayneCT; Antoninus; Lazlo in PA; ...
Antoninus and Lazlo, please ping this to the Santorum list. It is valuable information.

Charleswaynect, I'd appreciate your evaluation of this post. It seems to make a very similar case to what you said earlier in the primary season about the second choices of some Santorum and Gingrich supporters being either Mitt Romney or Ron Paul.

I saw the analysis in the New York Times but have been waiting to see a conservative review of that analysis. We now have that. I now want to see Santorum supporters specifically review this case.

At an absolute minimum, deciding whether this analysis of the role of Gingrich in the race is valid should affect how we handle Gingrich supporters. More to the point, I believe this analysis should affect the decisions by the two candidates themselves.

Newt Gingrich is a historian. How many people besides him even know about the 1920 brokered convention that replaced Republican frontrunner Maj. Gen. Leonard Wood following a bitterly divided Republican race, leading to the elevation of an unvetted President Harding who plunged America into a series of scandals from which we were saved as a political party mostly by the integrity of Vice President Calvin Coolidge? I'm consistently impressed by his grasp of American political history, even though I do not believe he is the best candidate we have.

In any case, we need as much information as we can get right now. Time is drawing very short to stop Mitt Romney, and we have no room to make mistakes.

_____

When challenged by Brett Baier, Gingrich was unable to name a single state that he could win. Indeed, after playing hard as a “Southern Candidate” Gingrich has lost three straight Southern States including two deep South States near his home state of Georgia, so it's hard to imagine Gingrich winning elsewhere. Still Gingrich claimed a role in the race.

His argument for continuing is that he and Senator Rick Santorum are playing a “tag team” that is denying Romney the nomination. Gingrich argues that should he leave the race, his supporters will split between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney and that Romney will turn all of his considerable resources on defeating his remaining foe-Santorum.... The first argument is worthy of some consideration. The idea that the presence of two conservatives in the race has hurt Romney's progress is at least mathematically accurate. One can't take Newt Gingrich's total support and added it to Rick Santorum. Without Gingrich in the race, some of Gingrich's support would go to Romney.

66 posted on 03/15/2012 10:42:00 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
On the not mentions, I'd put three into a new category: Likely non-factor: Missouri: Hurt Santorum-By splitting conservative votes in Caucus could allow Romney and Paul delegates to get elected. These aren't proportional contests. These are contests to elect the people who elect the delegates. If conservatives split their votes, it'll allow Romney and Paul to pick up delegates. Utah: Gingrich can neither hurt nor help Santorum there. The primary went 90% for Romney in 2008 and is winner-take-all, so even if Romney drops to 70%, he'll get all the delegates. District of Columbia: Newt is on the ballot, Santorum isn't on the ballot, so Newt could in theory hurt ROmney. The problem is that DC tends to be an establishment town and therefore a Romney town. It's also winner-take-all. In theory, Newt could win it, but in practice, it's tough to foresee a conservative taking DC. It went 65% for John McCain. Puerto Rico: Gingrich should be a non-factor as are most candidates who don't campaign in Puerto Rico. Traditionally not campaigning candidates get somewhere between 1 and 5% of the vote. If either Santorum or Romney get 50% of the vote, Gingrich will have not factored. However, if one candidate is very close to 50%, he may play a role. If the total is something something like Santorum 48%, Romney 44%, with Gingrich we can conclude that Gingrich cost Santorum a majority which would have given him all the delegates. If it's more like Romney 49%, Santorum 45%, then we can say Newt hurt Romney. Both are somewhat unlikely scenarios, so I'll leave it along with the other three at non-factor. Did you even read the article? It's premised on 56% of Newt's votes going to Rick. I think if Rick announced Newt as his V.P., who he has said at least twice before he would consider, then I think Rick could get far more of Newt's votes than that. Actually, I suspect a lot of folks have been responding to this article without reading it.
67 posted on 03/15/2012 11:01:56 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Keyes2000mt
Sorry, I haven't posted regularly in a while on FR and am use Blog software that takes care of paragraphs. Let me repost my response.

On the not mentions, I'd put three into a new category: Likely non-factor, with one being a help Romney:

Missouri: Help Romney-By splitting conservative votes in Caucus could allow Romney and Paul delegates to get elected. These aren't proportional contests. These are contests to elect the people who elect the delegates. If conservatives split their votes, it'll allow Romney and Paul to pick up delegates.
Utah: Gingrich can neither hurt nor help Santorum there. The primary went 90% for Romney in 2008 and is winner-take-all, so even if Romney drops to 70%, he'll get all the delegates. District of Columbia: Newt is on the ballot, Santorum isn't on the ballot, so Newt could in theory hurt ROmney. The problem is that DC tends to be an establishment town and therefore a Romney town. It's also winner-take-all. In theory, Newt could win it, but in practice, it's tough to foresee a conservative taking DC. It went 65% for John McCain.
Puerto Rico: Gingrich should be a non-factor as are most candidates who don't campaign in Puerto Rico. Traditionally not campaigning candidates get somewhere between 1 and 5% of the vote. If either Santorum or Romney get 50% of the vote, Gingrich will have not factored. However, if one candidate is very close to 50%, he may play a role. If the total is something something like Santorum 48%, Romney 44%, with Gingrich we can conclude that Gingrich cost Santorum a majority which would have given him all the delegates. If it's more like Romney 49%, Santorum 45%, then we can say Newt hurt Romney. Both are somewhat unlikely scenarios, so I'll leave it along with the other three at non-factor.

Did you even read the article? It's premised on 56% of Newt's votes going to Rick. I think if Rick announced Newt as his V.P., who he has said at least twice before he would consider, then I think Rick could get far more of Newt's votes than that. Actually, I suspect a lot of folks have been responding to this article without reading it.

I think many people have been commenting without reading it. Thank you for reading it.

68 posted on 03/15/2012 11:06:11 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

If Newt drops out, more support will consolidate around Romney as Santorum will be increasingly viewed as too much of a liability in the general election. Count on it.


69 posted on 03/15/2012 11:08:02 PM PDT by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

I don’t care what descent he is; he’s an American to me. I didn’t mean any racial/ethnic intentions by what I said. I called Santorum fascistic because he’s an invasive moralizing busybody who thinks he knows what’s good for me.

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” -C. S. Lewis


70 posted on 03/15/2012 11:12:19 PM PDT by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Keyes2000mt

Who cares? Newt is the only one with any ideas. If Newt drops out the entire race will be about condoms and internet porn.


71 posted on 03/15/2012 11:13:02 PM PDT by douginthearmy (Obamagebra: 1 job + 1 hope + 1 change = 0 jobs + 0 hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

You make good posts. Thanks.


72 posted on 03/15/2012 11:14:54 PM PDT by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
"...or we can avoid making any sacrifices and hope for a Hail Mary pass, when the odds and delegate allocation rules say that decision is likely to lead to a flat-out Romney nomination by June."

what's the Hail Mary Pass? And I don't really get what you are saying... just keep on keeping on...? I think what he was saying was - Romney isn't Mr. Electability any longer... that was what I got mostly from it..

I agree with you, though, on being a realist. And people are doing all kinds of cartwheels to say optimistic, and I want to be realistically optimistic... sigh sigh sigh. Sigh.

73 posted on 03/15/2012 11:30:07 PM PDT by true believer forever (If Newt is good enough for Sarah, he's good enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Keyes2000mt
"There won’t be a brokered convention if Newt’s presence splits the vote. "

I see it exactly opposite- Newt will split the vote, stopping Romney from getting a majority, confining him to less that 50%, and causing an open convention, where God only knows what will happen. If Newt were to get out now, Romney will bulldoze Santorum, and go on to lose to Obama. Just like Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, GHWB, and John McCain. Is there something that keeps Republicans from learning from past fiascos?

74 posted on 03/16/2012 12:14:08 AM PDT by matthew fuller (A patriotic American would be ASHAMED to have 5 non-veteran adult sons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller

When he splits the votes in winner-take-all states and districts, Romney gets all the delegates.


75 posted on 03/16/2012 12:20:34 AM PDT by Keyes2000mt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
It might be helpful if you're able to do this, to show a simple delegate count (or range of counts) projection between Romney, Santorum, Newt, and maybe Paul if it matters (headed by how many delegates needed for the nomination):

Number of delegates needed to win nomination:______

1) Best case for Newt (and Santorum) if Newt DOESN'T throw in with Santorum:
Romney
Santorum
Gingrich

2) Likely case for Newt (and Santorum) if Newt DOESN'T throw in with Santorum:
Romney
Santorum
Gingrich

3) Likely case for Santorum if Newt DOES throw in with Santorum:
Romney
Santorum

4) Likely case for Santorum if Santorum NAMES NEWT AS VP and Newt accepts:
Romney
Santorum

76 posted on 03/16/2012 3:27:18 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: musicman

Thanks,


77 posted on 03/16/2012 3:56:52 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
You could very well be right. One statement you made was:

I think if Rick announced Newt as his V.P., who he has said at least twice before he would consider, then I think Rick could get far more of Newt's votes than that.

He might get the nod, but he'd lose the GE. We need a fresh face in the VP spot. People are weary of Kook-Daddy and the Three Stooges. And, we need Marco Rubio in the VP spot to cut into Obama's Hispanic vote and carry Florida. Whoever wins Florida, wins the White House. We'll just have to wait and see.
78 posted on 03/16/2012 4:31:03 AM PDT by no dems (No RINO-Rom, no Kook-Daddy; Newt or Rick must win the nomination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: no dems
Rick had Romney all to himself in Michigan and Ohio and lost both

How could this be true? Newt was playing Perot in both states. Wasn't the Newt and Rick vote combined in both states more than Romney's total by a fair amount? Newt is already out of any hopes of nomination, and I am sure he knows that. But I understand how he thinks he is a superior candidate to Rick.

79 posted on 03/16/2012 6:18:32 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Mathematically, it's all over, says Mittens. I'm pretty sure the people will again let us down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller
Is there something that keeps Republicans from learning from past fiascos?

It must be a bizarre form of content with the status quo at all times.

80 posted on 03/16/2012 6:21:01 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Mathematically, it's all over, says Mittens. I'm pretty sure the people will again let us down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 next last

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