Actually, in proportional delegate situations, Newt staying in really hurts Romney’s math, quite a bit.
“So how is a senator or congressman rated a being a fiscal conservative? The National Taxpayers Union ( for years) rates members of house and senate and gives them a grade. An A equates to a 4.0, a B 3.0, a C 2.0 etc. In an article on the Weekly Standard by Jeffrey Anderson and Andy Wickersham they write:
Fifty senators served throughout Santorums two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorums GPA was 3.66 or an A-. Santorums GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.
Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got As in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorums final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats Santorum was the only senator who got As in every year of Bushs first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorums 4.0 GPA over that span.
This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorums part. Yet it doesnt even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.
“So how is a senator or congressman rated a being a fiscal conservative? The National Taxpayers Union ( for years) rates members of house and senate and gives them a grade. An A equates to a 4.0, a B 3.0, a C 2.0 etc. In an article on the Weekly Standard by Jeffrey Anderson and Andy Wickersham they write:
Fifty senators served throughout Santorums two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorums GPA was 3.66 or an A-. Santorums GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.
Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got As in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorums final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats Santorum was the only senator who got As in every year of Bushs first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorums 4.0 GPA over that span.
This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorums part. Yet it doesnt even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.
Hey now! Quit being logical. You might ruin the whole darn thread. ;)
I agree. With his current low poll numbers outside the south, Newt should look hard at withdrawing in upcoming winner-take-all states but remain in those with proportional delegate assignments.
Only if he competes..and if he keeps losing home games he’ll stop being competitive.
Gingrich needs to get off his ass and start campaigning.