Posted on 03/15/2012 7:40:58 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt
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.
ANd what about Mr. Romney compared to Obama, Yashcheritsiy.
Do you think he’s more ‘electable’?
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.”
Excellent point. Well stated.
There won’t be a brokered convention if Newt’s presence splits the vote.
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.
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.
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.
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
Who cares? Newt is the only one with any ideas. If Newt drops out the entire race will be about condoms and internet porn.
You make good posts. Thanks.
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.
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?
When he splits the votes in winner-take-all states and districts, Romney gets all the delegates.
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
Thanks,
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.
It must be a bizarre form of content with the status quo at all times.
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.