Like any other sort of wannabee tyrant given an inch, religious tyrants will take a mile, and will then push on to destruction.
Skip to comments.Louisiana shows Rick’s hopelessness
Posted on 03/24/2012 12:48:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Republicans hold their presidential primary in Louisiana today. Rick Santorum leads all the polls by double digits. If as expected, he wins, Santorum will need to win 39 of the 46 delegate races 85% just to offset Mitt Romneys 42-10 shellacking of Rick in the delegate count in Tuesdays primary in Illinois.
If through some miracle Rick Santorum took all 46 delegates in this proportional primary an improbability he would still not break even in the delegate race because Romney picked up 20 delegates in Sundays winner-take-all primary in Puerto Rico.
And even if he breaks even from now through the convention, Rick Santorum loses in Tampa 1,200-900 as Mitt crosses the 1,144 delegate threshold to cinch the nomination sometime in May.
A brokered convention or 4 more years of 0bama.
Why bother commenting when you’re just going to ignore the facts anyway.
Newt is taking away 0 delegates from Romney and keeping Rick’s vote totals under 50%, allowing Romney to pick up more delegates than he would otherwise in a two man race. This has been mathematically proven ad nauseum, but you Newt supporters refuse to look at the math.
If this were a two-man race, the month of May looks very bad for Romney. That month IN, NC, AR, KY, WV, and OR all vote. With the exception of maybe OR, all the other states on that list would be favorable for Santorum to win 50%+ in a two-man race. That would give him at least some momentum going into the June 5 primaries in CA and NJ with the chance to stop Romney short of 1,144 delegates.
However, with Newt in the race, Rick can’t pick enough delegates up and because he is under 50%, Romney will grab more delegates in Southern states than he normally would (AL/MS/OK - SEE AS EXAMPLES).
Example: AR coming up in May, Rick would easily take a 35-1 split of the delegates, with Romney’s sole delegate awarded for getting over 15%. However, with Newt in, Romney will probably grab as many as 6-7 delegates since no one will get to 50%.
Newt is a stalking horse. The math prooves it. Does Rick have to win a boatload of the remaining delegates? Yes? Is it possible? Unlikely, but based on the May Calendar still doable. Is it possible to do this with Newt in the race? Absolutely not.
So we get a Catholic Theocratic statist (Ricky) instead of a Mormon Theocratic statist? Neine, danke!
Santorum should drop out and let a real fiscal conservative pick up the conservative votes. Santorum may be a social conservative, but anybody who supports big unions like Santorum does is no fiscal conservative. At this point in time we need a fiscal conservative like Newt, not a one issue social conservative like Rick.
And just like that, you’ve prooven why nobody (majority of voters) takes Newt or his supporters seriously. Snarky comments like “Catholic Theocratic statist” is over the top and shows your misintrepretation of Rick’s adherence to social issues. It also reeks of sour-grapes syndrome and whining that you’re guy failed the test and was unable to rebound when it mattered. And yet it’s you people who accuse Santorum of whining?
Rick has the full support of The Moral Majority.
Tell that to the American Conservative Union and Mark Levin, who give Rick solid OVERALL Conservative ratings.
If anyone is about big-government solutions, it’s Newt Gingrich. He says 300 pages of Obamacare are “good ideas”. Not only that, Newt’s concerned about your consumption on oil, where he thinks it’s his job to figure out how to get you to use less oil.
And then there was that thing about Newt saying the Era of Reagan is Over, for which Rush Limbaugh called him out on it as well as his other non-conservative policies
Yes, Rick is a strong one issue social conservative, but at this point in time we need a strong fiscal conservative. Not a strong big union supporting liberal like Santorum.
Newt is too far behind to even have Santorum drop out. Newt has won 2 states for goodness sake and has not been able to pick up many additional delegates due to his numerous 4th place finishes. If it was the other way around and Newt had as many delegates as Santorum, I would be saying that Santorum should get out, but since nobody is voting for Newt, it is time for “the fat lady to sing”.
Newt was not my first choice either, but I definitely do not a big union supporter like Santorum. We already have a big union man in the White House. We do not need another.
Like any other sort of wannabee tyrant given an inch, religious tyrants will take a mile, and will then push on to destruction.
Behold the words of Rick Santorum:
"What we need is a government mandate! We need to mandate that all cars sold in the United States, starting with the 2010 model year, be 'flex-fuel vehicles' - that is, they should be able to run on a blend that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (the so-called E85 blend), or even a coal-derived methanol/gas mixture. This mandate would cost a fraction of the new fuel economy standard with the added benefit of saving barrels more oil."
Reducing U.S. oil appetite This is one cause that could be helped by smart mandates and taxing, op-ed by Rick Santorum, Philadelphia Enquirer, January 31, 2008
That's what I love about Santorum supporters. They never bother to research their candidate of choice, and they always end up looking ignorant. Can you say "hubris?" I know you can...
Enough of the stupidity. If that happens, THE RACE IS OVER AND ROMNEY COASTS TO THE NOMINATION. There won't even be a chance of a brokered convention.
But, maybe that is what you want.
Because EVERY Primary/Caucus Result shows that Santorum’s supporters and Newt’s supporters are essentially made up of the same categories (Males, Ages 25-50, Income Less than 100K, Tea Party Supporters, Conservative, Rule, Evangelical/Religious). The Difference is Rick gets more in each categorical demographic than Newt and FAR more women and Evangelical voters.
Compare this to Romney’s base (Women, Seniors, Hispanics, Income Earners greater than 100K, Oppose Tea Party, Moderate/Liberal Republicans, Think he looks the part, urban/subrban voters).
See any correalation between the two demographics? There isn’t and EVERY Primary/Caucus map shows the same thing. Romney gets his 30% wherever and Newt cuts into Santorum’s margins by taking voters. Newt staying in does NOTHING to prevent Romney from getting delegates and in fact, HELPS Romney to get delegates he wouldn’t otherwise have.
Also, one other thing voters have about Rick more than Newt. They TRUST and LIKE Rick more than Newt. This is why when Rick opposed RTW in PA, the voters, understanding the Demograpical make-up of PA, don’t hold it against him and BELIEVE him when he says he will push Federal RTW legislation.
But what are facts to you when you have an agenda to push?
Nonsense. Rick, Newt, Cain, Perry, etc. were all flawed candidates. But, all are conservative and better choices than Romney, who is unacceptable as the nominee.
All you're doing is helping Romney with this sort of whining because Santorum is the only candidate left with the support to even get us to brokered.
So, either you just don't get it or you'd prefer Romney. Either way, it is frustrating to watch Romney take advantage of this sort of stupidity.
I am all for conservation and improving fuel economy, as with hybrid cars, but even if everyone drove a hybrid it would just slow the rate of growth in our consumption of oil.
In reality, if Newt drops out, Romney has a slight advantage in getting over half of Newt's voters. It's a simple reality, based on real facts. Not even you understand your own math. That much is a fact that you seem to be ignoring yourself.
Rick’s also not the only candidate concerned about “reducing America’s oil apettite” (which I will say I disagree with that position)
Here’s Newt in his own words:
“Far beyond just how do I subsidize your heating oil, how do I make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil?”
LOL you’re gonna love this, little fella.
Gingrich, Backed By Ethanol Lobby, Supports Subsidy
Newt Gingrich on Ethanol (Newt loves it)
Here’s the link for CNN and the Primary Election results so far:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia (Choose State drop-down menu)
Show me anywhere, ANYWHERE, where Newt Gingrich actually took votes away from Mitt Romney? It never happened anywhere. Not even in SC, where Romney still won Columbia, Charleston, and Beaufort (which matches his Demograpics) and GA, where Romney still won Atlanta and Savannah did Newt have much luck taking votes from Romney Voting Base.
Every Exit Poll confirms who are Newt’s supporters, Rick’s supporters, and Romney’s supporters.
“grossly inaccurate” and “grandiose”? I think not. You can throw out whatever words you want but it doesn’t change the facts.
And I never said ALL of Newt’s support would go to Santorum, but I DID show evidence that confirms a MAJORITY would go.
Brokered Convention—select someone who can really change the Nation DONALD TRUMP! for President-—Newt for VP. Romney for Sec. of the Treasury!
So, do you think the era of Reagan is over? A true leader does not imitate Ronald Reagan, he does what a true leader does: lead people by the power of moral authority. We don’t need candidates running around in Ronald Reagan Halloween costumes. We need a leader who Ronald Reagan was and Newt Gingrich is.
Newt believes that government does not need to be big to be better. He believes in good government and knows how to make government better. The others candidates have not done it in Washington DC. This is where the game is played and Newt has proved he can do it.
If I were using oil to heat my house, Newt would be the one to encourage switching to natural gas. That is what he was talking about.
The problem is, for many of us at least, Rick Santorum is just about as bad an option as Romney. Santorum is more conservative and if I was forced to appoint one of them President I'd certainly take him over Mitt, but as a general election candidate? LOL, Rick would get destroyed in an epic landslide defeat that would take our House majority down with it. Romney will likely lose narrowly, Santorum would be utterly annihilated. The guy is just not disciplined enough to avoid the media baiting him over and over on things like condoms and porn. He can't avoid talking about those things because, in his heart, it is really what he most cares about. Santorum is just not a serious general election option and pretty much the only folks that don't understand this are the same block of voters that cast ballots for silly presidential candidates like Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson.
That is the problem in a nutshell. For many, perhaps most, of us Newt supporters, Rick Santorum is simply not a credible alternative.
I didn’t say the era of Reagan was over, Newt did.
“If I were using oil to heat my house, Newt would be the one to encourage switching to natural gas. That is what he was talking about.”
Bullcrap. I have a better idea. How about Newt let me make my own damn decisions in regards to how much heating oil I decide to use. It’s none of his or the government’s damn business to tell or “encourage” me to use a certain product. I’m smart enough to make my own decisions TYVM.
“Newt believes that government does not need to be big to be better. He believes in good government and knows how to make government better. The others candidates have not done it in Washington DC. This is where the game is played and Newt has proved he can do it.”
Good Government as you put it is an oxymoron. Beyond handling the inherent functions (defense, security, etc) there is NO such thing as Good Government. Newt’s philosophy is no different from the Rockefeller strategy that “Republicans can come up with ways to run the general welfare programs better and more efficiently”. Finding a way to keep the 300 pages of Obamacare he thinks is good will result in larger Government. Funding moon colonies will result in larger Government. Big Ideas = Bigger Government.
It does not take a rocket scientist to lead the United States. All you have to do to be successful in governement is lower taxes, cut spending, kick the a$$ of America’s enemeies when warranted, and let the private sector do it’s thing. Anything beyond this is simply asking for trouble and larger government.
Now, can I sell you on that natural gas furnace?
In Newt's book To Renew America, Newt says:
"Government today works on the same 1920s Taylorite model that has long been superseded in business. What we need now, throughout the federal government, is the same sort of strategic downsizing and overhaul of basic assumptions, base on respect for individual achievement, that has benefited business so enormously in the past decade."
"The best tribute we can give Dr. Deming is to reestablish America as a country in which every citizen has an opportunity to contribute his or her share to the fullest of his or her abilities. That will be a renewal of American values and a true fulfillment of Deming's American Dream."
You pretty much boiled it down into a thimble. Santorum just does not have the brain power to know when to shut up as well as who to shut up to. It’s really that simple.
Newt on the other hand, not only knows how to smell an MSM trap, he causes them to become a victim OF thier own trap.
This is why Newt would smoke Obama like a cheap cigar.
Another autistic daydream. Romney will win in November and it will be up to us to hold his feet to the fire, like we didn't do with domestic liberal weasel Dubya Bush.
I don’t like Santorum as much as I don’t like Romney!
IMO, Romney is to blame for all of this. Without his smearing of his number one rival, Newt Gingrich, I don't think the other candidates would have stooped to his level of dirty campaign tactics and we could have had a primary of ideas and solutions we deserved.
I trust and hope that Newt Gingrich will stay in all the way to the convention and get as many delegates as he can.
1) Rick did not “get out” after SC, why should Newt.
2) Rick & Newt held a press conference where they agreed they would both campaign until the convention. Sorry, I don’t have a link.
3) Santorum participated in the spending spree running up until the well-deserved 2006 shellacking.
4) Santorum has never led anything, unlike Newt.
5) Santorum can’t debate like Newt, and isn’t as bright.
Basically, for not divorcing his 1st wife, being pro-life, being a Catholic/Christian, never being an exec, never leading, pushing Specter and not Toomey, Santorum should be the nominee.
I’ll support Santorum as the nominee if he gets there, but Newt for now.
They agreed together to stay in. I trust they grasp what’s going on better than us, assuming they are actually on our side, and want one of each other, and not Romney.
Yes, but social conservatives don’t like the idea of a small, non-intrusive Federal government. For that would allow people to live out their own lives, unfettered by the diktats of others.
And that’s what a social conservative *IS*, once you strip out all their protestations of G-dliness. Someone who derives their political existance from forcing others to do their bidding.
In that sense, they are *EXACTLY* the same as a modern ‘liberal’. AKA... statist.
In a certain sense, this is true. The Moral Majority is history, and so is Rick.
I think he was saying that if Newt wants a brokered convention, then Romney would have to be stopped before he gets to 1144.
As it stands, a brokered convention is unlikely. It is also extremely unlikely that Rick or Newt will win.
You will have to settle for a Mormon statist or a muslim communist.
You mean he will like that more than Newt’s vote to set up the Department of Education?
Or the fact Newt is a Rockefeller Republican and ran his campaign in the south??
“(Newt)...keeping Ricks vote totals under 50%, allowing Romney to pick up more delegates than he would otherwise in a two man race. This has been mathematically proven ad nauseum, but you Newt supporters refuse to look at the math.”
Maybe the Newt supporters think Santorum will fold up like a cheap suit to be Romney’s VP if Newt drops out.
That simply isn't a rational argument. Santorum has an 88% rating from the American Conservative Union while Romney's record is to the left of Bill Clinton.
It is this sort of thinking that has allowed the left-wing of the Republican party to choose the nominee.
Rick would get destroyed in an epic landslide defeat that would take our House majority down with it.
That notion isn't supported by the polls. Santorum has consistently only behind Obama by a few more percentage points than Romney and polls have showed him ahead of Obama in swing states.
Santorum is just not a serious general election option and pretty much the only folks that don't understand this are the same block of voters that cast ballots for silly presidential candidates like Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson.
Huckabee would have beaten Romney easily and would be doing far better against Obama than Romney is doing.
You're RINO side is showing. You either have a problem with Santorum's Christianity or with a candidate taking a strong stance on social issues.
You're living a fantasy world if you think that is going to happen. Romney detests conservatives and is backed by an establishment that wants to move the party to the left. He has repeatedly shown he has one guiding principle -- doing what is best for himself. That means doing what the polls tell him and bowing to media pressure in order to get more favorable media coverage.
He will leave the Republican party and conservative movement in worse shape than it was under Bush, all while pusing through leftist legislation, like replacing Obamacare with Romneycare and giving as a VAT tax in deal with Democrats to reduce the debt.
To call you naive is understatement.
Santorum took 13; Romney took 7 [Full numbers at top of this LINKED source page]
The remainder will be decided in a caucus:
....."Saturday 24 March 2012: 20 of Louisiana's 46 delegates to the Republican National Convention are allocated to presidential contenders in today's Louisiana Presidential Primary. [Caucus and Convention Rules, Adopted May 21, 2011, Rule No. 19. (d) and 20. (b)]
* 20 National Convention Delegates are allocated proportionally to those Presidential candidates receiving 25% or more of the statewide primary vote. Fractional delegates are rounded to the nearest whole number (rounding rules to handle too many or too few delegates are unknown).
* If no candidate receives 25% of the vote, the 20 delegates will attend the Republican National Convention officially unpledged to any candidate. These delegates will be elected at the State Convention where the participants at the State Convention will alone determine if presidential preference is to be a factor in such choice and, if so, how it is to be applied.
Saturday 28 April 2012: District Caucuses convene to choose delegates to the State Convention. The participants will alone determine if presidential preference is to be a factor in such choice and, if so, how it is to be applied.
Saturday 2 June 2012: The State Convention convenes at 10 am in Shreveport to elect delegates to the Republican National Convention.
* 18 National Convention district delegates-- 3 from each of the state's 6 Congressional Districts are elected in the Congressional District meetings. The participants at the State Convention alone determine if presidential preference is to be a factor in such choice and, if so, how it is to be applied. These delegates are official designated as uncommitted. [Rule No. 19. (c) and 20. (a)]
* 20 National Convention At-Large delegates are elected according to the results of the primary. [Rule No. 19. (d) and 20. (b)]
* 5 National Convention delegates are nominated by the Executive Committee. These delegates are official designated as uncommitted. [Rule No. 19. (e) and 20. (b)]
The 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Louisiana's Republican Party, will attend the convention as unpledged delegates by virtue of their position."