Gotta catch these two:
Posted on 02/16/2012 3:23:16 PM PST by katiedidit1
GINGRICH: No. It just means that we're going to have to pick up all those delegates in late May, just before the California primary, when we hope to pick up more delegates out here.
That still means that on super-Tuesday, we're looking at Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, we're looking at Ohio. It means the week after super- Tuesday, we're looking at Alabama and Mississippi.
Now, we have hopes that we're going to keep picking up delegates everywhere and continue. This race is going on for a long time, I think. And what Texas moving back means, combined with California being in early June, the two biggest states in the country aren't going to be deciding and may well be the two states that decide who the nominee is.
VAN SUSTEREN: As a practical matter, though, if you could pick up Texas early on, it would be -- it certainly would be a -- you know, good for donors. I mean, it'd be sort of a good incentive to get donors to pay into your campaign if you picked up 155 delegates
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/02/16/another-newt-gingrich-comeback-horizon#ixzz1maau05x4
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If they were “chicken”, the other candidates would cancel all of the debates.
This is Romney and Santorum trying to see to it that Newt gets less than a tidal wave boost in home-state Georgia. They’d very much like Newt to drop out.
And this is Ron Paul jumping on the bandwagon for whatever reasons Ron Paul might have (who knows, who cares).
No one owes anyone else a boost. If it works for some candidates to drop out of this debate, it does. If it doesn’t work out, it doesn’t. Since some debates are still on, it will probably be difficult to make the “chicken” label stick.
They aren’t asking the sorts of questions I’d like to see asked in the debates anyway, so I don’t care if they cancel them or not at this point. I suspect that many people are of the same opinion.
They should have done a series of debates with targeted subjects. One on energy policy; one on the Second Amendment; one on housing; one on foreign policy; one on trade policies; one on health care; one on economic policy; one on the debt; etc.
Instead, they have idiots asking questions no one wants the answers to, and they studiously avoid discussing the sorts of things that people actually want to hear.
JJ, that is a terrific idea. Can you imagine Colmes? He would be stuttering all over the place. Hannity was able to always shut him up, imagine what Newt would do. He would wet himself. Add Juan to the mix and let Newt do a “Newt vs. The Three Stooges”. Pay Per View - $10 - look at what the campaign could get from that. How many millions would watch to see these three goofs slammed.
Great idea! You know what would guarantee a HUGE audience?
Newt vs. Hillary
Would Cain play second fiddle?
Got to admit he did not hugely impress me - West would be far better.
Mitt’s actually as liberal on economics as any other issue, and those are the ones he’s flip-flopped the least on.
* Socialized medicine under Romneycare, his staff went on to help design Obamacare
* Taxpayer-funded abortion through Planned Parenthood
* Raised taxes/fees to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in Massachusetts
* Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 in job creation under his tenure as governor
* Wants taxes to be higher on people making $200,000 or more; even Obama only wants them higher on $250,000 or more
* The Wall Street Journal says his tax plan is “timid” and similar to Obama’s
* Said the poor are doing just fine by being stuck in the safety net and he isn’t concerned with them
* Refused to speak out in favor of John Kasich’s efforts in Ohio to curb union abuses
* Believes the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, a classic bleeding heart liberal job-killing policy
* Believes in the class warfare mantra that creates policies to help some classes but not others
Gotta catch these two:
CA is entirely winner-take-all. It’s like SC was, WTA by district. So if the vote splits up like FL, where one set of districts went Newt and one went Mitt, the delegates could still be split up between the candidates. I think Mitt only got 2 districts out of SC.
They were chicken. Georgia is Newt’s home turf. Rumor already has it Romney has bought up the seats in the Feb. 22nd debate to pack with his supporters. In Georgia, he wouldn’t be able to scrape up enough supporters to pull that off, but in a liberal blue state like Oregon he wouldn’t have any problems.
How about Newt vs. Alan Grayson? That’d be a scorcher. Of course that could end up driving Newt really off message, LOL.
Rachel Mancow could substitute for Hilary.
No, CA is truly WTA for the entire bloc of delegates. Always has been, both parties.
And it's a closed primary. Only registered Republicans can vote in the GOP primary.
Newt is always great to read and listen to. HE KNOWS what to do. It’s not just rhetoric.
The GA GOP response to the canceled debate:
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-minneapolis/newt-vs-the-three-wimps
WHOOPS! Wrong link:
My mistake is actually a great article about it.
Nope, that changed in 2008 to the way I described. There may be a portion that go to the statewide winner, but most are by district:
Here is a list summarizing what each state does:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html
How the heck will any of the 4 get to 1,144?
If they all stay in, with proportional allocation being dominant, they could all walk in the door with 400+.
There'll be fistfights in hallways!
What grand spectacle that would be.
If Newt gets on the stick, he should be able to take those districts from Romney and then some. Newt is, after all, the condidate most intimately connected with the Reagan legacy.
Oh No!! I could not watch Grayson. He is intolerable. Better stick to idiots we can just laugh at. He is insane.
Another thing, if Newt debates a liberal, he could have Frank Luntz put together a balanced panel of swing voters to ask the questions.
As I understand it, CA will award pledged delegates by districts. They have 53 districts with 3 delegates for each district. (And 10 at-large for the state.) (Plus 3 unpledged delegates who are party leaders.)
So the delegates are only “winner-take-all” by district. Hypothetically, if Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, and Paul each won at least 10 districts, then they’d be awarded at least 30 delegates each.
CA does not award all 169 of its pledged delegates to one winner, unless that candidate won all 53 districts. At least that’s my understanding.
As I understand it, CA will award pledged delegates by districts. They have 53 districts with 3 delegates for each district. (And 10 at-large for the state.) (Plus 3 unpledged delegates who are party leaders.)
So the delegates are only “winner-take-all” by district. Hypothetically, if Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, and Paul each won at least 10 districts, then they’d be awarded at least 30 delegates each.
CA does not award all 169 of its pledged delegates to one winner, unless that candidate won all 53 districts. At least that’s my understanding.
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.