Posted on 03/02/2012 7:42:15 PM PST by Allon
UPDATED: COLUMBUS, Ohio — Even if Rick Santorum wins Ohio on Super Tuesday, he won’t be able to claim all of its delegates. In fact, he is at risk of forfeiting more than one-quarter of them. In three of the state’s 16 congressional districts, including two that are near Ohio’s border with Pennsylvania, Santorum will lose any delegates he might have won because his campaign failed to meet the state’s eligibility requirements months ago. Those three districts alone take 9 delegates out of a total of 66 off the table for Santorum. But it gets worse: Nine more Ohio delegates may also be in jeopardy. Sources say that in six other congressional districts — the third, fourth, eighth, tenth, twelfth and sixteenth — Santorum submitted fewer names than required to be eligible for all three delegates up-for-grabs in each district.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
That’s not the point dforest. This is a DELEGATES GAME. It doesn’t matter how well Rick does in Ohio, he won’t be able to optimize the delegates.
The best way to fail to optimize any delegates is to not get very many votes.
You shoild be thrilled Santorum may lose Ohio and Newt will win Ohio. Right? Oh wait....
Can we just be serious for a minute? Yes, I am a STRONG NEWT SUPPORTER and I think that we are going to see a very different delegates race over the next 2 weeks. For Rick’s supporters to not even know how the delegates game works is pretty frustrating.
HOWEVER, ultimately I will vote for Rick if he is the nominee, no pouting, no staying home in protest. I am NOT rooting for his loss, I am just rooting for Newt’s WIN because I believe he has the better chance to beat Obama.
If you are unable to get the majority of primary voters in your own party to vote for you, you have no chance at all to win against Obama.
It is a little hard to believe you are so much more smart and savvy on the allocation of delegates than anyone else this time, Apparently rules are changing and problems are coming up that weren’t reported earlier. *wink wink* Try this tip, you have to place somewhere in front of Ron Paul in most states to get any at all. And if you do, like in Florida, where the rule was that the delegates were to be proportional, then all at once they weren’t, somebody gets screwed.
In Iowa, Romney didnt win, yet people out there probably think he did. In Maine, that was a real sham, talk about incompetent, they couldn’t even tally the votes before declaring Mitt the winner. In Virginia, voters are denied any choices but Romney or Paul. No write ins allowed. Whatta country! Santorum was also denied in Indiana until it was fought and proven that he qualified.
The allocation of delegates this time depends on what benefits the candidate Romney. The GOP is an embarrassment.
In the end, I will vote for either one, Rick or Newt, its up to them to duke it out. But Romney will still get the nod.
DELEGATE RACE AS IT STANDS NOW:
Romney- 154, of those 36 are non-binding= 118 solid
Santorum- 69, of those 52 are non-binding= 17 solid
Gingrich- 33, of those 3 are non-binding= 30 solid
Paul- 26, of those 18 are non-binding= 8 solid
POPULAR VOTE TOTALS:
Romney- 1,749,677
Gingrich- 978,229
Santorum- 932,508
Paul- 463,176
All information found at Real Clear Politics
That’s too bad you won’t vote for him.
As Andrew Breitbart said so eloquently at CPAC, we need to get behind the nominee NO MATTER WHO it is. If we don’t, we are just like the occupy movement.
There are RULES. Santorum didn’t follow the rules. We are the party of rules and laws, yet you don’t want us to be this time? If Santorum can’t get this basic concept right how is he going to do as CIC?
There were no rule changes. just stupidity by Santorum.
At times, it's virtually unbelievable.
7 posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 10:14:17 PM by no dems: “This, plus not getting on the ballot at all in Virginia. Great organization you got there Ricky boy. If you get the nomination, your inept team will surely beat the Obama machine hands-down this November. How did we end up with such crappy candidates this Election cycle?”
15 posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 10:41:51 PM by Bailee: “Santorum not being able to Compete in Va is absolutely mind boggling that his birth place. Remember you have to win your home state. He is going to have to fight Newt hard for the PA delegates that is Newt birth place. Just Imagine if Newt had not qualified for GA. This is a Huge Issue for Santorum.”
First off, please stop the “Ricky boy” stuff. I don’t say things like that about Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.
Second, I actually agree with both of you on the problems with Santorum’s campaign and lack of organization.
However, does that mean you’re supporting Romney? Gingrich failed to get on the ballot in Virginia, and didn’t bother filing for the primary in my state of Missouri. Remember that Virginia is where Gingrich actually lives, and before dismissing Missouri’s primary as a “beauty contest” that selected no delegates, remember that’s also true of the Washington state caucuses being held today, and several other nonbinding races.
I’m not happy with the lack of organization in either the Gingrich or Santorum campaigns. I’ve said publicly and repeatedly that we, as conservatives, are in a position where we should not be. We have the best chance in years to strike a devastating blow against liberalism and we’re blowing it with screwups like this.
The problem is that the same complaints can be made against Gingrich. I don’t consider Ron Paul to be a serious candidate since even he doesn’t think he’ll be elected and is merely trying to get enough delegates to have a libertarian influence on the party, and Romney is the only one of the serious candidates who had enough organizational aptitude and money to get on the ballot in all the states and do what should be standard for all candidates.
So blast Santorum all you want. You’ve got a good point. The problem is the disorganization complaints apply to Gingrich as well — and also applied to Rick Perry and several other candidates who had ballot access problems.
Absolutely Agree on Virginia. However I was off the impression Newt would be able to compete for Missouri 52 delegates on March 17th. Is this not the case?
I recon when all is said and done OH is actually better than VA. At least Santorum get credit for those delegates in OH that he managed to seat. But in VA it is all or none.
However, so far, the “conventional wisdom” among the Missouri political people I deal with is that the race will be over by the time Missouri holds its caucuses so Missouri's caucus won't be relevant.
I am no longer convinced that is true.
I'm less concerned about Gingrich in Missouri than I am about Romney mounting an aggressive campaign to flip the vote toward him. Caucuses usually are dominated by party regulars, and that means Romney has a ready-made campaign organization while Santorum has little on-the-ground organization. Practical example — I can't even get a Santorum yard sign myself, and I've seen only one Santorum sign in my entire county! That's despite the fact that in my county the Republican leadership seems to be not just mostly but entirely for Santorum, and anyone backing Romney is staying quiet.
Elsewhere in Missouri things are very different and some of the places that would be expected to be social conservative hotbeds have local Republican leaders who are campaigning for Romney. That could result in a very different picture if the Missouri caucuses become important.
Rick’s just not ready for Prime Time.
-----
I agree with your sentiment - for the most part. It frustrates me no end to see Newt and Santorum supporters ripping into each other's candidates. They're BOTH good men and conservative stalwarts. I like Newt but could proudly vote for Santorum.
Where I have to part company is on Myth. He's vermin. Garbage. I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances and don't understand how anyone calling himself a conservative could do so either.
Hank
Actually, no. Santorum did not submit any paperwork to qualify in VA. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Newt and Perry's gathered signatures were deemed insufficient by the establishment.
Some clarifications here are appropriate.
First, the “Catholic vote” needs to be further defined. Does that mean regular Mass-going Catholics or people who identify themselves as Catholics merely because they were baptized as Catholics decades ago and might occasionally go to Mass on Christmas and Easter? Does “Catholic vote” include people such as John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy who are active church members but are in open and public disagreement with the church?
Using the term “Catholic vote” without some breakdown of what that means is about as useful as saying “Protestant vote” without clarifying that to indicate whether the “Protestant vote” means “active churchgoing Protestants” or “Protestant evangelicals.”
Second, Santorum had no choice but to interact with Kennedy's speech. What JFK said years ago was the major modern declaration by Roman Catholic liberals that they would not allow their personal faith to control their policy decisions. That speech is a key part of why modern Roman Catholic politicians feel free -- much like the Mormon Mitt Romney did as governor of Massachusetts -- to say that they're personally opposed to abortion but won't impose their religious preferences on people who are not members of their church. Santorum had no choice but to give his response to that speech, either by trying to defend it, trying to clarify it, or doing what he actually did of attacking the speech head-on. You may not like what Santorum said, but his comments are in line with what the Roman Catholic Church says about politicians denying in their policies what they profess to believe.
Third, all candidates make mistakes in their speeches. Vice President Joe Biden has a reputation for off-the-cuff comments that aren't terribly helpful to his campaign. Former President George W. Bush said such things too. Where Santorum is drawing fire is on different issues. It appears that Santorum is not getting in trouble for mis-speaks but rather for comments that he actually believes — and in many cases, things on which many or sometimes even most social conservatives agree with him.
You may say “Who cares if two college kids use a condom on Sat. night.” For a lot of us, unless those two college kids are married, we care a great deal. Rampant and rapidly increasing sexual promiscuity is not something social conservatives consider a minor issue. You may disagree, but please understand that for a lot of Republicans we definitely **DO** care about the breakdown of the family and sexual morality in America.
That issue of personal morality is a core part of why lots of evangelicals are unhappy with Newt Gingrich. I'm willing to vote for Gingrich if I have to do so though I don't believe he's the best candidate. I've worked hard in my own circles to present Gingrich as an acceptable candidate. I've circulated a letter by a San Diego pastor regarding Gingrich's personal faith which gives me a fair amount of reassurance that Gingrich in fact **HAS** repented of his past adultery. Unfortunately, a lot of conservatives don't buy it, and I'm deeply concerned that we're going to end up with Romney because many social conservatives can't stomach Gingrich's past immoral behavior and many economic conservatives can't stomach Santorum’s emphasis on personal morality.
Getting Romney as the Republican nominee is close to being the worst of all possible worlds.
I think some Newt supporters are really in the bag for Romney. We have not bashed Newt at all, but these Newt supporters are constantly non-stop bashing Santorum day and night. It really is irrational. Hopefully Super Tuesday will once and for all put Santorum officially ahead of this thing.
Thank you for your note.
I agree with you on Romney being very bad, but I personally prefer to use terms of attack which are specific, accurate, and are calculated to convince those who disagree.
That means I'd rather attack Romney's stances on abortion, health care, etc., than call him “Myth.” I think it's less effective to call someone a bad name than to attack what he believes.
That has personal application to me. I need to thank Free Republic for waking me up to just how bad Mitt Romney's positions on abortion really were as a candidate in Massachusetts. I am far from being a political novice, but before I saw the videos I really did **NOT** know how bad his comments had been.
It simply made no sense to me that a Mormon could be pro-choice and I assumed his positions in Massachusetts were something like Clinton's “safe, legal and rare” comments, which are bad enough, but what Romney said was far worse. There are still many, many conservatives who don't realize how bad Romney is and how dangerous it would be to have him appointing Supreme Court justices.
Rick’s just not ready for Prime Time.
Almost 1 million voters don’t agree with you thank God.
I agree that some of the bashing of Santorum is irrational. I also agree that some Romney supporters have been driven underground on Free Republic and are claiming to support another candidate merely to attack the candidate they think poses the greatest threat to Romney.
However, I think something else is at work as well.
I've tried to carefully read the criticisms of Santorum by Gingrich supporters. I am not an uncritical Santorum fan; I'm painfully aware of problems with his candidacy and I finally decided to support Santorum when it became clear he was the only social conservative left in the race. Some of what Gingrich's supporters are saying has merit.
There are people out there who sincerely believe Gingrich is a better candidate, and I respect that. Gingrich has a lot of good points, and when he pointed out Santorum’s “team player” comments versus his own background, Gingrich brought up a valid and legitimate difference between the two candidates. I could cite other examples as well of why somebody could support Gingrich.
That, however, is not where the venom is coming from.
I think a key part of the anger directed against Santorum is based on people reacting against Santorum’s advocacy of Christian moral values. Look at the “Saint Sanctimonium” comments. Is there **ANYONE** who has ever been able to show a shred of evidence that Santorum wants to ban birth control? Absolutely not. What Santorum does say is that birth control and legal abortion have enabled rampant sexual promiscuity, and there is simply no doubt about that. Go look at the articles in mainstream media on the role of the Pill in “liberating” women.
In the view of a fair number of people on Free Republic, pointing out Newt Gingrich's past sexual immorality is “bashing” Gingrich. That's irrational — most of us were happy to jump all over Clinton or Edwards for their sexual immorality, or even to circulate unverified rumors questioning the sexual preference of other prominent Democrats. I'm personally willing to listen to what the San Diego pastor backing Gingrich says about his personal repentance, but if we think that's not going to be an issue in the general election, we're kidding ourselves.
The only explanation I can find for some — definitely **NOT** all, but some — of the attacks on Santorum is that some people are offended by him because his comments are viewed as judgmental on the poster's personal lives.
Again, I know this doesn't apply to everyone out there bashing Santorum, but I do think it does apply to some.
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.