Virginia was a different story. Like Perry, Newt submitted more than enough signatures, a larger than expected number deemed invalid by the party. Santorum didn't even bother.
In TN? Newt had a slate of delates on the ballot. While Santorum won the state, he had NO delegates on the ballot. He has to depend upon the party to give him some.
Is Newt losing delegates he earned through votes cast because of the campaign's paperwork failure as happened in Ohio with Santorum, as may happen in Michigan and elsewhere?
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil... sainted Santorum can do no wrong. /s
Exactly, and when a Santorum robot loses the debate, they start throwing tou are evil and follow satan crap...
Your usual your hand-waving crap.
The real difference here is Sheldon Adelson's money, without which Newt wouldn't even be in this race any more. Money pays for organization, which puts the people in upcoming states to get the ballot qualification work done. The "failings" you attribute to Santorum's lack of viability had to do with lack of a paid organization. He had to make touch choices to work within limited means and made more victories out of it, by far, than Newt has realized. By contrast, there is no lack in Newt's history of pandering after issues fashionable among campaign donors, not to mention following their ephemeral changes in direction.
Newt's failing in Virginia was lack of organization as well, as competent campaign organization would have assured ballot qualification. You know very well he was deserted by his own hirelings early in the campaign. That is either lack of discernment in hiring lack of leadership reflecting Newt's well known propensity to PO the people who work with him. Take your pick.