Newt’s got 1,827,245 votes compared to Rick’s 1,957,515. There isn’t much space between them, about a 5% difference.
Just counting total votes cast for candidates aren't a good marker in the primary any more than they are in the general. States choose to do things differently, sometimes a little bit so, sometimes a lot so. Their right to do so should be respected in accordance with the spirit of the electoral college and the Tenth Amendment and thus the Constitution itself. And history proves that is a good and essential thing! Just counting popular votes is not only not good, it is unamerican and was loathed by the Framers. Just counting the popular vote is a dream of the left designed to give their mob control over our individuals. All the while touting their self proclaimed 'moral' high ground in what modern libs would call Peace Square. The Framers remembered that square well, only in another language, as "Place de la Concorde." Where the guillotine sat. Where folks like the Framers, and the Freepers, would surely end up if folks like Obama ever gained total power.
So don't add apples ('votes' in states with primaries) with oranges ('votes' in states with caucuses) and claim that their total means anything. Remember that those who stayed home on primary or caucus day also 'voted,' but weren't counted. They passively voted to accept the choices of their neighbors and if there aren't a lot of similar 'passive votes' cast in November history says we're in trouble. So long as we're free country you retain the right to proclaim apples or oranges are superior and others retain the right to disagree. But you dang well better endorse the rights of other states to do things differently than yours, within fairly broad parameters, or we'll lose this Republic.