There is one logical fallacy in the article. If Santorum had the votes that went to Newt, he would not simply have the delegates Newt has won added to his own. He could have won more and likely would have. Of course, this could be argued the other direction as well.
I am not calling for Newt to drop out. That might be a mistake on my part, but I suspect his support will begin to fade. Forcing him out will only alienate more of his supporters. As wacky as things have been, do we want to drop to just one conservative?
There is no good reason for Newt to drop out now, it would only benefit the Massachusetts Moderate, leaving Mitt a clear field to take Santorum out (you will see negative attacks on Rick come out of the woodwork — and cries that he must quit like Newt “did”). And then there would only be Mitt, insufferable, pompous, unqualified Mitt Romney — the guy who’s Massachusetts environmental team and health care team are working and shaping federal policy for Barack Obama.
I believe that in both Mississippi and Alabama any candidate that received more than 50% of the vote would have gotten ALL of the delegates. With no one getting 50% the distribution was proportional.
If Newt had not been in the race, Santorum would have easily have won more than the required 50% and received all of the delegates.....and Romney and Paul would have received none. That would have made him the overall delegate winner for the evening.
I think that all of the states which are required to award on a proportional basis by the RNC have a similar setup.