The American Spectator : Why Newt's Narrative Is False

Text Size

Why Newt’s Narrative Is False

By Quin Hillyer on 3.15.12 @ 6:10AM

If Newt Gingrich wants to prevent Romney from racking up delegates, he should exit the race now.

Newt Gingrich seems to be making decent sense, in terms of apparent logic, in saying that by staying in the race he can help rack up enough delegates to keep Mitt Romney from winning on the first ballot at the GOP national convention. Sometimes, though, that which seems to make sense does not actually work in practice. Nomination arithmetic is different from normal arithmetic. And no, I am not talking about how he alters the “impressions game” by splitting the conservative vote and thus either handing pluralities to Romney or narrowing the margins of victory for Santorum. That is a very good argument, but that’s not at issue here. What I’m talking about here is exactly the sort of “delegate math” to which Gingrich claims to be appealing.

Here’s how it works: By staying in the race, Gingrich actually helps the second-place candidate in many states (which we will assume will be Romney, for purposes of illustration) gain more delegates, even with a lower total percentage of the vote. This is counterintuitive, but it is 100%, incontrovertibly accurate. Why?

Because a number of states award a huge bloc of delegates “at-large” statewide according to the proportion of the vote each candidate wins statewide — except in a case where one candidate wins an absolute majority of the statewide vote. In that case, the candidate would be awarded every single one of the at-large delegates in a “winner-take-all” system rather than proportionally.

Consider the rules in Alabama on Tuesday, which are similar to those in a number of other states (with my emphases bolded):

All delegates from the State at Large shall be awarded to a presidential candidate
who receives a majority of the votes in the Republican presidential preference primary election in the state. If no presidential candidate receives a majority of the votes in the state, then the allocation shall be as follows: Based on the relationship that the number of votes received by each presidential candidate bears to the total number of votes cast for candidates receiving at least 20 percent of the vote cast in the Republican presidential primary election in the entire State, the Steering Committee of the Alabama Republican Executive Committee shall apportion pro rata the number of delegates from the State at Large.

If there are only two major candidates (or, in this case, even with Ron Paul pulling something like a minor 5% of the vote), then the likelihood is very high that the “winning” candidate will actually earn a majority, rather than a mere plurality, of the statewide vote. So if Gingrich were not in the race, then the winner (in this case Santorum) would win not 35-30 (or whatever the final numbers were), but, say, 50.5 to 45.5. (And that is assuming that the Gingrich vote would split precisely evenly. Nobody, of course, makes such an assumption in real life; the more likely outcome, backed by several polls (one had it at 57-27), is that Santorum would earn two “Gingrich” voters for every one “Gingrich voter” that goes to Romney.

So how would this have played out in Alabama? Well, with Gingrich in the race, Santorum looks like he will win 10 of the at-large delegates, with Gingrich and Romney each winning eight. Romney would get those eight delegates for earning about 29% or 30% of the vote. But if Gingrich were not in the race and Santorum won the state over Romney 51-42-7 (a very reasonable assumption, actually rather generous to Romney, with Santorum getting 16 of Gingrich’s 30 percent, Romney getting 12 of it, and Paul getting a two percent boost), then Santorum would get all 26 at-large delegates and Romney would get zero.

Yes, read that again: Romney’s percentage of the vote would go from 30 to 42, but his delegate count would drop from 8 to zero. (And Santorum would move up from 10 delegates to 26, at-large.)

The simple arithmetic is that the way to deny Romney a first-ballot win is not to concentrate on how many delegates other people win; the way to deny him is to keep Romney himself from winning more delegates. What matters in this game is Romney’s delegate count in relation to the target majority of 1,144. The only way to slow him down is to give a conservative challenger a chance not just to win more proportional delegates, but to win more via “winner-take-all” rules which deny any new delegates at all to Romney.

(Granted, the risk is that if Romney comes out ahead in a certain state, this math would work in reverse, in his favor — but since he’s already ahead anyway, the only way to stop him is to at least have the chance to make up the gap in larger chunks.)

In short, for all those states with rules like Alabama’s, a Gingrich candidacy enables Romney to move inexorably closer to a first-ballot nomination victory. Only a Gingrich withdrawal can stop that march.

Now this is not to say whether Romney ought to be stopped or not. This is just to say that if Gingrich’s goal is stopping Romney, Gingrich’s continuation in the race is directly counterproductive.

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (139) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

spike59| 3.15.12 @ 6:32AM

Newtie KNOWS that the only chance he has (albeit a reed-thin one) to become the nominee is to entirely destroy his primary opponents and, in doing so, hand over enough 'talking points' to the Dems that NO GOP candidate stands a chance; for Newtie, it's not about beating Obama. It's all about Newtie, and feeding his ginormous ego, and always has been. He'd rather the GOP lose with him as the nomineee than win with anyone else

Jack in Wi.| 3.15.12 @ 6:50AM

Romney is the 4th Bush Term. Newt and Santorum are the candidates who are there to distract the primary voters from any real changes. I defy anyone here to tell me how any of these guys will change anything for the better. Of the 3 bad apples Romney has the fewest worms.

WRTolkas| 3.15.12 @ 7:58AM

Dear Jack,

Very good summation Jack.

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 8:14AM

Agreed Jack.

The Stupid Party Attempts To Head Over The Cliff, Once Again.

Dick Nome| 3.15.12 @ 8:55AM

You mean the Paulistinian Party???

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 9:04AM

You Mean BibiBots Again & Their John McCain Redux.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Dick Nome| 3.15.12 @ 2:13PM

Clint, try something new other than the cut and paste from the Rothbard School for Paulestinian Studies textbook.

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 8:03PM

Apparently, It Upsets The Livin' Hell Outta You, Israel Firster Smear Bund BibiBot, Little Dickie.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Nick099| 3.15.12 @ 5:44PM

Dear Jack....you are so right.

wodiej| 3.16.12 @ 4:52AM

Romney is a liberal. That makes him the biggest worm of the bunch. He thinks the economy is recovering too-this from someone who claims to be a good businessman.

kate| 3.17.12 @ 5:42PM

Hi democrat poster! How are ya?

kate| 3.17.12 @ 5:33PM

Romney was governor of our most liberal state. If you look at his personal life, he is much more conservative than Gingrich. I think the far right has fallen for the "Mitt is a liberal" tactics of the left.
The man is highly intelligent (grades available for all to peruse, unlike you-know-who) , a brilliant business man, and a good man. Made a few mistakes, but think of the alternative of 4 more years!!
Bet he has better work ethics and morals than to party, campaign and golf during crisis!

kate| 3.17.12 @ 5:40PM

I have a friend who is part of the dem machine in colorado. ( needless to say, we have a no -politics rule, or we wouldn't be friends), but she did let the cat out of the bag a couple of years ago about "meetings" i.e. operative meetings that were exclusive and were held 3 years ago to plan for this election.
Would not be surprised AT ALL if that didn't have something to do with some of this Santorum, Ron Paul crap.
She told me she had posted as a "conservative".
Get smart people. They are ruthless!

Drek| 3.15.12 @ 11:45AM

Romney tried to destroy his opponents four years back, which was why every single one of the other candidates despised him.

Huckabee stayed in the race just to make sure McCain won and not Romney.

When Gingrich reminded people of that this go 'round, Huckabee got all bothered about it. But it was a fact, Huckabee attacked Romney's character four years back by questioning the man's honesty.

Romney has ONLY gained by attacking his opponents.

Romney has NO conservative accomplishment to boast of.

None.

You say Newt has an ego?

Yea, and isn't that exactly the kind of ego we need to take on the establishment?

Have you any idea the scale of the overhaul this country needs? Any idea of the forces arrayed against any real conservative trying to reform the federal government?

You think some Nancy boy is going to get this done?

We need a Patton!

We need a Sherman to lay waste the federal bureaucracy?

Vern Crisler| 3.15.12 @ 12:10PM

Well said. It's really Romney, Santorum, and Paul who need to bow out of this race.

Nick099| 3.15.12 @ 5:42PM

That is the Romney strategy. Try not to get confused eh? I know it is difficult to understand. But with the deluge of negative ads he has unleashed, Romney has actually poisoned the well for the others. But that is Romney....a bimbob----with nothing more deep than nice hair, a good tan, and a plastic personality.

JSMITH| 3.18.12 @ 7:30PM

ROMNEY STANDS FOR NOTHING-HE IS A SECOND GENERATION LIBERAL RHINO-HIS DADDY WAS AGAINST THE GREAT RONALD REAGAN-HE WILL LOSE AGAINST HUSSEIN OBAMA, THE THE RHINOS HAVE JABA THE HUT CHRISTIE AND ZERO PERSONALITY DANIELS LINED UP AS THE NEXT 2016 LOSERS, AMERICAN PATRIOTS NEED TO SUPPORT A THIRD PARTY, LETS GO AGAINST HUSSEIN OBAMA AND ROMNEY-PAUL

martin j smith| 3.15.12 @ 6:41AM

I totally disagree with the notion that anyone exit the race. I think New say what he will may be basically out to make life harder for Romney and if he does I am all for it. Go Newt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS: There is a Drudge article about Romney and Paul making a deal. If so--Go Newt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 10:06AM

Do Your Homework.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....U2AvSwzuok

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To a Brokered Convention.

rightasrain| 3.15.12 @ 7:29AM

Newt wants to hurt Romney not help Santorum. If Newt drops out there will be no "conversation" at the convention which leads to his nomination. As an aside, I note a FN poll which shows Romney still leading Santorum 43-38% even if Newt dropped out.

Drek| 3.15.12 @ 11:41AM

What's wrong with "hurting" Romney?

When Gingrich was the clear frontrunner, did Romney hesitate to run massive and unrelenting attack ads against him, distorting his record, smearing his character and misrepresenting his words and policy proposals?

Whenever has Romney hesitated to "hurt" his fellow candidates all to advance his own morbid grail quest?

Romney needs to be stopped.

There is NOTHING in Romney's record that indicates that he is the man to turn this country, this federal government and this economy around.

He has NO conservative accomplishment to boast of!

NONE!

When asked about it, ------------ he mentions his family!

It's just nuts!

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 12:10PM

I am all for hurting Romney's quest. Its a mistake.

rightasrain| 3.15.12 @ 2:07PM

If you read more carefully you would see that I was answering Quin's question about why Newt is staying in the race--he doesn't want to help Santorum and wants to hurt Romney. No judgment--mere observation.

JediJones| 3.15.12 @ 4:16PM

Overall polls don't matter now that so many states have voted. We're writing off some states like Utah so we only care about state-by-state polling at this point.

Tommy Frisco| 3.15.12 @ 8:15AM

Be patient, Quin. The mission you and your colleagues have had here at AS to eliminate the one GOP candidate who is most willing and capable of turning this country around is almost complete. I hope you end up in the soup lines with the rest of us.

Drek| 3.15.12 @ 11:37AM

EXACTLY!

There are two people this country absolutely needs, Sarah Palin and Gingrich, both have serious records of real reform, both understand just how much the federal government needs to be overhauled.

And isn't it amazing that those two people are the ones we keep hearing have all this 'baggage." Those are the two that the media, the Dems and our own establishment despise the most.

It's like a kid who can't take the taste of the medicine that he desperately needs to stay alive, and fights like hell not to have to taste it.

Our country is running fiscal and monetary risks like no country has in history.

It's almost as if our own establishment were quietly participating in the destruction of the country!

Yet instead of our deficit flipping them out, instead of Obama's appointments and policies flipping them out, --------------------- what flips them out is Palin and Gingrich!

Talk about disordered priorities!

Tommy Frisco| 3.15.12 @ 2:10PM

Mega dittos, Drek. The MSM and the GOP establishment have told us who they fear the most.

Instead of reform, our "conservative" pundits and talk show hosts are promoting a RINO or the GOP team-player. And, if either one of those guys become POTUS, these same pundits will be crying and complaining about the Government getting bigger, more intrusive, and the debt keeps growing.

Nominate the only guy, in our lifetime, who had the gonads to balance the budget?....too much baggage! Go with who Thomas Sowell and Michael Reagan endorsed?...What do they know about conservatism?

Al Adab| 3.15.12 @ 5:30PM

Tommy:
The argument can also be made that it is Romney who should drop out. The votes against him surpass the votes for him. He gains delegates (which is only the first inning if you will) through pluralitiesand while he is strong in states the GOP will not carry in November (see the election math thread) what is needed is overpowering strength in those four that will decide the election. Romney fails in that regard. Does anyone really think that MA or NJ will go republican in November?

Margaret| 3.15.12 @ 11:55PM

Drek, my thinking entirely....
Gingrich has the best record of anyone in the race and he is out there attacking Obama and making the case for conservatism. He knows the best how to fight democrats word for word.
If Gingrich bails, Santorum will never last against Romney. That means either 4 more years of Obama or 4 years of Obama lite.
…..a brokered convention is nothing to fear, unless you're Romney.

Vern Crisler| 3.15.12 @ 12:11PM

Dittos.

Bill| 3.15.12 @ 8:19AM

The Southern Brawl:
1. Romney 2. Gingrich 3. Santorum
So far, 356 delegates from the South have been allocated to top 3 contenders. Romney leads with 160 delegates, followed by Gingrich with 116 delegates, and lastly Santorum trails both contenders with just 80 delegates. Even though Santorum won 4 southern states but he is far behind than Romney and Gingrich.
It ain't over yet in the South.
We have to see what happen in the upcoming contests in LA, AR, KY, and TX.
Asking Gingrich to drop out from the GOP race is premature. Gingrich is not a front-runner, but he is the "wild-card", considering Sarah Palin voted Gingrich in AK.

Pete| 3.15.12 @ 12:08PM

160 out of 356 is not 50 percent, so Romney is not reaching the necessary 1144 delegates at that pace. Same with Michigan and Ohio and the rest of the Midwest.

Bill| 3.15.12 @ 12:36PM

Romney is on course.

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 2:48PM

He is way off course.

JediJones| 3.15.12 @ 4:15PM

Romney has 1250-1350 delegates in the bag at the current trajectory if upcoming states in similar regions play out as they have since February. Only a shake-up like a one-on-one race could stop him by taking advantage of winner-take-all states. Newt is going to "Perot" the nomination for Romney at the current rate, just as the polls show he's doing in Illinois. Most upcoming delegates are awarded winner-take-all, not proportionally.

Al Adab| 3.15.12 @ 5:32PM

How many of those delegates are from states like CA, (yet to be chosen) which the GOP will not win in November? Should such delegates actually be selecting the nominee?

Mark Twain| 3.16.12 @ 6:16PM

You numbers are misleading. First of all they count all the delegates for Florida and Arizona. Romney will lose at least 50 of these votes when the appeal by Newt is finally ruled on (The GOP chairman already has said Newt is right). Now the projects more than double the current total so that means you must subtract about 130 votes from that total and Romney falls short.

Also the Romney trajectory is falling as time goes on. Newt is correct, Romney is proving to be a weak front runner.

Also Gallup just reported that Newt is also correct in his strategy to stay in the race. Half of those favoring Newt would go to Romney. Its the Romney people who want Newt to drop out of the race.

Marco2| 3.17.12 @ 10:27AM

Funny stuff. In which of the winnner-take-all states do you think one of the boob twins could win a majority?

Pete| 3.17.12 @ 11:20AM

You mean Romney and Paul?

Nick| 3.15.12 @ 4:44PM

"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill the Bigot, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403

You're a moron and a racist, Bigot Bill.
GO AWAY!

Bill| 3.15.12 @ 7:30PM

Nick "Child Molester" is back. Watch Out!

Nick| 3.15.12 @ 10:59PM

I never leave, Bill the Lying Bigot.

Mark Twain| 3.16.12 @ 6:18PM

Nick, by continuing this, you are persisting in infecting this site with the N word. Stop it, less you get accused of the same bigotry to go with your stalking.

Nite| 3.15.12 @ 7:29PM

You are correct. Santorum is not on the ballot in every state. If Newt were out, then it would give it to Romney. Romney will not play well in the rest of states especially in TX, where Perry will campaign for Newt. It is MUCH to soon for Newt to bow out. He needs to go at least to the convention in Tampa, where it might be brokered. Conservatives do not like Romney and if he is the nominee, might stay at home. The GOP establishment screwed the pooch on this one by pushing Romney.

Bill| 3.15.12 @ 7:31PM

Agreed.

RCV| 3.18.12 @ 10:48PM

The most recent polls say you are correct that Gingrich pulling out would not stop Romney: apparently abou half of Gingrich supporters would prefer Romney over Santorum. But there's little basis for your claim that "Romney won't play well in the rest of the states.". That's probably true in Yexas, but in the other big states coming up -- Illinois, California, New York -- Romney will poll well. He has more than 50% of the delegates chosen so far, and will likely do at least as well from here on out. Hard to see how the math works otherwise barring some unexpected major change.

Casey Abell| 3.15.12 @ 8:35AM

Gee, Quin wants Santorum to win. Who woulda thunk it? BUt what is this nonsense...

"Now this is not to say whether Romney ought to be stopped or not."

Yeah, right, Quin. Like we don't know who you want to win. Sorry to break the news, but it's not a secret that you're as deep in the tank for Santorum as anybody can get into any tank.

Grant | 3.15.12 @ 8:49AM

Tommy Frisco....Right on!

Scorpio51| 3.15.12 @ 9:32AM

Romney should be disqualified from running for President 1)RomneyCare. He was the author and pray tell me how does he argue that against Obama? Obama copies RomneyCare and the majority of the people DON'T want this. 2) Romney is a Democrat. He will govern as a Democrat. He doesn't like conservatives and we don't like him.

Newt isn't getting out of the race. Stranger things have happened. I think when people finally put things together they will realize what Newt is doing and rally around him.

Newt isn't on an ego trip as some like to say. Newt cares about this country and cleaning out Washington. He's the only candidate that can do this.

I am putting this article here to show people that media actually know that Newt is the candidate to be President. http://townhall.com/columnists.....ators_oped

Kenny| 3.15.12 @ 10:15AM

Newt is intoxicated with hearing his own voice.

Pres. Romney should send Newt to the United Nations where his 'ideas' might, if not be accepted, then at least be used to torture the Third World kleptos that infest the place.

Drek| 3.15.12 @ 11:31AM

There is nothing but substance behind Gingrich's words, sentiments and ideas.

And Romney isn't going to select real conservatives for his executive branch. They might get Barbara Bush nervous about the tone his administration would be striking.

JediJones| 3.15.12 @ 4:13PM

Remember, Bush kicked out all of Reagan's people when he took office. The establishment is what it is.

Al Adab| 3.15.12 @ 5:36PM

Good point Jedi:
It can be said that the problems with the Bush (43) administration was the Ford administration ie Rumsfeld, Cheney and so on, both of whom worked for and backed Ford against Reagan in '76.

Same issue with Romney. After all it was his father George who, in collusion with Rockefeller, activly opposed the emergent Conservative Movement and its candidate in '64. Elephants have long memories for a reason.

Mark Twain| 3.16.12 @ 6:19PM

And Kenny is intoxicated with writing his opinions, so what?

Bill| 3.15.12 @ 10:16AM

Romney is the inevitable nominee, considering his lead in the delegate math. Santorum is lagging behind, with poor showing many swing states like MI, OH, FL, while surging in the south. Gingrich is a "one man army" show. Ron Paul is "politically" done.

Drek| 3.15.12 @ 11:33AM

Not yet.

Romney too will have difficulty winning the nomination outright.

Which means he'd go limping into the convention without any tailwind behind him.

By dragging this out we're making it crystal clear just how weak a "frontrunner" and candidate he is. That's crucial, because every day this drags out we're also making crystal clear just how politically brain dead our GOP establishment.

Romney is making the case against Romney, and he does it every day this race drags on.

Pete| 3.15.12 @ 12:05PM

The delegate math? First of all the totals are wrong. They give Romney all the Florida and Arizona delgates. Based on GOP rules they must be pro-rated. So the first math step is to deduct 50 delegates from Romney and give them to Newt, Paul and Santorum.
Next you must look at the count needed to in the nomination out-right. 1144. That means Romney MUST get on the average 50 percent of the delegates from every state. Tuesday he averaged 40 percent. So the math says that as long as he is not getting a majority of the votes, he is losing ground.

So the Math says Romney is heading to a brokered convention. That is why the GOP is clamoring to get Newt to drop out. It is better for Romney.

Bill| 3.15.12 @ 12:41PM

Santorum won AL & MS. Big deal! Considering the delegate math:
AL: Santorum: 18 Gingrich: 12 Romney: 11
MS: Santorum: 13 Gingrich: 12 Romney: 12
Gingrich must remain in the race for the sake of America. He is authentic and has "bold" solutions.

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 2:50PM

Are there two separate Bill's?

Bill| 3.15.12 @ 5:34PM

I'm the "legendary" Bill from FL.

JediJones| 3.15.12 @ 4:11PM

You haven't studied the upcoming states, Pete. Most are some form of winner-take-all, like Florida. And they are legally that way because they're after the RNC's deadline for that. Most are guaranteed Romney wins like Utah and Delaware. If Romney can sock away even 40% in his worst possible territory and keeps doing so in the upcoming proportional states, he'll get many more delegates there. The key is the winner-take-all by district states. Those are the "swing" states and currently Newt and Rick are splitting the vote in ones like Illinois and handing Romney a win. It's the Ross Perot factor and it will let Romney win this race by June.

SCPOret| 3.15.12 @ 10:46PM

You're right - Romney is the nominee because the fix is in. It was determined long ago that Romney would run and that Obama would win. Other wise why did George H.W. and Jeb go to meet Obama at the White house.

RCV| 3.18.12 @ 10:50PM

Huh?

Neal Martinelli | 3.15.12 @ 10:28AM

Newt is a total mess. F that guy.

Drek| 3.15.12 @ 11:29AM

Oh yea, the guy that gained a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years is a "total mess."

The guy that has written God only knows how many NYT Best sellers, ----- just a "total mess."

Santorum on the other hand wrote an idiotic book about his favourite topic, "the family," which the homos out there went ballistic about and used to destory his chances in Pennsylvania in 2006.

OLDRAY| 3.15.12 @ 10:37AM

WOW.. Like a deranged dog chewing away at your leg Hillyer extends every effort to pull down Newt ,the only candidate who could (possibly) return this country to a dynamic successful track. The GOP professionals and pundits are leading the Republic over the cliff.

Mike Rogers | 3.15.12 @ 11:04AM

Time for alliances instead of tearing each other down.
Ron Paul has been helping Romney tear down the other two, and now Newt has joined in tearing down Santorum. Not good. If Newt allied with Santorum, they'd keep each other honest, and trounce Romney.

john dubose| 3.16.12 @ 3:16AM

Ron Paul is on a quest. It has nothing to do with the other candidates. He will not quit even after Romney has the delegates in the bag. He will make speeches as long as he has breath. Many of his supporters will walk away after the convention. That is just who he is.

Drek| 3.15.12 @ 11:26AM

What part of the drama in Michigan and Ohio did you miss?

Santorum wanted a one v. one?

He got it.

He got two of 'em.

And he lost both!

BOTH!

There hasn't yet been a state that Romney absolutely insisted upon having, and devoted whatever resources were necessary to accomplish his goal, ----------- and been defeated.

Not by Santorum.

The only state where Romney went flat out to win and lost was South Carolina, which was taken by Gingrich. Romney sought to knock out Gingrich on the heels of his negative and massive onslaught against him following Iowa.

So stop deluding yourself that if Gingrich were to leave Santorum would automatically prevail. The fear campaign that was ginned up against Gingrich would be ginned up against Santorum, and as it worked against Gingrich, so too it would work against Santorum.

The exact same people who were furious at the prospect of Gingrich, because they're devoted to the status quo, will be the exact same people burying cold steel into Santorum's political corpse.

What we need to do is stop Romney gaining the delegates necessary to win outright.

ONCE that occurs, rather, ONCE THAT REALITY is clear, which will be before even the primary season concludes, then we need to have that "conversation" Gingrich spoke of.

JediJones| 3.15.12 @ 3:44PM

I donated money to Newt alone of the candidates and desperately want to defeat Romney. You are wrong and are helping Romney. Rick didn't get a one-on-one, Newt got enough votes to make Mitt the winner in those states. And when this happens in Illinois and MANY other big upcoming states that are winner-take-all by district, we will hand Mitt more delegates he could be denied only if we consolidate our votes under one conservative. Newt is wrong about the math, just as he was wrong to suggest that he had any chance at getting Ron Paul's delegates. He is probably being advised by people who just want to keep their high-paid consulting jobs a couple months longer.

LMajito| 3.15.12 @ 11:27AM

Is something inherently wrong here...the GOP already setup the scene two years ago so their hand picked candidate would win...that is Mitt...that's why we were buried in debates earlier and now no debates whatsoever...

Remember watching an F1 race where a couple of accidents reduced to field to 7...even the guy who won had his victory tarnished and every time the issue of he winning the grand prix, it was always followed by 'but the biggest stars were not in the race'...

what good is victory when you purchased it? and that's what i have seen...mitts dough has been buying contest after contest...

think that obama and his minions need lame republicans petty attacks to defeat mitt? that's why they want mitt...they got him by his cojones...wait until real attacks surface.

at least newt keeps it interesting. too bad other candidates are not in the mix...

only folks afraid of competition want theirs to drop. a true warrior wants big battle so at the end when he stands over the victory hill he knows that the battle was won...

don't need another wimp limping around hoping to stumble into victory lane...

Pete| 3.15.12 @ 12:01PM

Romney, the coward has already begged out of the Portland debate.

Rick| 3.15.12 @ 11:28AM

Quin Hilyer. The Sandra Fluke of conservative punditry.

Drek| 3.15.12 @ 11:48AM

Actually, Quin has made some progress.

Just the other day he saw the light about Jennifer Rubin!

Sooner or later he's going to realize pushing the guy without any executive experience whatsoever, during a crisis without equal in our country, was bound to be a bad idea.

He'll get there sooner or later..............

But of course by then we might have lost the general to obama....................

CYA| 3.15.12 @ 11:44AM

Newt is simply a highly accomplished manifestation of Narcissus. He’s truly a wonderful lesson for those who are beat down enough by the high jinks of “normal” politics.

“Those who do not understand as Reality in the heart only think in the head. They are in exile. They are seeking. Thus, they adapt to all remedial paths, sensual and Spiritual, the paths of exploitation and separation. But radical understanding and real self-Enquiry are Reality itself. Therefore, radical understanding and real self-Enquiry do not resort to the means and signs of suffering. Radical understanding is the unbroken act of Conscious Being. Thus, one who truly understands remains untouched by what passes, but those who seek, like Narcissus, are always trying to become immune. Their struggle is as endless as the Bliss of one whose understanding is most perfect.” Page 474, “The Knee of Listening” by Adi Da, 1994 edition

Yup. Narcissus simply, and complexly, runs rampant.

Thank you, Newt!

Drek| 3.15.12 @ 11:51AM

"Narcissus?"

You sound like Bob Dole!

You don't even know it. That was EXACTLY what Bob Dole said about Gingrich when Gingrich was trying to stop Clinton's health care, stop Clinton's agenda, establish a Republican majority.

Gingrich has huge ideas, which would be beneficial to the country. Of course for people like Dole this ideas are frightening, because they're little men devoted to the status quo. They're losers, and scared of aspiring to be anything other than losers.

We need an outsize ego to take on an outsize bureaucracy!

We need an outsize ego to take on the forces arrayed against an American restoration.

We need an outsize ego to take on the media that is wholly in the tank for obama and the Democrats.

The list can go on and on...........

This is no time for a Romney caretaker presidency.

Romney is the exact WRONG guy for this moment in American history.

Pete| 3.15.12 @ 11:58AM

I think the push to get Newt out of the race is idiotic. People have the right to vote for whoever they like. If it looks like Santorum is the more likely non-Romney to win, conservatives will flock to Santorum. Its that simple.

I just see this as cheap shots against Newt.

Santorum could have gone head to head against Romney in Virginia, but his team failed to get him on the ballot. Don't blame Newt. Newt has a lot of delegates already committed to him. Santorum to get nominated needs them and the best way for that to happen is for him to cut a deal with Newt.

Let the process continue. I feel it is really the Romney people who want Newt out of the race, so they can focus their attacks on Santorum.

JediJones| 3.15.12 @ 3:41PM

They have to cut a deal no matter who drops out when. Neither can get to 1,144 now on their own unless Romney drops out. But Romney is on track to hit 1,144 pretty easily with the status quo situation. Because many, many more winner-take-all districts and states are upcoming than occurred in the previous states, the Ross Perot factor is alive and well in this race. This vote-splitting will end up handing Romney a safe win with about 1250-1350 delegates in the end. It won't be easy to beat him but the ONLY real chance is for Newt or Rick to drop out and then beat him in winner-take-all districts and states (and sometimes get over 50% where possible to shut him out in proportional states as this article mentions).

Mark Twain| 3.16.12 @ 6:21PM

Well actually Romney falls short. People keep forgetting that he will lose 50+ delegates when the Newt appeal is ruled on because Arizona and Florida violated the new GOP proration rules.

RCV| 3.18.12 @ 10:53PM

And who do you think will control that determination at the RNC?

Jabber3| 3.15.12 @ 12:23PM

Quin, you must be attending Santorum's planning sessions because this is exactly the case his senior staff is making to their large contributors and super PAC. What you fail to mention is that if Gingrich drops out, and I believe he should, that works to the advantage of Romney's campaign not just to its detriment which I believe would hasten Romney's nomination.

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 2:54PM

Romney's team has calculated that they would get 30 percent of Newt's votes. That would be enough to get him over 1144. Romney would be the one who benefits from Newt dropping out.

JediJones| 3.15.12 @ 3:36PM

If true, then Romney is truly inevitable as FOX and the RNC wanted all along. Romney is going to win it if everything in this race continues at the current trajectory, e.g. all 4 candidates stay in, him winning Mormon and northeastern states handily, him "tying" in industrial states, and him even getting 30% of the vote in Southern states. If they all stay in, then they would have to hold Romney down to less than 30% of the vote in maybe 3 out of every 4 states from here on out to prevent him from hitting 1,144. By contrast, if Newt or Rick drops out, then the other one only has to hold Romney down to about 45% in the states with winner-take-all rules. I'm speaking as a computer science degree holder and someone who's analyzed the rules pretty well in every upcoming state.

Quin| 3.15.12 @ 6:19PM

No, he wouldn't. That's the whole point of the arithmetic of this column. Romney likely gets MORE delegates if Newt stays in than if he stays out. It's not a major difference, but it could be a couple of dozen delegates.

JJ| 3.16.12 @ 6:23PM

You are missing the fact that Romney will loss 50+ delegates from Florida and Arizona. It throws those projections off by more than 100 delegates. It also assumes the same trajectory as the AVERAGE trajectory. Well thats highly speculative.

Drek| 3.15.12 @ 12:59PM

The only guy in the race pushing REAL solutions, the only guy in the race with wit, intelligence, substance, imaginative suggestions and imaginative approaches to our fiscal problems, to turning around our energy situation, ---------------- yet Quin wants that guy driven from the race????????????????

Has he gone nuts?

Have we all gone nuts?

This country is up against the wall, our federal government is the cause, the origin, the focus of all of our problems. They're killing our own economy!

Romney represents an establishment that has led Uncle Sam to the wall and put a blindfold around him, he's a status quo devotee and precisely the wrong guy for this crisis.

And CRISIS it is!

This country, this economy, this society has entered a death spiral!

No people on earth have ever dared try what our establishment is doing with regards to our currency and budget. And many of the several states are just as bad as our federal government, most notably California.

Santorum has only offered austerity and budgetary cuts.

But where is the growth?

Where is the growth by which alone America can gain control of this nightmare?

Only Gingrich has imaginatively offered to use our natural resources not just to get our economy moving, but get this country completely, COMPLETELY out of all its debt.

And NR, and Commentary, and many here at AS want Gingrich gone?

This is nuts........... this is just nuts.......

Edward Cropper | 3.15.12 @ 1:20PM

Newt is a certified horse's ass. always has been , always will be.

Drek| 3.15.12 @ 1:49PM

Yea, and Romney is just a paragon of political credibility...........

And Santorum, the guy without any executive experience whatsoever, is exactly the guy we need in a moment of crisis unseen in our history............

Yea Ed, ---------- you're really seeing the big picture...........

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 2:52PM

Who drives the GOP establishment crazy. That is good enough for me frankly.

wodiej| 3.16.12 @ 5:03AM

your comment is your own reflection. No substance or argument-just name calling.

OLDRAY| 3.15.12 @ 1:28PM

DREK (11,51 am & 12.59 am ) is RIGHT ON TARGET.The GOP big shots and "pundits" like Hillyer are undermining this country at it's most dangerous moment. There will be no come back in 2016 that will be ab;le to repair the damage that can be done by an Obama OR Romney victory in November. Two diofferent problems but both a disaster (in different causes and results). Newt is the best hope we have to restore the Republic and perhaps THE WEST.

Jerry Kane | 3.15.12 @ 1:54PM

I too was for Gingrich pulling out too after losing in Ala and Miss, and I agree with your arithmetic, but here's the problem. If Newt drops, Romney's superpac will concentrate all of its considerable firepower in false, misleading ads and will destroy Santorum like it did Gingrich in Iowa and Florida. Remember, Romney's ads destroyed Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in 2008. He's been running for six years, and he'll stop at nothing to get the nomination. If Newt runs interference and Romney doesn't reach the magic number, I think he will lose at a brokered convention because Reagan conservatives far outnumber the neocons and Rockefeller RINOs.

cicero| 3.15.12 @ 2:34PM

If they get to the convention without anyone having the necessary votes, there is every possibility that Newt and Santorum will cut a deal. This is Newt's last chance at the national ticket. He would make an interesting V.P., and any debates with Biden would be precious. Neither of them would seem likely to cut a deal with Romney. Mitt has a few big things going against him - the Republican establishment have decided it is his turn, just like Dole and McCain;, and the base doesn't trust him. In addition, he has used his PACs to unfairly smear whomever looked like they were pulling ahead in any given race. No one likes the frat boy who insists on rules of civility, then hires goons to do his dirty work. They usually catch him alone behind the stands and beat the tar out of him. America doesn't like the IDEA that an election can be bought, even though that is what has happened on more than one occasion.

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 2:51PM

Romney has his deal with Ron Paul, which could be an Albotross as Paul is quickly fading from the picture.

JediJones| 3.15.12 @ 3:19PM

For it to get to a convention floor fight, Newt has to drop out now, probably before Illinois votes next week. Rick can't win 1,144 outright no matter what, so he will need Newt's delegates in a floor fight even if Newt drops out now and gains no more. The problem is there are many delegates coming up from states that offer winner-take-all by district rules. South Carolina was one, where Newt won 92% of the delegates with only 40% of the vote. If they don't win at least 3/4ths of the districts in these states, Romney will get enough delegates to hit 1,144. Polling shows they are currently handing him wins in Illinois by splitting the vote by 35-31-12. This will almost certainly happen in too many districts if Newt and Rick stay in the race.

JJ| 3.16.12 @ 6:25PM

Gallup Poll shows have of Santorums votes would go to Romney not Santorum. This is a red herring.

JediJones| 3.15.12 @ 3:14PM

This article is absolutely correct. All Newt is doing by staying in the race is guaranteeing that Romney reaches 1,144 by June and secures the nomination. The bigger problem for Newt and Rick aside from the rule this article discusses are the states with winner-take-all by district (or direct delegate election which is in effect the same thing). For example, Illinois where Newt is currently acting as the "Ross Perot" in the polls, taking 12% while Rick is only 4% behind Mitt. If Mitt wins each district even by just 1%, he wins ALL the delegates and Newt and Rick get 0. Other states with this model include West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Texas, California, etc. Romney only needs 30% from the proportional states (likely a lowball prediction since he got that in Mississippi of all places) and his winner-take-all "lock" states like Utah to be within a few hundred of the nomination. He needs less than half from these "winner-take-all by district"-style states to get the nomination. Unless Newt and/or Rick get BLOWOUT WINS in those states I mentioned, Romney is the nominee. It's likely they can't get blowout wins while they're splitting the vote in Bush/Perot fashion. If one of them doesn't drop out, Romney will be the nominee and he won't need a convention floor fight to get it.

Matt | 3.15.12 @ 3:15PM

can all the republicans exit the race... santorum is a complete embarrassment to our country... romney is never going to be president no matter how much he wants to one up his dad... last president we had who had a daddy complex didn't turn out so well... and well gingrich?

Matt | 3.15.12 @ 3:15PM

Windy City Commentary| 3.15.12 @ 3:29PM

Quin, I thought you weren't going to comment on the race anymore. I guess when it comes to Newt, you just can't help yourself. I'm sure you'll be the last person Newt takes advice from.

Oldefarte| 3.15.12 @ 4:17PM

Wait a doggone minute here now. I've recently seen one or more surveys/polls indicating that Romney would defeat Obama today [but not correspondingly that Santorum would also defeat him]. Also exit polls indicate in the two recent southern states that the ONE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR ON VOTERS' MINDS WAS TO DEFEAT OBAMA. So if these datas are correct/accurate, then why is Santorum being pushed so strongly? If Santorum becomes the eventual R-nominee and thereafter loses to Obama, what has been gained?????????

Oldefarte| 3.15.12 @ 4:21PM

PS: why is super conservative Dick Armey stating that the very most important aspect is to elect conservatives to congress and to control both the House and the Senate, whereupon same could manipulate a MODERATE REPUBLICAN or if necessary BOX IN A DEMOCRAT-OBAMA?????

Quin| 3.15.12 @ 6:34PM

Those are national horse-race numbers, not state by state. Romney does significantly better than Santorum in places like California and New York, but still not near enough to win those states. Santorum does better than Romney does vs Obama in the middle of the country where the states are up for grabs within a three or four point margin (according to recent polls), in the broad swath from PA and Ohio over to Wisconsin and Minnesota. So Santorum, on the electoral map, helps ore than Romney. Now, for full disclosure, there IS one exception to this rule of Santorum doing better in swing states while Romney does better in can't-win states: Virginia, where Romney apparently would outperform Santorum. So Santorum risks losing VA again more than Romney does, but he offers more potential to retake Ohio, and to take Wisconsin and Minnesota -- AND, he at least has a chance to put PA in play.
This is pure poll crosstab analysis, not political preference speaking. Note that today Rasmussen reported that Santo does one point better than Romney vs Obama in FL. The reality is that in most states, Romney's and Santorum's advantages and disadvantages relative to Obama sort of cancel each other out.
Oldefarte, I love your frequent participation on this site. You are one of my favorite commenters. But please understand that here I am NOT advocating one candidate philosophically, but truly and honestly assessing the available numbers and the rules. See the comments above from Jedi Jones.
ALL of this is very fluid, of course, in terms of the fall election. In the end, either you OR I could be right about who would perform best vs Obama. But in terms of Newt's chances to deny Romney the nomination, my math is right that he helps more by getting out than by staying in. He also, arguably, would make himself MORE politically relevant, by going out after demonstrating decent regional strength rather than by doing a slow fade into oblivion by racking up a series of bad numbers in Illinois, PA, New York, and across the country.

Pete| 3.17.12 @ 11:22AM

You math is flawed.

David| 3.15.12 @ 4:31PM

You folks who are still stuck on Newt need to join the rest of us in the real world.

Newt lost TN, AL, and MS, all of which he should have won. But no, the guy who has been a big underdog his entire political life won again.

Newt and Romney both support individual mandates for health insurance. Santorum does not.

Newt and Mitt have bought into man-caused global warming and with it all of the regs and restrictions that come with it. Santorum never believed it.

Newt and Mitt supported the Wall Street bailouts. Santorum did not.

Newt and Mitt are both soft on illegal immigration and would no doubt support some sort of amnesty. Santorum would not.

Newt and Mitt are much more socially liberal than Santorum.

Again, it comes down to who do we trust to do what he says once he is prez. That person, hands-down, is Santorum.

Newt is pitching a temper-trantum just like he has exhibited many time over the years. He is staying in this punish Santorum because Newt really believes that if Santorum were not in the race he would be the frontrunner. (I do not think he would be. As Quinn pointed out, a good number of Rick's supporters don't like Newt and would move to Romney.

Newt was no doubt infuriated and embarrassed by losing the southern states to Santorum. Newt is filled with envy: If he can't get the nomination, then he is not going to let the other conservative, the guy who he believes is costing him the nomination, to get it either.

David| 3.15.12 @ 4:39PM

DRek, you need a history lesson. Yea sure, Newt coordinated a republican majority with the contract with America, THEN TURNED AROUND and wanted the conservatives in the House to BREAK THE CONTRACT they made with the American people. Newt and his shenanigans COST THE REPUBS THE HOUSE.

Don't believe me, just ask Steve Largent and the other conservative House members what Newt did to destroy our majority in the House.

That is Newt. An opportunist.

Stroker97| 3.15.12 @ 7:35PM

David, again and again the facts escape your feeble mind. Please follow this link for the real truth:
http://19792012mozartvanbeetho.....ding-newts

wodiej| 3.16.12 @ 5:00AM

please provide links that prove what you just said-it's FALSE. Of course some that Gingrich served with don't like him-he was cutting the purse strings. So what they say is irrelevant.

Santorum doesn't have one single thing on his resume that comes close to comparison of Gingrich's conservative accomplishments. You are whistling in the wind.

Oldefarte| 3.15.12 @ 5:24PM

Those supporting the Rickster need to read the latest news from his creating a firestorm in Puerto Rico over statements regarding their need to implement English as their official language there. GHC, the Pennsayvania idiot can help from PUTTING HIS YANKEE LABOR UNIONIZED FOOT INTO HIS MOUTH CONSTANTLY. The Democrats would crusify him if he's ever selected as the Republican nominee!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 3.15.12 @ 5:28PM

PS: And on thop of that, Puerto Rico is like 150% Catholic, so if the Rickster can't avoid political controversy there, just get a vision of his stirring up political excrement is radically-liberal California!!!!!!!!!

JJ| 3.16.12 @ 6:26PM

The Rickster does not have SantorumCare. That fact alone puts him way ahead of Romney.

Oldefarte| 3.18.12 @ 1:48PM

Not if he doesn't learn the basic principles of Economics 101 [and to use/apply same instead of CATHOLIC THEOLOGY 101]!!!!

David| 3.15.12 @ 9:22PM

Stroker and Oldfarte, I can't open your link,Sgtroker.

What facts??? Oldffarte, I asked you a question yesterday, so why not answer it? What is your problem with Rick?

I know Saantorum says shit that I wish he wouldn't say. I think after running as a conservative in heavily democratic and heavily union PA for about 20 years that HE knows what he is doing. And he has proved that by winning in 4 southern states.

You guys need to ansewer some of my above statements in my above postings.

Oldefarte| 3.16.12 @ 12:31PM

David, Quin etc: Once again I've repeatedly here stated my opinions numerous times. If I failed to see your specific question to me personally and to acknowledge same, I do apologize for that [and I did not do so intentionally]. I WILL VOTE FOR SANTORUM ''''''IF'''''' HE EVENTUALLY BECOMES THE NOMINEE, as I have voted solidly Republican [and been a registered R for 40 + years, okay?]. However, my problem with Santorum is IMHO he is simply not experienced enough to become the head administrator [ie POTUS] of this country. He has never once run/administered/managed etc any governmental agency, any private business/corporation, any political committee etc in his entire substantial lifetime. He simply has been a congressional representative casting numerous votes which in my opinion does not qualify him for this job of president. This country [due to the actions mainly of the socialist-Democrats historically and to Obama presently] is on the brink/verge of financial bankruptcy; and if/when same occurs, it will take down you, me and everyone else with it. Santorum has no economic/financial experience to deal with that type problem, again since he's never managed similar entities/problems. His/you supporters that prefer him do so strictly because of his SOCIAL CONSERVATISM [super Catholic, good father/husband etc all of which I get/understand] which is admirable but worthless when dealing with economic/financial problems. There's a dime's worth of difference between him and Obama IMHO in that both don't know squat about the economy/financial matters and could care less if they did [except that the latter is pruposely attempting to socialistically destroy this country]. The one huge problem facing this country is the impending implosion of our economy from Democrat-imposed regulations, governmental spending etc [not whether the government is imposing its will upon the Catholic Church etc]. You supporters jumping with joy over his leading the charge for the benefit of the Church are ignoring the fact that [as Romney accurately proclaims that Santorum is an economic lightweight] he not professionally knowledgable or adept at handling financial matters, and therefore the country would fail to be revivied economically if he were to become president. That is simply why I preferred Newt [for his pugnaciousness and governmental administration knowledge] first and Mitt [for his private sector business experience and knowledge from his Harvard Business School college education] secondarily, and since Newt is out of the running now due to his loss of southern support, I am switching my preference to Mitt as the most qualified candidate!!!!!

Oldefarte| 3.16.12 @ 12:39PM

PS: As proof of what I claimed above, see the following news article of today:

'.....CBO: Obama Budget Creates $6.4 Trillion in New Deficits Friday, March 16, 2012 11:19 AM
....President Barack Obama’s budget proposal would add $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.The nonpartisan agency, in an analysis today of the administration’s February budget request, said it would produce a deficit of almost $1 trillion in 2013.The blockbuster report demolishes White House claims last month that the Obama budget would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion over the next decade.  The CBO arrived at the huge figure even after even after taking credit for reduced war costs.“The differences between the estimates from CBO and the White House budget office are attributable to different baselines and economic assumptions, and a big reason CBO expects the deficit to spike sharply under Obama's budget is that CBO's baseline assumes all the Bush-era tax rates will expire at the end of 2012,” The Hill reported.Obama wants to continue the middle-class tax cuts, something reflected in his budget. CBO estimates that the $365 billion increase to the deficit in 2013 that would be caused by proposals in Obama’s budget that increase spending by $137 billion and that decrease revenue by $228 billion.In total, the Obama budget spends $3.7 trillion next year and proposes generating $1.5 trillion from new taxes over ten years. Obama’s proposed budget would increase the size of the national debt held by the public from $10.1 trillion today to $18.8 trillion in 2022 — or 76.3 percent of the gross domestic product, according to the CBO.The latest report is the second piece of bad news for the Obama administration this week. On Thursday, the CBO estimated revealed that as many as 20 million Americans could lose employer-provided medical coverage because of the president's signature health care reform law....'

Oldefarte| 3.16.12 @ 12:39PM

PS: As proof of what I claimed above, see the following news article of today:

Oldefarte| 3.16.12 @ 12:55PM

PSII: Additionally, see the foolowing news that Trump is saying the exact same thing that Newt has been proclaiming about our domestic oil/energy [and Trump is a Mitt supporter], so therefore again if Newt is not the nominee, then Mitt has the business experience to begin to alliviate this problem if he becomes president:

'.....Trump: Obama's Weak Leadership Evident at Gas Pump Friday, March 16, 2012 05:00 AM
By: Hiram Reisner...Real estate mogul Donald Trump says President Barack Obama’s illogical push for alternative energy sources and reluctance to drill for readily available resources are the primary reasons gas prices are soaring and will continue to skyrocket. Trump also told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto Thursday America is beholden to foreign oil interests because of a lack of leadership at the top.
Cavuto asked Trump why the United States seems to continually turn to nations like Saudi Arabia to try and help alleviate the nation’s price at the pump, which has soared to more than $5 a gallon for regular gas in some parts of the country.“Well, we keep doing it because we don’t drill — we don’t get our own natural gas, where we are the actual Saudi Arabia of natural gas, and we could really fuel this country with it,” Trump said. “But for some reason, we don’t use it. And it is a lot cheaper, it’s a lot cleaner, and yet we don’t use it because of a lack of leadership. It is hard to believe, but we just don`t use our product — we don’t drill what is right under our feet.“If you go to Saudi Arabia, you will see streets paved with gold — there is nothing but money,” he said. “And they have done it because of us — we have made it possible for them. . . . So, that is the way it is — and with bad leadership, that is the way it will continue to be. As far as drilling is concerned, we ought to drill our own. We would have . . . plenty for ourselves for hundreds of years into the future.”Trump noted the alternative sources that form the cornerstones of the Obama administration’s energy policy have problems of their own.“Wind is destroying the environment in many, many places. People are going crazy over the horrible, noisy, disgusting windmills. And they are horrible and a horrible intrusion, ruining communities, and solar is weak and has not been effective and is very, very expensive,” Trump said. “And there are just lots of other problems with many forms of energy. But we have — under our wonderful feet — we have natural gas the likes of which no other place has.“We’re the . . . Saudi Arabia of natural gas and yet we don`t use it. We have oil under our feet and we don`t drill it,” he said. “We have so much and yet we don’t [take] advantage. And so we are beholden to Saudi Arabia and other countries that laugh at us — and they wouldn’t be there except for us.”......'

Oldefarte| 3.16.12 @ 2:06PM

David, now hold on a sec, you're stretching the truth too far with this your '....Newt and Mitt supported the Wall Street bailouts. Santorum did not.Newt and Mitt are both soft on illegal immigration and would no doubt support some sort of amnesty. Santorum would not.....' Mitt absolutely did NOT SUPPORT bailouts of the car manufacturers [to benefit the labor unions]. He did favor the bank bailouts correctly since not doing so would have reulsted in a complete banking industry failure with snowbell rolling downhill closing of all banks and possibly the elimination of everyone's contained bank accounts/funds therein. The banks were on the verge of failure and TARP was absolutely essential to shoring up same financially [and Mitt was right to support same]. Also your statement that Mitt is soft on illegal immigration is false, since he is the only R-candidate that is not so and his public statements reflect that!!!!!

JJ| 3.16.12 @ 6:27PM

George Bush bailed them out to use Socialism to save Capitalism or some nonsense like that. Mitt supported Bush's bailout which set up Obama's bailout.

Oldefarte| 3.17.12 @ 10:59AM

BS, you're a GD liar. The former administration original TARP ''''''ONLY''''''' instituted a bailout of the banking entities [which to date have completely PAID BACK TO THE TAXPAYERS/GOVERNMENT EVERY CENT THAT THEY ORIGINALLY BORROWED UNDER TARP! Obama instituted bailout of the auto manufacturers of Detroit [GM,Crysler] all for the benefit of their labor unions. These manufacturers still owe the taxpayers/government 50% of the original money that they borrowed and the taxpayers/government will never be completely repaid and therefore it was labor union welfare received all due to Obama's/Democrats/ socialism agenda. Get your facts correct and straight, otherwise you revela yourself to be a MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!

kf451| 3.15.12 @ 9:33PM

Hang in there, Newt! The longer you stay in, the harder it is for Romney! Yeah!

POST American| 3.15.12 @ 10:55PM

----RED ALERT!----

CHECK OUT yesterday's report and
breakdown of the deadly weaponization
of meds and injections (1940's onward)
from Ed Halslam on Alex Jones

------------------------ESSENTIAL-----------------------

---------------ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL-------------

M Bauman| 3.16.12 @ 12:13AM

The math is right but not the politics.
Nobody in the "anybody but Romney" crowd should be willing to bet it all on Rick Santorum at this point in the race.
One unforced Santorum error and Mitt Romney has a walkover.
As of now, the more, the merrier.

wodiej| 3.16.12 @ 4:57AM

More whining from this writer-it's old and tired.

Gingrich is indeed helping deny the nomination to Romney. Santorum would not be able to do it on his own. Romney attacked Gingrich early to get him out of the way because he knew he was his strongest opponent. If he dropped out now, Santorum would sink like a stone.

Gingrich by far is the best leader of the bunch and has the conservative accomplishments to prove it. Anything less is just denial. The man loves this country and we would be lucky to have him leading us. Now Newt haters....continue on with your insulting whining.

wodiej| 3.16.12 @ 5:35AM

Why Newt should hang in

http://www2.tbo.com/news/opini.....ar-369223/

wodiej| 3.16.12 @ 5:36AM

What they are saying:

Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation

"Newt at this point must stay in the race. If the race goes down to a one-on-one race between Romney and Santorum, Romney will win. Despite Santorum thinking most of Newt’s supporters would automatically back him if Gingrich were no longer in the race, that is not true. Some would peel off and vote for Romney, which could possibly give him the delegates he needs to win the nomination."

wodiej| 3.16.12 @ 5:38AM

"....The only way we can stop a Romney nomination now is for Newt to stay in the race."

wodiej| 3.16.12 @ 5:38AM

Huckbee on Ingraham's show

"Gingrich should stay in the race simply because any one of the candidates could have a moment where they slip up and the opening will be created."

wodiej| 3.16.12 @ 5:39AM

Political Scientist Jamie Hunter:

"Gingrich’s continued presence also helps the democratic process. Primaries are all about choice, but a shrinking field denies that. Gingrich brings attention to some issues that Romney and Santorum have glossed over, such as energy policy, science, and innovation. Voters should have the broadest understanding of how the GOP will address the critical issues so that they can make the most informed vote choice. Big states like New York, California, Texas, and Pennsylvania also deserve to a multi-candidate pool. These states have a huge share of the national population, and their primaries will indicate where the larger electorate stands on the candidates. This was one of the main reasons why Republicans revamped their 2012 primary rules."

David| 3.16.12 @ 12:55PM

I trust Rasmussen, and he said this morning Mitt will get SOME of Newt's supporter but the big majority will go to Santorum.

If Santorum leaves, then a LOT of his supporters go to Romney.

Pete| 3.17.12 @ 11:23AM

Gallup said it would be 50/50 split.

Pepper | 3.16.12 @ 3:16PM

Yeah, right, I'm not a "real" Republican.

Dismiss the fact that I've held my nose and voted for the "R" nominee in every election since I was eligible.

Dismiss the fact that I've voted for every establishment crook that's been foisted upon us by our esteemed local and state Republican leaders.

Dismiss the fact that if I found a race where there was only a Democrat running unopposed, I would write in someone who was an influential Republican in that area.

You people ("real" Republicans) have the nerve to treat me like I'm not a "real" Republican, simply because I support Ron Paul. A guy who has more integrity in his middle finger than the rest of politicians combined (incidentally, speaking of middle fingers, though you Republicans richly deserve it, he is much too polite to show it to you). I'm not a "real Republican" because I want to see the government follow its own rules, starting with its own Constitution. I'm not a "real Republican" because I have decided this time, if the nominee is yet another establishment puppet, he doesn't get my vote.

I was one of that five percent in Alabama you mentioned who actually want to see the problems solved instead of just keep electing people who say one thing to get elected and then play the game. I will do everything I can to avoid leaving a bankrupt nation to my descendants.

I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. If he's the nominee, great! If not, I'll write him in. Simple as that. I'm not going to waste my vote again.

If you people think you can get one of your establishment puppets elected without us, go for it. Just be prepared for the day when your grandkids ask why you didn't listen to Ron Paul when you had the chance to make a difference.

Drek| 3.16.12 @ 4:06PM

We need to continue to demonstrate that roughly two out of every three Republicans is against a Romney nomination.

We need to continue to demonstrate the underlying weakness rampant throughout the Romney campaign and candidacy.

We need to hang on and make sure that Romney hasn't won the nomination outright by securing enough delegates.

We need to get to that "converstaion" of which Gingrich spoke.

If we can get there, we might be able to drag in somebody not presently in the race.

Everybody too needs to understand that we've done well just to get to this point. We've forced the establishment into a protracted fight for a nomination they were convinced was sealed up quite some time ago. We've exposed Romney's political weakness. We've also exposed the extent to which our own Republican media is cooperative with that establishment.

We've galvanized many, and enlisted new supporters in our attempt to gain control over the GOP.

Now we've plenty of work still before us, to be sure.

But the establishment now FULLY KNOWS they're in a battle, and that Romney can still lose this nomination. That's no small accomplishment.......

David| 3.17.12 @ 5:19PM

DRek, I usually object to your comments, but you are quite right on the last post.

kate| 3.17.12 @ 5:25PM

My Lord, have the conservatives become kamikazes like the dems were in 2008? Whatever Gingrich can do to get a republican in office, he should do it, if he loves his country.
Let us be sure of what we are talking about here folks.
4 more years will do us in. The supreme court appointments are enough of a motive to stick with it.
Santorum cannot beat obama. Period.
Get real. Buck up and pray that Rubio joins Romney and wins.
After Romney wins we can put pressure on him, write, march, scream, etc., but this election is beyond, way beyond, important.
Not a game.
Gingrich can't beat obama and Santorum is a JOKE!!!

thoams burke| 3.17.12 @ 10:52PM

this primary by the GOP is just despicable. i would like to thank MIKE STEELE for destroying the primary just like he ruined the GOP name with political instead of common sense ideas and management. this article also displays just how screwed up this DELEGATES system is. the GOP need to a adpot a system that puts ever state in play and shorten the primary season. the canidate whit the best ideas for the country should get the job not who had the most money.

POST American| 3.19.12 @ 12:48AM

---Former Kissinger aide, 'BAR--Rockefeller
to face off with 'SUB---Mitt ROME---knee'.

WHY are we NOT hopeful?

AGAIN ----Bushes/ Clintons/ Gores/ McCains/
Gingrichs ---one and all were on hand and
'on board' during the capstone Rockefeller
USURY and EUGENICS CFR handover
and RED China TREASON OP.

ONE and ALLLLLLLL should be not only
be facing prosecution and RETRO-active
IMPEACHMENT

-----BUT!-----

SHOULD be WIPED from public view
-------------------------------------UNTO ETERNITY.

Oldefarte| 3.19.12 @ 1:54PM

'.....Republicans Should Avoid Social Issues
Monday, March 19, 2012 12:36 PM
By: Wayne Allyn Root Rick Santorum could be the worst thing to happen to the GOP — ever. Worse even than George W. Bush. And that’s saying a lot. Bush did so much damage to the GOP brand, he almost destroyed the party forever. It was George Bush who brought us Barack Obama. Few Americans voted for Obama, they just voted for ABB (Anyone But Bush). Now the GOP has a golden opportunity. Obama has wrecked the U.S. economy from sea to shining sea. He has turned off voters by the millions. By historical standards, based on the current disastrous economic and unemployment numbers, Obama is virtually unelectable. Obama is a magician. He has made voters forget Bush in only three years. That's a pretty darn amazing trick.The proof is in the recent polls. This has been perhaps the worst month for the GOP in modern political history. The message is no longer jobs, rising gas prices, chronic long-term unemployment, or crumbling real estate.
The message is about women’s health, the right to use contraception, Planned Parenthood funding, Rush Limbaugh’s use of a crude term to describe a young female law student, and whether Republicans like sex, or hate women. It just doesn’t get any worse than this. And in recent polls, Mitt Romney is leading President Obama.
The GOP has been handed a miracle. His name is Barack Obama. It’s almost impossible to lose to Obama. Think of his actions in the past month.
He’s bribed women with free contraception. He’s bribed Hispanics by hinting he’ll give amnesty to illegal aliens in his second term. He’s bribed homeowners with a $25 billion bank settlement aimed at those who don’t pay their mortgages. He’s bribed environmentalists by cancelling the Keystone Pipeline. He hands out gifts like he's Santa Claus. And yet he’s still losing to Mitt Romney. After all that bribery. After all the stupid things said by Republican presidential candidates and conservative talk-show hosts. That’s called a gift from God.Mitt Romney has it won. All he has to do is avoid talking about his wife’s two Cadillacs, his $250 million fortune, his money in the Cayman Islands, and his dog on the roof of the family car. It’s over. Shut up and you take back the White House. You’d think conservatives would be rejoicing. Licking their lips. They’ve found a new Gipper, as handsome as a movie star, with the perfect family, and a 20 percent Reagan-like across-the-board tax cut. It’s time to party like it’s 1980 again.Enter Rick Santorum. It appears that conservatives and Christians have decided to self-destruct. They can’t take success. They must desperately want four more years of Obama and the Democrat Party. You know, that organization that stands for massive taxes, spending, entitlement and debt, income redistribution, sky-high taxes, sky-high electric bills, and a country based on social justice and affirmative action. Oh, and don’t forget amnesty for illegal immigrants and a union in every workplace. Lovely agenda.Looking at that agenda and the 60,000+ new rules and regulations put forth by Obama in only three years; and the $5 trillion of new debt in only three years. you’d think winning might just be important to someone other than Charlie Sheen. But the conservative and Christian base just can’t get away from Rick Santorum. They want to party like it’s 1875. They want to turn the clock back to Victorian America, Prohibition, banning of sin, and chastity belts. Here is what common sense should tell conservatives. The tea party chose to purposely stay away from social issues. They literally banned talk of anything besides economics. They chose to promote smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, fewer entitlements and lower debt — instead of the right to contraception. Amazing how that works!
It’s like magic. Embrace issues that a majority of Americans believe in, and presto — you win elections. Sure enough by avoiding divisive and unpopular social issues, the tea party led the GOP to the biggest landslide victory in modern political history in 2010.Understanding that, why would you choose to change the topic to contraception? To calling women who have sex “sluts”? To banning pornography in a nation that obviously watches it in record numbers? That was Rick Santorum’s new gem only days ago. As president he says he will ban porn on the Internet, in the privacy of your bedroom, on your computer, and even in the privacy of your hotel room. Now that should really turn on voters. That is certainly a job creator. The country has no jobs and Santorum wants to change the topic to banning your personal behavior in your bedroom. “Ban the porn, because I stand for smaller government.” Now that’s a rallying cry for conservatives. Marching in lock step to mass suicide.Think of it this way folks. America is like a bankrupt company, heavily in debt, bleeding jobs, desperately in need of a turnaround. What America needs is a businessman, not a community organizer. And not a Pope either.
What America needs is someone who understands how to turn around a failed company. How to create jobs. And yes, even how to fire people doing a bad job (think millions of government employees employed in useless jobs, think poorly performing teachers). We need someone who knows how to slash a budget in order to save the company (or in this case, the country).My advice as an objective outsider to Republicans — go back to the medicine cabinet, take those 100 pills out of your hand, put them back in the bottle, and put the bottle back. Charlie Sheen was right. It’s time for the GOP to choose WINNING......'

The American Spectator

Streetcar Line