After Newt Gingrich’s defeats in Mississippi and Alabama this week, the expectation in some quarters was that the former speaker would realize he had no hope to win the nomination and bow out of the race. Certainly that’s what Rick Santorum and his supporters were hoping. It would set up the one-on-one matchup with Mitt Romney that they think will give him a chance to turn the GOP race around. Though there have been signs some in Gingrich’s campaign are looking for the exit signs, the candidate is giving no indication he’s giving up yet. Last week, I came up with seven reasons why Gingrich won’t quit, and I think they are still valid. But apparently he has come up with another one to justify the continuation of his presidential run: staying in the race hurts Romney.
This seems counterintuitive as Gingrich’s presence on the ballot diverted a portion of the conservative vote away from Santorum and probably cost the Pennsylvanian first place finishes in Michigan and Ohio. It might do the same next week in Illinois, a primary that could be a turning point in the race should Santorum pull an upset. The idea put forward by Gingrich’s camp is that because the GOP’s rules this year have encouraged proportional delegate allocation, keeping the nomination battle a three-way race (not counting libertarian outlier Ron Paul who is polling in the single digits just about everywhere these days) means Romney will be deprived of the ability to rack up large delegate hauls, thus making it impossible for him to reach a majority before the convention. Though this is a weak argument, it may be all Gingrich requires to justify continuing his ego-gratifying presidential run.
This thesis is endorsed by Michael Steele, the former Republican National Committee chair who is largely responsible for this scheme in the first place and is rightly reviled by most in the GOP for doing so. Steele told the New York Times a Santorum-Gingrich double teaming of Romney would be a bigger burden to the frontrunner than a setup in which he was forced to confront a single conservative opponent.
There is, however, a fatal flaw in such thinking. After April 1, there are nearly as many winner-take-all primaries scheduled, including important races in Wisconsin and California, as there are proportional ones. Others will elect delegates on a winner-take-all basis by congressional district. In such states, Gingrich’s remaining on the ballot would almost certainly help Romney.
What Gingrich really seems to be hoping is that by staying in the race and accumulating more delegates even while losing he would increase his leverage if neither Romney nor Santorum secured enough votes to win the nomination on the first ballot. Though one could argue his leverage with Santorum will never be higher than it is today should he be willing to make a bargain of some sort with the Pennsylvanian, Gingrich’s dream scenario is really one where he could play the kingmaker at Tampa with Romney or with some theoretical dark horse who might emerge from a deadlock.
In a year where so much that was unexpected happened, we should all hesitate before scoffing at Gingrich’s reasoning. But this still seems to be more science fiction than political science. The plain fact of the situation is that unless Gingrich gets out and/or gets behind Santorum, the odds are Romney will wrap up the nomination by June. If Gingrich, who seems motivated as much by hatred for Romney as by his own ambition, seems to be working at cross purposes to his own interests, all we can say is anyone who remembers some of the bad judgment he showed in the speaker’s chair knows this wouldn’t be the first time he has done so.
I like this system because it potentially prevents a weak front-runner from obtaining the necessary number of delegate votes to get the nomination. Of course, this depends on who gets to makie the decision about the nominee if no one gets the majority of delgeates. n nMy hope would be that the convention itself could pick a candiate if no one comes in with a majority of delegates. n nIt seems clear to me that Romney should not get the nomination automatically for having the MOST delegates, if he doesn't have a MAJORITY of delegates. Let the convention pick the candidate, even if it is someone who is not running now (although that person better be prepared for a national campaign)
In a couple of weeks Gingrich will bow out, perhaps not formally, but just as effectively. Santorum will be so short of delegates that if he lasts until the convention, it will just to be able to say that he also ran. nRomney will then win the nomination and go on to beat Obama, and bring a GOP majority to the House and the Senate.
While the author would undoubtedly prefer the Newtster drop out, and is quick to subscribe egotism to Newt's remaining in the race, Tobin fails to acknowledge the accuracy of Newt's own reasoning for persevering: If Newt drops out, all Mitten's negative ad money can be focused on Santorum. n nThat fact is beyond questioning, and the huge amount of dollars spent in Mitten's negative ad campaign has been effective, even if questionable in terms of Reagan's 11th commandment. n nYou can scarcely blame Newt's ill will toward Mitten, when Mitten has refused to battle for the nomination on the basis of conservative ideas and a vision for the country, instead opting for a campaign based on slimeball negative half-truth ads.
What is so terrible about a brokered convention, if none of the candidates can garner the majority of delegates on the first ballot? n nIsn't the ONLY purpose of the convention to pick a nominee that has the best chance, in the convention delegates' opinion, of winning the general election? Where that choice has clearly not been established on the battleground of the various state primaries, then let the convention process play out. n nMaybe the RNC establishment will FINALLY get the message that the base will no longer accept a mushy moderate as our banner carrier, and that ideas and a vision for the country matter more than money for negative ads.
I have argued from the start that the GOP's best hope of defeating Obama is to put forth the most conservative nominee able to articulate clear distinctions between Constitutional limited government living within its means and the Leviathon which has reached its defining moment in Obama. That nominee for me is, in this field, Santorum. n nThat said, be careful what you wish for. Once you get to a brokered convention, you can bet the "voices of reason" will try to make the same tired inside-the-beltway arguments that they have been peddling, only this time the majority of GOP voters have to date rejected those views will not be present. n nI think Romney has two principal weaknesses against Obama — RomneyCare and an inability to articulate the view that the root of our governance and debt problems is that the federal government has metastasized far beyond its Constitutionally set limits. There is, though, no guaranty that a brokered convention will yield up a nominee as conservative as Santorum or Gingrich.
"There is, though, no guaranty that a brokered convention will yield up a nominee as conservative as Santorum or Gingrich. " n nTrue, but it will guarantee that those constitutional limits, which methinks we both strongly agree upon, will receive a vigourous debate at the convention, as the second and any subsequent ballots turn into a mini-campaign for the freed delegates. n nWhereas, if Newt drops out, Santorum will be exclusively carpet bombed by millions of dollars of Mitten's negative ads, until Mittens has the requisite number of delegates to be coronated at the convention, and our principles will once again be given only lip service.
Optimus: n nI am not so sure the debate we seek would occur in the confines of the convention. I think that, more likely, it will be a debate over which candidate is best positioned to beat Obama. One positive, though, would be that Romney's financial edge would be moot. n nOn that score, if Romney continues to go negative, as is likely, Santorum will get the bulk of the attacks unless Gingrich starts to show a stronger pulse in the state polls. I am not sure if being outspent 5 to 1 or 6 to 1 really matters at this point.
I strongly believe Newt would keep the conversation focused on policies,ideas, and the candidate's vision for the future of the country. I beleive he's learned his lesson on mud-slinging catfights that benefit no one but Obama in the coming general election. Look at how Newt's raised awareness of the utter ridiculousness of the current administration's energy poliicy in just the last few weeks, how energy independence is tied to paying down the national debt due to the trillions of dollars of royalties the Fed Government can reap if you simply unleash the private energy sector, as well as jobs growth n nI agree that 5 to 1 or 6 to 1 doesn't make much difference. However, preventing a 10 to 1 negative ad campaign focused on one candidate (as was the case in FL), probably does make a difference. n nBest of luck to your candidate.
i continue to marvel at the self denial of these self proclaimed harbingers of voters. Who the heck is voting for Romney in all of these primaries??? Ghostbusters ? Romney has collected over 3 million votes in the primaries to Santorum's two million. He has double the amount of delegates and won the crucial states of Florida (where Santorum did not even compete), Michigan, Ohio, Arizona and Virginia- all swing states. What has Santorum won? The reddest of red states (Alabama Mississippi) and little else. The Republican vote consists of more than the "very conservative" voters. Two thirds of the Republican vote is center-right and that is exactly where Romney is -and so was George W. (who won), George H. (who won) and Reagan (who won)
No one is denying the facts, but those facts include that outside of MA (a state that is not in play in any realistic way in November), Romney has yet to clear 50% of his own party anywhere other than VA, where only Ru Paul was on the ballot. Those facts also include Romney's enormous funding advantage collected over 4 years of campaigning and fundraising. n nSantorum started from barely a blip and has, by and large, gotten stronger as a candidate as time has passed. What has he won? Plenty more than anyone thought, and not just in deep red territory. He won swing states like IA (remember that one?), MO's beauty contest, KS. His wins this week were upsets in Newt country. He was poised to upset Romney in MI and OH but for Mitt going brutally negative. n nReagan, by the way, was supposed to be too conservative to win. Instead, he won in two landslides by clearly articulating exactly the ideas us conservatives would like to see brought forth today. n
Santorum is closer to being a flaming Liberal than to a Conservative Reagan – if you bother with Santorum's RECORD. I just cannot see Reagan ever voting or signing for a bill that is AGAINST RIGHT TO WORK or PRO FELON VOTING, or AGAINST A MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM or FOR THE BRADY GUN CONTROL, etc etc etc etc.. AD NAUSEUM that Santorum and Newt both represent.
And Reagan signed what was the most liberal (at the time) abortion legislation when he was governor of CA. If you are looking for purity, you won't find it in any politician, especially a legislator who makes 100s of votes every year. But to think that Romney is to the right of Santorum or Gingrich is a stretch, to say the least. n nAs I said above, one of my two problems with Romney is RomneyCare. If he tried to argue that it was the best deal he could cut with a liberal legislature or that he made a mistake, maybe he'd get more of a pass from more conservatives. Nope, he embraces it as the right solution for MA while trying to argue it is wrong on the federal level based on nominal notions of federalism. This doesn't pass the smell test. n nRemember, ObamaCare, the bastard child of RomneyCare, is the principle fuse of the Tea Party movement. It represents the intrusion of government into every essential aspect of our lives and is therefore the very essence of the campaign to defeat Obama. To give up this issue by nominating the progenator of ObamaCare's inspiration is to give up a lot.
Reagan also spoke later about that and denounced it thoroughly. n nComparing candidates today against reagan's DEMOCRAT days of which Reagan repented AND WAS NOT his Presidential attitudes for which he was beloved – just goes to show – some of you guys trying to claim that I am a Democrat for Obama – you show yourself in these threads. n nI will not vote for RINOS who are still highly supportive of Marxist policies of the Democrat Party Agenda. n nAnd millions of others who are NO WAY going to vote for Democrat policies will also NOT support the RINOS who enable the DIMS. n nNEWT belongs in the CARTER/FORD/DOLE/PEROT/CLINTON/Ted Kennedy/McCain pigeon hole.
Uh, Rose, Reagan had long since evolved into a conservative and Republican by the time he was CA guv (see his support for Goldwater in 64). That he later denounced the abortion law he signed is precisely the point — Romney refuses to do so with RomneyCare. n nI am not suggesting you are a Obama Dem in disguise. How would I know? If you don't like Newt for some of his positions in the past, that is fine, but I would suggest you hold all of the candidates to the same standard, keeping in mind that the object of this election is to defeat Obama. n nI voted for Santorum in my state's primary and have laid out both some of the positive reasons why and some of the reasons why I did not vote for Romney. I am comfortable and confident in my choice. Are you?
To all critics of Romney: Santorum has yet to win in any swing state. Iowa was a tie- surprising even Romney supporters. Everything else (Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, even Tennessse) was in states that will be safely Republican. Michigan and Ohio are both true swing states, Florida and Viriginia are musts for any Republican, and Romney won them all. And criticizing Romeny for being effective in going negative is like saying a football team has an unfair advantage because it tackles well. Raising money, going negative on any opponent, all of this is the essence of an election. Do you think Obama would not go negative?? Ludicrous. The fact is that elections are won and lost in the suburbs- where the votes are, to paraphrase Willie Sutton, bank robber. The democrats cannot win with the cities alone and the Republicans cannot win with the rural votes alone. Suburbia is where most of America lives now- look at Virginia, Arizona, Florida..etc. Romney is best suited to win those (moderate) votes.
I would suggest with the open primaries we've had to date, that Mittens is being helped out by liberal progressive cross-over voters that are salivating at running against another moderate. n nOpining that Reagan was center-right is a willful misreading of history. Ray-gun was the epithet the squishy moderate Repubs hurled at him during the 1980 primary campaign against George H, who was indeed cut from the same mold as Romney, as was George W., and both promptly lost the majorites that Reagan and Gringrich worked so hard to obtain by their squishy moderate leadership. n nThe republic needs more than luck. One can only pray that Bismark's maxim stil holds: "There is a special providence for drunkards, fools, and the United States of America."
Optimus: n nIf possible, watch Illinois carefully. I suspect Romney will win, but his margin will come from the same moderate Chicago-area GOP voters that put moderate Mark Kirk over the top against his more conservative primary challenger in 2010. Santorum (and Gingrich) will do much better in the outer Chicago ex-urbs and downstate. Romney will chalk up another win in a state the GOP cannot hope to win in November. n nI think you are spot on regarding Reagan, H and W (though I find much to admire about W, not the least of which is that he seized the moment in the aftermath of 9/11). Going back more than a generation, every time the GOP nominates the more liberal of the candidates, it loses (Ford, Bush in 92, Dole, McCain); each time the GOP at least runs on the basis of conservatism, it has won (Reagan twice, H in 88 — essentially Reagan's "third term", W in 2000 and 2004).
No, the crossover Dims are CLEARLY voting for Newt and for Santorum. They hate Romney just like RINOS hate Romney. n nAnd it shows.
Exit polling does not support your assertion. Neither does the roster of moderate Reps (what you would call RINOs; what I would call establishment types) who have lined up for Romney (McCain, Christie, Mark Kirk before his stroke). n nSantorum's efforts in MI and, to a lesser degree, in OH was to reach out to Reagan Democrats. It received a brief kerfuffle based on Romney's whining about it, but did not amount to many votes, probably because it was not all that well executed. Those votes will be important come Nov.
And best of luck to the Republic.
Remember the Founding Fathers' Sons of Liberty – George Washington, Paul Revere, Francis Marion, Daniel Boone, Samuel Adams, James Otis. n nAnd do not cleave to bureaucrats of EITHER party that cling to Joseph Stalin for personal profit by means of robbing taxpayers and taking their cut of govt slush funds. n nNewt Gingrich made $37 Million off Stimulus just for his part in helping to pass the Individual Mandate for Obama. THEN he went on tour with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan to promote Obama Education policies, in 2009 and 2010. And that isn't a smidgeon of all he has done in the last 5 yrs. n nRemember Arne Duncan – the pedophilia promoting Education Secretary of Obama's. Newt standing on stage with Arne for two years promoting Obama Education policies – that means Belle and Bill Ayers. n nNewt Gingrich John Kerry Global Warming debate 2007 nNewt at the Lincoln Douglas debate he called, showing up himself not as Lincoln, but as John Wilkes Booth. n n nNEWT: " … I NEVER WORKED WITH PEOPLE I DON'T AGREE WITH…" Dec. 15, 2011 Fox News Debate, responding HEATEDLY to Michelle Bachman regarding his conduct re Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!
As has been said countless times, by many, including spaklaw: We have no perfect, idologically pure candidate. We are not electing a saint, but someone that can pull the country back from a financial catastrophe of unappreciated proportions. n nI contend that if you look solely at their records, and what each has actually accomplished, Newt is far and away the most conservative of the remaining candidates, and the only one with a proven record of changing the current trajectory. n nHe worked tirelessly to build a conservative majority in both Houses of Congress, he was the author of the Contract with America, the brains behind nationalizing the election using the Contract as a vehicle for winning majorities in the election in 1994, implemented it as promised, balanced the budget with those majorities, implemented welfare reform, built the Republican party into a majority in Georgia which had been Democratic-run since the Civil War, and worked tirelessly to develop conservative ideas, principles, and for other conservative candidates. HIs reward? He was "Palinized" by the media, the dem/progessives, and abandoned by the GOP-E to twist in the wind.
Neither Romney nor Santorum have done 1/10 as much as Newt to bring conservative ideas into the mainstream consciousness and national discussions. As a result, the dem/progressive/liberal/media alliance developed a template to destroy Newt they subsequently used on Palin, Cain, and any others they deem to be a conservative threat to the establishment and their power. n nThe worst thing, which I absolutely abhor, is that Romney and the GOP-E have now adopted that same template in this 2012 Republican Primary to destroy Romney's opposition. I will be completely disgusted if they are rewarded for their efforts by Romney winning the nomination. n nWe should be better than that. n nIdeas matter. Accomplishments matter. G_d help us if all it now takes to win a Republican nomination is the money to buy five or six or ten to one media ads against your conservative oposition that tell half truths, outright lies, and include endorsements of the mushy moderates that sat on their hands while we got into this mess, by going along with the ridiculous spending and expansion of the federal government into every aspect of our lives, in direct contravention with the constitution.
I wish I had the strength and energy I had even 10 years ago when I felt I had lost ALL my strength – but 10 years ago, I would draw from deep files and hold forth with plenty of facts to support my contentions. nI believe my contentions are still as firmly held by close examination of facts that are as brutal on myself and anything or anyone I dearly love as I am to things I don't instinctively appreciate. nThere was a a time I fought as hard to defend Newt as anyone, including from Conservative withdrawal from him on his FIRST Divorce. nMy current opinion of him has been a SLOW arrival over several decades. nBut it is deep in my guts now. I've shared some of the worst of the reasons for it over the past several years – and I assure you, watching 4 or 5 moments when he sat on Hannity and Colmes making THE BEST ARGUMENT for MY CASE that I ever heard any political figure in public make for MY CASE – sitting there at home going "YEAH! Why can't all the folks on "MY TEAM" make such sensible and simple easy defenses for this position!!!" – only then to watch Hannity go on, very rarely, still the only one I ever catch doing it – following such a brilliant defense, and see him challenge Newt (or other politicians) PERSONALLY – "Now in the interest of full disclosure, you are here and made this [debate stance] in the interest of your client – but I've heard you – in the green rooms, other private venues – this is NOT your own personal opinion, is it? nTakes 5-10 MINUTEs sometimes, but Newt then shares some thing like "well, not PERSONALLY – this is what I agree with publically for public policy – but yeah, on a personal basis, I wouldn't do things EXACTLY like this…" I.E. HE is PERSONALLY Pro-Choice and NOT anti-abortion – PERSONALLY – as Public Policy, he hates abortion, ~but would never presume to tell any lady what SHE HAS to do with her own body – sure it is a Life, but you cannot do that to her…"~~~ nI watched that man LAUGH BELLY LAUGHS OUT LOUD for 45 MINUTES at Southern Border Security while he hawked the ~pragmatic~ stance of McCain Kennedy SHAMNESTY. n nI will not vote for Newt or for Santorum. Everything in my guts won't go NEAR that spot on the Ballot. I will vote. I guarantee you I WILL VOTE! n nI have begged Primary voters several times to give me A candidate I CAN VOTE FOR IN NOVEMBER. n nOn the occasions of Ford, Dole – PEROT, McCain, the Primary voters did not. nOn the Occasion of Nixon versus JFK, I was a child, but I begged my parents to NOT VOTE FOR THAT CROOK NIXON even though HE was the Republican. n nAs a Historical Fact – I think my GUTS about Republican candidates speaks for itself. n nI don't have the depth of personal physical strength to engage in the fine points of the debate to even CARE about my opponents ultimate choices the way I did when I was younger, and I am too old to assume that if they differ from me drastically in the major conclusions, that they MAY or MAY NOT still share my values. nEACH is responsible to the Living God their Creator for the choices they make and in America, for the politicians they endorse and VOTE/AUTHORIZE to carry their "POWER OF ATTORNEY" for them into any public office. nDo as your own conscience demands. nI will NOT vote for Santorum or for NEWT and my EXPERIENCE informs me that the strength of my guts feelings about it is an indication I CAN DEPEND ON that the NATION WILL NOT, EITHER – come NOVEMBER, regardless of WHY OR HOW FOR! n nSo if you want to persist in destroying the work for a candidate this nation WILL vote for by insisting on these RINOS with DEEP LIBERAL RECORDS, that is your choice. n nYou can aim your remarks at me, and make them as "scientific and sensible" as you please, or as personal and insulting as you please – I am sure I will do the same, knowing me as well as I do – but the bottom line is NOVEMBER 2012 – with a strong shadow of CIVIL WAR in the air. n nThe idea that Newt or Santorum are capable of what it takes to save this nation is so ludicrous, if I had the physical strength to do so, I too would laugh belly laughs for 45 minutes, on or off the air. n nI am sure this nation is NOT going there with these two men, and that both of them know it and are relieved of it, not sincerely wanting THAT BURDEN at this stage in their lives. They are both in this race FOR OTHER, EASIER GOALS that will make them quite happy and contented AND TOTALLY UNCONCERNED about the DIRECTION this nation is going, as long as they personally have what they want out of this campaign at the end of the day. Which will include "NO ONE CAN SAY I DID NOT TRY!", fat speaking fees and book deals, and the easiest, richest life, they have ever had in their lives. The LEAST battles!
Rose, everyone is certainly entitled to form their own opinions. Newt has disappointed me many times over the years in some of the positions he has taken, from Schivao support in the 2010 midterms, to the Pelosi AGW GloBULL warming ads. n nHowever, he is the ONLY politician I've seen admit to making mistakes, and humbling himself to ask for forgiveness. n nTo ignore his accomplishments toward achieving conservative goals such as balancing budgets, reforming welfare, building majorities so that even more conservative goals can be accomplished, while ignoring the absolute dearth of those types of accomplishments in Romney, is akin to sticking your head into a hole in the ground. You believe what never was and will never be accomplished. n nRomney will court media approval and re-election to the exclusion of all else if he is elected. n nBetter than Obama? Sure. Change the trajectory of our non-constitutional massive deficit spending congressional path? Not so much, at least if your judge him by his past actions in that regard.
I had rather go down with someone who will make a difference, if elected, than vote for another mushy moderate that will simply slow the speed with which we approach the cliff. n nNewt has demonstrated he can change the direction, and change Washington's go along to get along power elite operating mode. n nI am simply stunned that more good people, who know what we need to do to get back to constitutional limited government, one that lives within its means, can not see that Newt's determination to change Washington, and upset the power elite's cushy status quo, fuels most of the negative ads and resistance to his candidacy. n nAs you stated, Newt has no equal in succinctly and powerfully presenting the conservative argument, and providing historically documented, practical examples of how those principles benefit us all. This is a critical skill needed to win independent and moderates over to our side. n nVote for who you wish, but expect no change in direction from a Romney administration.