For those of us who like things to stay interesting, this is our election year. Santorum ended up winning Iowa, Romney won New Hampshire, and now Gingrich has a convincing win in South Carolina:

Newt Gingrich won Saturday’s South Carolina GOP presidential primary, marking a stunning turnaround for a candidate who finished fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire and whose campaign had been left for dead — again — by observers just weeks ago.

With about 95% of polling places reporting, Gingrich had 40% of the vote, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney getting 27% and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum getting 17%. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas had 13%. Based on early returns and exit polls, CNN projected Gingrich the winner.

Romney still leads in delegate count, however. And now it’s on to Florida for the primary on January 31, which just got a lot more interesting.

What was the reason for Newt’s late S.C. surge? Among other things, we can’t discount the Sarah Palin nod a few days ago.

The big loser of the night? Possibly ABC News, who you just know thought they had a campaign-ending blockbuster expose, but instead all it did was cost them a Sunday morning interview with the winner of the S.C. primary.

Here’s Gingrich Saturday night after it was clear he won:

Comments

38 Responses to “Gingrich Wins South Carolina”

  1. clu seatoe on January 22nd, 2012 2:56 am

    It may have been Palin but I think it was more about the take it to the media fire in the belly. The fire is why Trump resonated early on. They need to pick their targets and the targets are not each other.

  2. SignPainterGuy on January 22nd, 2012 3:01 am

    Correctomundo !

  3. SignPainterGuy on January 22nd, 2012 3:13 am

    Newt is so good at cheerleading America; articulating the uniqueness and greatness of our country !

    Newt, if he gets to debate Obama, will simply state a fact of Obama`s failed policies and then skewer him with it and then stand back and listen to a long series of "Uh`s" !

  4. backwoodsconsr on January 22nd, 2012 11:41 am

    For me it was definitely the fire. There are some serious changes to be made in Washington and they're not going to get made by any wimpish "Go along to get along" characters. The refusal to just go along is one reason why I love Jim DeMint so much.

  5. @nichelob on January 22nd, 2012 11:58 am

    According to the Paul campaign (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxKpRctPHyc&feature=youtu.be) Newt and Santorum aren't eligible for 564 delegates.

    Also, according to the national polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html) Romney and Paul have the best shot of defeating Obama.

    Where is the Tea Party Candidate? Newt has a history of big government support, we know Romney loves to find things for Government to do and Santorum is a big spender too. The Tea Party loves Paul's fiscal policy, but can't palate his foreign policy? Where is the small-government war hawk? Less than 2% of the delegates have been allocated, is Palin waiting to strike? That would be awful though, b/c she probably has less chance to defeat BO than Newt does.

    Any way you slice it, if you want small government, you have to bite the bullet and vote for Paul.

  6. backwoodsconsr on January 22nd, 2012 12:24 pm

    In order to make the government smaller, we first have to ensure that there is a government, and a United States of America to govern. Electing foreign policy nut jobs like Ron Paul could make our government and our country nonexistent. I ain't biting that bullet for anybody.

  7. backwoodsconsr on January 22nd, 2012 12:35 pm

    One thing I can report from the primary is that I was required to show photo I.D. before I was allowed to vote. The lady at the desk didn't just give my drivers license a cursory glance either. She first asked if that was my current address and then, while she looked at my license, asked me to tell her my address. No imposter was going to vote in my name.

    As far as I know, SC's photo I.D. voting requirement is still going through unresolved legal challenges, but it was being enforced where I voted. There was also a sign on the desk stating that photo I.D. would be required.

  8. Doug on January 22nd, 2012 1:09 pm

    I'm still amazed that a photo ID requirement in order to vote is considered a "controversial" topic.

  9. backwoodsconsr on January 22nd, 2012 1:21 pm

    Indeed.

    Since the opponents of it are so intent on screaming about disenfranchisement, I've been wondering if there is some really emotionally compelling way to label them as being in favor of voter fraud.

  10. clu seatoe on January 22nd, 2012 2:29 pm

    Correctomundo !

    As long as Newt doesn’t use any of those racist code words he should wipe up the floor with the food stamp president.

  11. Granny55 on January 22nd, 2012 3:48 pm

    I see a thyroid specialist every six months and I HAVE to show photo ID at every visit. I do not hear anyone complaining when they arrive for their appointment and are asked ID. Voter ID complainers are idiots. They willingly show ID to see their doctor but don't want to show ID to vote.

  12. SignPainterGuy on January 22nd, 2012 5:12 pm

    Newt seems best able to define those code words and then demonstrate to all how it`s the left who use real racism right out in the open, not conservatives !

  13. SignPainterGuy on January 22nd, 2012 5:15 pm

    Nor am I !

    And who would Paul choose as a running mate ?

  14. SignPainterGuy on January 22nd, 2012 5:28 pm

    My local paper ran a story on this "controversial" issue. My pro-photo ID comments caught a lot of flack from the lefties; many wanting me to prove that any fraud had been committed. There`s always someone who knows someone who is too poor to pay $10.00 for an ID and the trip to get it. I feel like telling them to skip one suitcase of beer and they`ve got it !

    Sometimes I could hate my neighbor city !

    I`m not sure at this point whether our (NC) legislature was able to override Perdue`s veto of the Photo ID bill (she signed the E-Verity bill); I`ll have to see if I can find out. At my polling place, there`s usually at least one worker who knows me, so I`ve never been asked to show my ID, but they do ask me to repeat my address. I carry my ID (drivers license) and my voter reg. card to vote.

    There is a sign there saying to be prepared to show ID, but few I`ve seen ever have to !

  15. @nichelob on January 22nd, 2012 7:25 pm

    Good luck finding a soldier returning from Iraq or Afghanistan that shares your sentiment.

  16. @nichelob on January 22nd, 2012 7:26 pm

    Doug Powers

  17. Hyperfobea on January 23rd, 2012 9:36 am

    " … foreign policy nut jobs like Ron Paul …"

    Uh, qualifier please?
    What's wrong with getting Team America World Police out of the World Theater? Anyone who has no qualms about the USA returning to a strict constitutionalist government ought not have any with Ron Paul.

  18. backwoodsconsr on January 23rd, 2012 10:45 am

    The same thing that would be wrong with taking the cops off the street. The bad guys wouldn't stop doing their thing just because the cops leave. The military serves basically the same function on a global scale as the cops do within our nation's borders, and for the same basic reason. Some people are going to be bad and do mean things to others. Living by the Golden Rule yourself will not protect you from people who have no interest in it and prefer to "Do unto others before they do unto you."

  19. @DataFlowNick on January 23rd, 2012 1:31 pm

    Poor analogy. Do you support Gun Control? That would be the better comparison. How long do you want to keep Iran in the stone ages? Forever? Nuclear technology was invented, we have to live with it. Iran has never invaded another country. Kennedy and Reagan avoided nuclear war with diplomacy and strong defense. Why can't a candidate suggest doing the same today?

  20. backwoodsconsr on January 23rd, 2012 1:41 pm

    Gun control means hitting what I'm aiming at. Iran has been sponsoring terrorist organizations all over the Middle East for years. I do not want a country like that having nuclear weapons. If we have to keep them in the stone ages, so be it.

  21. backwoodsconsr on January 23rd, 2012 2:15 pm

    If I were to employ gun control on the global stage in the same way liberals use it domestically, I would disarm Great Britain, France, Australia, and Canada in an effort to make Iran behave itself. It would be just as ineffective. My original analogy stands.

  22. Hyperfobea on January 23rd, 2012 3:10 pm

    Mindlessness and sophistry. Nice try but you're no salesman.

  23. SignPainterGuy on January 23rd, 2012 3:42 pm

    Ron Paul equates Iran w/ The Soviet Union and China during the cold war. Both those countries knew they would not survive an all out nuclear war, so they used "some" common sense and didn`t engage us. Iran does not want to survive this life, they want to bring on Armageddon, the madhi(SP?), the 12th imam, and do their "surviving" in the afterlife ! HUGE difference and loooonacy on Paul`s part !

  24. backwoodsconsr on January 23rd, 2012 3:45 pm

    More like you're no judge of product.

  25. backwoodsconsr on January 23rd, 2012 4:19 pm

    I might add that mindlessness is wrapping yourself in a pre-December 7, 1941 mindset.

  26. @nichelob on January 23rd, 2012 8:41 pm

    How do you sleep at knowing OBL's was hosted by a country that has nukes?

  27. @nichelob on January 23rd, 2012 8:51 pm

    If ignorance was bliss, I think you'd be the king of happiness.

  28. @nichelob on January 23rd, 2012 8:52 pm

    And Pakistan doesn't support terrorist organizations?

  29. SignPainterGuy on January 23rd, 2012 8:54 pm

    If you are referring to Pakistan, then I sleep well knowing that in the back of their minds, they know that India, who is much larger and more powerful AND also has nukes, will kick their muslims butts if they get too far out of line !

    Unlike Iran`s lunatic leaders, Pakistan`s "leaders" don`t seem hell-bent on hurrying Armageddon !

  30. backwoodsconsr on January 23rd, 2012 11:05 pm

    "When I was fourteen years old I realized my father was one of the most ignorant men alive. When I was twenty-one I was amazed at how much that man had learned in seven years."

    –Mark Twain

  31. @nichelob on January 24th, 2012 3:25 pm

    Yes, Iran is hellbent on hurrying Armageddon but yet they've never invaded another country before. Perhaps they want the respect we've given to Pakistan? Why else haven't implemented regime change there? I mean, the mastermind of 9/11 was living the high life merely a mile away from a military base in one of Pakistan's most affluent cities… and we're in Afghanistan and Iraq? Did you not see the cheering in the streets in Pakistan on 9/11? This is the same propaganda we built up for Iraq, just different words are being used to avoid comparison. Think outside of the MSM news. Listen to the soldiers. Come up with your own conclusions.

  32. SignPainterGuy on January 24th, 2012 3:55 pm

    I am not aware of Iran invading other countries with mass movements of uniformed troops and combat machinery, but I do know that Iran sponsors terrorism in many places on the globe with training, financing and explosives. Their hands are covered in blood ….. and not because they themselves were attacked, but because they are spreading jihad !

    The vets I have spoken with express the same disgust with their inability to fight wars to win them, from Vietnam to present, instead being hamstrung by Rules of Engagement that prevent them from attacking known targets in a timely and efficient manner, having to wait on a many-thousands of miles-long chain of command that takes "forever" to get a go-ahead or stand-down order.

  33. @nichelob on January 24th, 2012 5:52 pm

    I think if you spent as much time googling ignorance and finding one that fits your spin as you did googling blowback, we'd come to an agreement.

  34. backwoodsconsr on January 24th, 2012 6:24 pm

    I didn't have to google that quote, I've known it for a long time.

    I don't think it's likely you and I will be coming to agreement. I know history well enough to know that what you perceive as ignorance on my part is naivete on yours. Many people in the past have viewed foreign policy the way you do, with heavy prices often paid when people in power shared such views. I suggest you read Winston Churchill's "The Gathering Storm" for one such example.

  35. @nichelob on January 27th, 2012 2:50 am

    The melancholy and ignorance of all the facts above reeks of west-coast mentality. So what exactly is my foreign policy? I feel you've come to an assumption. And why can't we come to an agreement? Understand the reasons why we were attacked on February 26th, 1993, June 25, 1996, Aug. 7, 1998, Oct. 12, 2000, September 11, 2001, June 14, 2002, May 12, 2003, December 6, 2004, November 9, 2005, September 13, 2006, January 12, 2007, September 16, 2008, November 26, 2008, June 1, 2009, December 25, 2009 and May 1, 2010 and ask yourself if we've addressed those reasons whatsoever. We've made them worse, thus escalating towards the inevitable.

    Looking back thru this thread, you ignored:
    1. Someones attempt to find a qualifier for Ron Paul being a "foreign policy nut job"
    2. The fact that most troops (who put their neck on the line) agree with Ron Paul
    3. The fact that Kennedy and Reagan solved these problems without war
    4. Pakistan
    5. Blowback

    Therefore ignorance is apparently your forte. And with your foreign policy, it seems we'd have the control the Third Reich was aiming for but we'd be murdering a difference race. Once we start treating Israel more similar to our other commercial trade partners, these attacks stop. What's so hard about that? No humility?

  36. @nichelob on January 27th, 2012 2:56 am

    I think I just heard the case for war with Pakistan, but I doubt I'll get your support in that matter. Rules of Engagement wouldn't be a hindrance if we had specific goals and were fighting legal and just wars.

  37. SignPainterGuy on January 27th, 2012 3:46 am

    Curious where you get #2; it`s in direct opposition to what Iraq and Afghan vets tell me. IOW, few are RP fans ! They are smart enough to realize RP is nuckin` futs on foreign policy. RP FAILS to recognize the dangers posed by islam to the US and the world !

  38. SignPainterGuy on January 27th, 2012 3:51 am

    Are you trying to get me to support Ron Paul ? If so, forget it ! Ain`t hapnin` !!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.