Super Anticlimax Tuesday primaries: NY, CT, RI, PA, DE

posted at 8:41 am on April 24, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Today was supposed to be a big day in the Republican nomination process.  Republicans (and others) go to the polls in five states to make their pick for the GOP presidential nominee — New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Delaware — after the race has been all but decided.  The contests put 231 delegates up for grabs in mostly proportional-allocation contest, but with Rick Santorum out of the race, there isn’t much drama left.  Mitt Romney will almost certainly win at least four of the five states, and it’s very likely that he’ll win by a large enough amount to claim all of the delegates in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, which have a combined 142 delegates.

The only potential surprise could be Delaware, where Newt Gingrich has concentrated his campaigning efforts.  The state’s small size makes campaigning economical for an organization buried in millions of dollars in debt, and the state’s winner-take-all allocation makes it a prize of at least a little value.  However, its seventeen delegates won’t make a lot of difference in the math, as I explained yesterday, and that presumes that Gingrich can actually win — something he hasn’t managed in seven weeks, not even in the South.  Last night, NBC reported that reality may be dawning on Gingrich, and that a loss in Delaware might convince the former Speaker to pull out:

Newt Gingrich hinted he may withdraw from the presidential race if he has a poor showing in the Delaware primary Tuesday – a state where he has been actively campaigning for several weeks.

“I think we need to take a deep look at what we are doing,” Gingrich told NBC News in an exclusive interview on Monday. “We will be in North Carolina tomorrow night and we will look and see what the results are.”

He acknowledged that he would have to “reassess” his campaign depending on how he fares in Delaware, a winner-take-all state with 17 delegates at stake.

Oddly, though, Gingrich seemed to hedge that statement by saying a close second might be enough to keep going:

“This has been a good opportunity for us, we have been here seeing a lot of people,” Gingrich said. “We have got really positive responses and I would hope we would do well here – either carry it or come very, very close.”

Huh?  What good does a “very, very close” second place do in a winner-take-all state?  That kind of finish in a proportionally-allocated state might produce a tie in delegates, but in this case would be the same as a drubbing in delegate allocation.  Even with the 17 delegates, Gingrich doesn’t have a prayer of stopping Romney before the end of the primaries, but without them he doesn’t have a fig leaf to cover up reality.

The other interesting state today will be Pennsylvania.  Romney had eroded Rick Santorum’s standing in the Keystone State, but never took a clear polling lead.  Everyone assumes Romney will win easily in the state, which elects delegates directly in a primary process, but that assumes the Romney voters will show for the vote.  If Romney doesn’t win a clear victory today, that might prove a little more unsettling than a Gingrich win in Delaware.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Unexpectedly!

Washington Nearsider on May 7, 2013 at 10:44 AM

How do you like your dose of Lean Forward, Libyans? Right into the mass grave.

Good job, Preznit Smart Power.

Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Whats the difference….h clinton……

crosshugger on May 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM

“This is some rescue. When you came in here, didn’t you have a plan for getting out?” -Average Libya citizen
“He’s the brains, sweetheart!” -Hillary, pointing at Barack

Chris of Rights on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Well, this is going much better than expected, isn’t it?

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Who might those be?

Clearly tea party… Err. LIBYAN tea party.

Gatsu on May 7, 2013 at 10:50 AM

How do you like your dose of Lean Forward, Libyans? Right into the mass grave.

Good job, Preznit Smart Power.

Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Samantha Powers takes a bow !

Jabberwock on May 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

One stupid step for Obama…

One giant leap for Jihad.

coldwarrior on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM

“This is some rescue. When you came in here, didn’t you have a plan for getting out?” -Average Libya citizen
“He’s the brains, sweetheart!” -Hillary, pointing at Barack

Chris of Rights on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

“Into the garbage chute, no-fly-zone-boy” – (pointing at Barack)

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM

And once again, we see why a POTUS must have Congress on board when going to war.

Had Congress given its imprimatur, they too would be on the hook for this mess, and would be under pressure to fix it. But, no. Team Liar and President Gutsy Call just had to do it on their own.

And now, the music has stopped, and they are the ones without a chair…

JohnGalt23 on May 7, 2013 at 10:57 AM

I note Ms. Power hasn’t been heard from lately.

R2P = R2FU

PattyJ on May 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Because Chaos is Progressive…

Lean Forward!

workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM

So this was another war for oil,right?

docflash on May 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM

And just who are these “militias,” anyway? Bloomberg doesn’t say, but it suffices to point out that even the Muslim Brotherhood party in the legislature supported the Isolation Law. That means the militias in play here are more radical than the Muslim Brotherhood.

Are we even sure that that wasn’t the intended consequence?

1) Allow radical muslims to come to power.
2) Be able to blame riots and attacks on a video no one’s seen
3) Get on board the muslim push for a UN treaty that outlaws blasphemy
4) Get rid of the First Amendment, along with the Second etc., which are part of a charter of negative rights anyhow.

rbj on May 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Legacy baby

cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Take heart, Libyans because this situation was brought to you by a dude who won a Nobel Peace Prize, that’s worth something, right?

Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Are we even sure that that wasn’t the intended consequence?

1) Allow radical muslims to come to power.
2) Be able to blame riots and attacks on a video no one’s seen
3) Get on board the muslim push for a UN treaty that outlaws blasphemy
4) Get rid of the First Amendment, along with the Second etc., which are part of a charter of negative rights anyhow.

Hmmm, looks about right.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM

And dear leader went around Congress for this boondoggle didn’t he

cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I’m sure the Administration will see this as a simple ‘evolution’ in the ‘process of transition’. “Nothing serious, nothing to worry about. Hey! What time do you want to head to the course and do nine holes?”

Liam on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

JohnGalt23 on May 7, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Which would be true, but this wasn’t a “War” in the traditional sense.

This was probably the worse ‘Covert Action’ ever run by a Administration…

For what?

Was Khadaffi replaced by a more open minded government?

Was any Strategic or National Intelligence gained by this move?

Are we better off now, before this boondoggle was launched?

Talk about a deficit of political capitol.

BlaxPac on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

BlaxPac on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Libs care not for outcomes, but only for intentions.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Arab Spring!

myiq2xu on May 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM

What if we hadn’t intervened? Ghaddafi’s tanks would have leveled Benghazi and thousands would have died. There would have followed a period of intense repression and Ghaddafi would have ceased any cooperation with the West. There would be the probability of ongoing conflict and Islamification…another Syria, as rebels fought a diehard regime.
That’s not happening now and there is gratitude in Libya for what we did.
That being said, Obama’s intervention was at the 11th hour, reluctant and short-lived. He let the war go on too long and botched the aftermath. That’s his real legacy.

breffnian on May 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM

What if we hadn’t intervened? Ghaddafi’s tanks would have leveled Benghazi and thousands would have died. There would have followed a period of intense repression and Ghaddafi would have ceased any cooperation with the West. There would be the probability of ongoing conflict and Islamification…another Syria, as rebels fought a diehard regime.
That’s not happening now and there is gratitude in Libya for what we did.
That being said, Obama’s intervention was at the 11th hour, reluctant and short-lived. He let the war go on too long and botched the aftermath. That’s his real legacy.

breffnian on May 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM

I actually disagree with the bolded part above. I actually think Ghaddafi would have done exactly the opposite. He would have attempted to increase his ties with the West as an act of self-preservation.

I think he would have pointed gone to the western nations and said he was fighting their enemies vis-a-vis Ansar al Sharia. He would have asked why we would want to support the rebels, backed by jihadist groups that hate us. He also probably would have said that supporting his regime would provide a bulwark against the Arab Spring spreading further and throwing the entire region into chaos… witness Syria. That once one nation stands up against this regime change, other rebel groups in other nations… Syria, Bahrain, etc… will be less emboldened to begin or continue high profile protests and outright civl war for regime change in their states. I think he probably would have acknowledged privately that he knows we don’t like him, but our choices would be his Libyan state or turning Libya into another Somalia in North Africa.

And it’s certainly looking like we are going to get the latter… Somalia Redux in Libya.

gravityman on May 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Al Watan, the MB party, is founded by Bel Hadj, he was the leader of the Libyan Fighting Group, he runs camps for Syrian jihadists in the desert, he brought in Bin Qumu, head of Ansar al Sharia, to train the militants during the war,

narciso on May 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM