Posted to General on

Newt Gingrich Wins South Carolina Primary

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich has stormed to an upset victory over Mitt Romney in the South Carolina GOP primary with a pair of strong debate performances that most voters said was important to their choice.

Within minutes, the former speaker of the House was looking ahead to the next contest Jan. 31.

“Thank you South Carolina!,” he tweeted. “Help me deliver the knockout punch in Florida.”

In exit polls, most voters said they made up their minds in the last few days of the campaign. Two-thirds said the debates were an important factor in their vote.

Gingrich led among the state’s conservatives, tea party supporters and born-again Christians. Romney held a small advantage among moderate and liberal voters, and those who are not born-again Christians.

Gingrich’s victory means that three different candidates have won the first three contests in the state-by-state battle for the Republican presidential nomination to face Democratic President Barack Obama on Nov. 6. Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3 and Romney won the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 10.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul came in fourth place with 11 percent of the vote.

Related Articles

23 Comments

  • Milhouse

    Why on earth not? What’s the difference between a Mormon and Papist, and why should we prefer one over the other? It’s wrong and unamerican to hold someone’s religion against him when considering him for any position.

  • no mormons #5

    they blv in magic underwear. look it up. i dont want my president thinking he is wearing magic underwear! thats just cookoo!!

  • No Jews

    they blv in magic fringes. look it up. i dont want my president thinking he is wearing magic fringes! thats just cookoo!!

  • Andrea Schonberger

    Gingrich turns me off on account of his 2 prior marriages. I’m not opposed to divorce per se and for a valid reason but he dumped his first 2 wives when they became ill and that doesn’t speak much for his loyalty.

  • AA

    #7, we have “magic underwear” too – it’s called tzitzis. You should be ashamed of yourself!

  • no mormons

    how anyone can compare tzitzis to magic underwear from another religion should have their head checked.
    besides the heresy youv just spoken of saying they are one and the same, thus lending validity do something totally insane!
    and you guys are so comfortable with mormon magical underwear yet cant bring yourself to talk about koshe j. quiet a contrast huh…

  • #9

    And Mr. Clinton is a perfect and faithful family man, is he? Funny, when he did what he did, WHERE he did it, the silence was and is deafening. But with Gingrich,it’s amazing how bad a person can be…

    Oh, and what about the “tzaddik” Kennedy?

    It’s mind-boggling how pure the Dems are, but the Republicans are the worst things to happen to the world.

    Newt’s got my vote, only because I’m actually listening to what he has to say.

    The truth is, none of these guys is perfect, every last one of them has a skeleton in his/her closet, but we have to chose them on what they will or have done in office.

  • Milhouse

    #10, you are a liar. He did not dump either of his wives when they were ill, or at any other time; they left him, and they were neither of them ill.

    #9, The Torah doesn’t call it adultery; the women involved were single.

    #14, What exactly is the difference between their “garments” and our talles-koton? How exactly is it “heresy” to point out that they are equivalent, and that therefore making fun of them for having special religious underwear is stupid? If wearing special underwear is “insane” then it’s insane, and if it’s not then it’s not.

    Oh, and by the way, Newt is short for Newton. As in Sir Isaac Newton, one of the most famous people in the history of the world.

  • no mormons milhouse

    by saying that there is no difference between the mormon magical underwear and tallas cuttun, than you lend credence to mormonism and thats heresy…ask rabbi shochat..

  • #9 #10

    #15 you hit right on the button.
    #9 #10 you should read what he has written carefully, the Dems are no better, even though they try to portray them selves angels the all caring and giving.

    “And Mr. Clinton is a perfect and faithful family man, is he? Funny, when he did what he did, WHERE he did it, the silence was and is deafening. But with Gingrich,it’s amazing how bad a person can be…

    Oh, and what about the “tzaddik” Kennedy?

    It’s mind-boggling how pure the Dems are, but the Republicans are the worst things to happen to the world.

    Newt’s got my vote, only because I’m actually listening to what he has to say.

    The truth is, none of these guys is perfect, every last one of them has a skeleton in his/her closet, but we have to chose them on what they will or have done in office.”

  • Milhouse

    #20, Paul would be good for Israel, but not so good for America and the rest of the world. He’d turn America into a gan eden, five minutes before the Arabs blew it up.

    If he (or his equivalent, Charles Lindbergh) had been president in the 1930s he would never have imposed sanctions against Japan for invading China, or have sent pilots to China to fight the Japanese, so the Japanese would have had no reason to attack Pearl Harbor, and he would have stayed out of WW2 until there were German tanks massed on the Mexican and Canadian borders. In the meantime the Jews of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East would ch”v have been wiped out.

    If he’d been president in 1973 he would not have rescued Israel from destruction as Nixon did; but then he wouldn’t have put pressure on Israel to make suicidal concessions afterwards. And in 1956 he wouldn’t have forced Israel to give the Sinai back to Egypt, so the 1967 war might never have happened in the first place.