African saying: "Sometimes an honest defeat is one's only reward."

Mitt planned on winning Iowa and New Hampshire to "catapult" him to the White House. The problem is that despite spending tens of millions, voters who met Mitt didn't like him. And then there's the flip-flop problem, which even Mitt admitted is an issue for his campaign.

Mitt should quit after Michigan, enough with the ego delusions. Then maybe the GOP can elect a candidate who will win without having to fight off Mitt's millions.

Without a valid delegate count, we are left to ride with the media's choice on what and/or who is important to follow. I am confused and disappointed in this election system that relies on media hype and bias reporting to push one candidate up and pull another down.

That was utterly and completely useless. I was hoping for an explanation of why delegate tallies varied from source to source. As far as I could tell from the article, the answer is "No one knows, but don't worry about it." So you're telling me no one really knows how our presidential candidates (and therefore the president) are chosen?

Isn't that a problem in our society?
TOO MANY SECRET COMBINATIONS?
Simplify!!

If Romney didn't get his arse handed to him, would we need the algebra lesson? I think not. We'd simply be reading about he glorious win.

If people don't like Mitt, even after spending millions of dollars around the nation to garner votes, what are you worried about? I'm sure the people who work for Marriot and Jet Blue have no problem accepting his money, as well as the hundreds of other smaller businesses and people he has hired.

Here's some math for you -- according to CNN, Mitt leads in total delegate count: 30 for Mitt, 21 Huckabee, 10 for McCain, 6 Thompson, 2 Ron Paul, and 1 Giuliani. I'd say that adds up to not giving up quite yet.

Regarding the process. Anyone that hasn't figured out that both parties choose their nominee by a process that makes the BCS look fair and reasonnable hasn't been paying attention. It isn't the media's fault, the two party system we have now is an insider's, backroom process that has little to do with what the primary voters really think or say. It only gets somewhat democratic in the general election. Get involved and change it.

Let's hope Mitt gets the nomination so someone can help us with the Huge deficit this country is running on or we will have even bigger problems in the future. We can't keep spending money like little kids and not feel its effects. We need help desperately.

To Lizzy: Electing Mitt will solve the huge deficit problem??? Isn't his argument to cut taxes, just like Bush? Where did the deficit come from? Bush inherited a deficit-free country from Clinton.

This kind of fuzzy math is Mitt Romeny's dream! He can say one thing, mean another, say he knew it all along and always be correct!

To Blake: I think you've got this guy figured out!

Mitt will win either way, whether it's figuratively or literally.

I'm kind of tired of all the bashing of Mitt and Mormons that goes on here so this is the last time I come here.....I'm a Viet Nam vet also a Mormon I am voting for a Vet ( Mc Cain )I'm not going to bash Mitt or anyone else. Had Mitt served I probably would have voted for him. Now, Bye bashers

The story could have clearer on the point that over 1,000 delegates are needed to win nomination, and that the total of delegates awarded in New Hampshire was about the same as Wyoming--so why the hype in New Hampshire?

On the "vet's" comment about Romney not serving in the military: During the Vietnam War, the US military still relied on the Draft for manpower. People who knew they were going to be drafted into the Army would join one of the other services. McCain's Dad was an admiral, so he attended the Naval Academy 1954-58 (a free education and not wartime) and became a career aviator. People used deferments for college, and ministerial service (ministers like Huckabee were exempt from the Draft--though he was too young), and then were drafted after graduation or missions. Then the draft lottery ended many deferments. I finished my mission, got # 16 and became a career Air Force officer. Romney finished his mission, got a student deferment, got #325 or so in the lottery and went to law school. We both complied with the law. It was literally the luck of the draw. I would not have joined if my number had been high.

So you're advocating that Mitt withdraw? The word you used was "quit". Not likely. He didn't earn his millions by quitting when the going got rough. Mitt is not retreating, he's just attacking in another direction. You quitters take your advice somewhere else. The less committed and determined may take it.
Go, Mitt.

To Raymond Takashi Swenson:
Thanks for the well-informed and well-articulated comment regarding military service. I had never really thought of it that way.

I always enjoy your well thought out comments whenever I read them. I don't know if we are related, but I enjoy sharing your last name just because your comments are always thoughtful and don't try to spew hatred toward anyone. Thank you. As far as this article goes the race isn't over yet.

I was wondering how the delegate counts could be so different. Thanks for pointing out some of the chaos surrounding this process. It's interesting that no major media seemed to report the Wyoming primary or the results.

I find it amazing that so many media outlets had Hillary quitting after losing in Iowa, and that many think Mitt should quit after two second-place finishes (one very close) and one win. I don't get it. Lots of pundits at work here (and they're wrong half the time!) But hats off to Richardson for stopping now. I find this whole race quite interesting and look forward to the continuing drama.

Whether or not Mitt wins the nomination, he has gone further and done better than any other Mormon who ran for President. Thank you Mitt on behalf of my children, their children, and on and on.

RoyBoy writes:

"Bush inherited a deficit-free country from Clinton."

Whaaa?? Really. To anyone who believes that: I've got some prime farmland in the Florida swamps to sell you . . .

Sir,
I respect your service to our country. I to have served our country in OIF, OEF, & Noble Eagle over the last 15 years. As a serviceman who is currently serving though, I have to say that the idea of hotheaded Jon McCain running our country is a scary prospect. I believe that our country is in dire need of a fiscally responsible CEO. If that person is Romney then so be it. I'm not really hip on any of the candidates right now. I want another choice.

Little chance a Republican will take the electoral college votes in Cal, but Gulliani will take this one state and have more votes than all of them (I am a Mitt fan, but seeing it pragmatically). Out here in Cal conservative is a very subjective term.

I mean, we are the same people who think Arnold Shwarzabcdefghij...etc is a conservative. Heck my take is RoyBoy wasn't all that far off the mark. Bush did inherit a country who, although not debt free, was cutting into it in little bites and now we're just going up.

But let me remind folks of the two philosophies. Liberalism = more gov't (and inherintly more govt spending), Conservative = less govt (and inherintly less spending. So how do we get a "conservative" president and more costs and debt. Quite simple he's not conservative. He fell for the great lie that the govt is here to help.

Here is my take, don't cut the taxes, cut the spending, including dole programs. Then give it 20 years and see how much better or worse off we are. Shoot we've been doing it the liberal since the 1930's.

just because McCain served in Viet Nam doesn't make him desirable to be president. My husband was wounded in WW2 does that make him reliable to be Pres. He is honest and has served with valor. It is what a person will do in Washington, that is what we want in a president. I don't like McCains morals in the past, he cheated on his wife and family when he got home from Viet Name and married a younger woman. That right there keeps me from voting for him. Yes he was in Viet Nam but he comes home and cheats on his wife, what does that say for him?? I will vote for a person who is honest and true to his family first of all. Then he may be worthy to run this wonderful country. People keep saying they want change in Washington, then why would they vote for a man who is a Washington insider and has been for over 20 years and he backs everything Bush has done. I am tired of Bush idea's and I voted for him. I want someone different in Washington even if I have to vote democratic.

Senator McCain was the commencement speaker for graduation at an University in Arizona. I personally felt honored to have him as our guest. However Senator McCain was an embarrassment. Our graduating class was made up of 40% international students from 40 different countries. Senator McCain lacked basic diplomacy, his hatred towards other countries, especially China was brutally apparently. The man is a bigot, and a life-long politician who has lost the ability to care for others. I am a life-long Republican, but if it comes down to McCain vs. a Democrat, I am voting Dem.

This is absurd. "Power to the people, Man." Now it comes down to party-favors and the electoral college...

But think of this scenario. What if in the next 3 states...there is still no consistent winner (i.e. Thompson in SC, Romney in Michigan, and Giuliani in Florida)? And what if Romney continues to post a strong second place finish as in previous states (within 5-7%)?

McC was ZILCH in IA, and Huck was distant in NH, NY G is a no-show playing a tortoise and the hare game.

Then what? Is the nominee simply determined by the parties shuffling delegates to compete against the other party?

I doubt that they would send more delegates to Wyoming...so THAT is why the first one who shows that they can consistently win, will be nominated. Unfortunately, not someone who ends up with the most medals (even if they are silvers).

I support Romney. He is clearly the best candidate to manage this country like a businessman--and not a politician. For reference, watch the movie "DAVE":

"I would get fired if I ran my books like they do.."

I have read with interest all the comments on this article and others and have come to the conclusion that some people have their minds made up and will not change ("Don't confuse me with the facts"). I can tell you who I won't vote for - I will not vote for a bigot or someone who is disrespectful of others religion, or color, or gender, regardless of what it might be. I will vote for someone who is honest and has high morals and has shown good "common sense." That does not describe very many of the candidates. The office of President of the United States must filled with someone we can respect and trust will make good decisions. That may mean changing direction based on current facts not prejudices.

40% of delegates can do whatever they want, the popular vote does not matter for that 40%, that is the fact. So any prediction or "math" is only an educated guess.

Think about it, for 40% of the delegates you are only as good as a poll, and that has not proved reliable in recent times.

This system stinks. Is this a system to just elect the rich? Buying America and manipulating American people is unacceptable.

How can we change this system?