Another loss, another failure by Newt Gingrich to concede a race to the winner, Mitt Romney. Rather than deliver a speech, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives instead opted to hold a press conference to unveil a supposed new campaign strategy.

The weakness of his position during the rambling 22-minute event was underlined by the fact that he had to begin by denying he was planning to drop out. "I'm not going to withdraw," he said. "I'm actually pretty happy with where we are."

It has been reported that he would announce he was "going positive" for the rest of the campaign. Instead, he unloaded a stream of peevish bile about Romney, quoting everyone from George Soros to Charles Krauthammer. He even cited a tweet by Larry Sabato.

Gingrich's new strategy? To "find a series of victories which by the end of Texas primary will leave us at parity" with Romney. Like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the Texas primary, with its massive winner-takes-all haul of 155 delegates, offers tantalising riches. But its current date of April 3rd is likely to be delayed by litigation.

Sooner or later, however, Gingrich will need to start winning again - and before April. He's not on the ballot in Missouri on Tuesday, when Romney is favoured in Colorado and Minnesota looks like a toss-up. Then we have Michigan and Arizona at the end of February, where Romney is the heavy favourite.

Gingrich is clearly investing a lot of hope in Super Tuesday on March 6th but that day he is not even on the ballot in his adopted home state of Virginia.

Even before then, he's likely to face a big money crunch. The report that lines of communications have opened between Romney and Sheldon Adelson, head of the pro-Gingrich super PAC and the man currently keeping Gingrich afloat, is an ominous sign for Newt.

Just as he did in Florida, Gingrich all but ignored the Nevada result, tastelessly dismissing Romney's thumping win in a "very heavily Mormon state" (Romney also won among evangelicals, Tea Partiers and every other GOP demographic group except for very low earners).

Instead, Newt initially went into the standard negative elements of his stump speech, presenting himself as the "alternative to a Massachussets moderate and stating that "unlike Governor Romney, I care very deeply about helping the poorest Americans".

Then he descended into the weeds and the mire, with a full-bore vent about Romney and all his works. There were glimpses of "Good Newt" - for instance, his analysis of Obama's war on the Catholic church - but they were fleeting indeed.

At one point, Gingrich stated that "I'm not sure that Mitt Romney's in my head" but it's clear he's obsessed with Romney and, in particular, what he did to him in Florida, veering off to complain about how "fundamentally dishonest" he was and how "blatant and deliberate" were his lies during the Tampa debate.

He wallowed in the minutiae, even being reduced at one point to discussing the supposed firing of Romney's debate coach. Does he think he's the first politician ever to be the victim of a negative attack?

What would Gingrich do in a debate with Barack Obama if the President twists the truth? What about the Gingrich negative attacks, incuding the incendiary claim that Romney denied kosher meals to Holocaust victims?

Contrast this with Romney's speech, in which he focussed like a laser on the main target: Obama. It must make Newt even more miffed that he did not merit a Mitt mention.

Romney has got into Gingrich's head, under his skin and very possibly into other parts of his anatomy. The former Speaker appears intent on destroying Romney but seems not to care that he will almost certainly fail - and probably destroy himself in the process.

____________________

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook