2012 Alabama and Mississippi Primaries

So, that math that's not working out so well for Romney? It's getting that much worse tonight as Alabama and Mississippi held their primaries. Rick Santorum eeked out victories in both, with Newt Gingrich actually edging into second place in both states. The over all results are more or less a dead even 3-way split with Ron Paul not even factoring in.

This means the prospect of a brokered convention in August is now becoming more and more of a reality. There hasn't been one since 1952 when the Democrats had to burn through 103 ballots before Adlai Stevenson was chosen. These things are very much once in a lifetime events, and unless something fixes itself soon, we may be about to see ours.

Hawaii is also holding caucuses tonight, but no results are available yet.

Here are the results:

Alabama Primary - 100% precincts reporting

Rick Santorum - 35% (204,333 votes, 17 delegates)
Newt Gingrich - 29% (173,303 votes, 12 delegates)
Mitt Romney - 29% (171,261 votes, 10 delegates)
Ron Paul - 5% (29,432 votes)

Mississippi Primary - 100% precincts reporting

Rick Santorum - 33% (93,105 votes, 13 delegates)
Newt Gingrich - 31% (88,607 votes, 12 delegates)
Mitt Romney - 30% (85,853 votes, 14 delegates)
Ron Paul - 4% (12,492 votes)

Delegate Totals to Date

Mitt Romney: 472 delegates.
Rick Santorum: 244 delegates.
Newt Gingrich: 127 delegates.
Ron Paul: 47 delegates.

1,144 required to win.
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

« 2012 Kansas Caucuses
John Carter »

Posted on Mar 14, 2012 12:02 am by Samson in: | 24 comment(s) [Closed]
How the hell does the math work to determine which candidate gets how many delegates?
Samson said:

Rick Santorum - 33% (93,105 votes, 13 delegates)
Newt Gingrich - 31% (88,607 votes, 12 delegates)
Mitt Romney - 30% (85,853 votes, 14 delegates)

Romney got the least votes but the most delegates?? :crazy:

Yeah, I didn't get that either.

It gets messier...

Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #4 Mar 14, 2012 6:07 pm
Only Ron Paul has a plan for the economy that could pull America from the brink of being Greece. The others may only slow it down a few years kicking the can down the road.

Ron Paul 2012

Took their sweet time about it, but here's Hawaii's caucus results:

Mitt Romney - 45% (4,250, 9 delegates)
Rick Santorum - 25% (2,369 votes, 4 delegates)
Ron Paul - 18% (1,712 votes, 1 delegate)
Newt Gingrich - 11% (1,034 votes)

Ron Paul's plan for the economy is one thing. His lunatic fringe plan for our foreign policy is quite another. Make him Secretary of the Treasury. Problem solved. I'd vote for Obama over Ron Paul.

Nothing to see here folks, move along. Move along.

Samson said:

I'd vote for Obama over Ron Paul.

On the one hand, I kind of want to see this happen just for the lolwut aspects.

Then again, on the other hand, the idea of Ron Paul actually winning the nomination is sort of scary, and I don't really want to think about that.

So maybe I'd better settle for that 47 total delegates thing.

The_Fury [Anon] said:
Comment #8 Mar 15, 2012 10:25 pm
Samson said:

His lunatic fringe plan for our foreign policy is quite another.

I don't know, America not interfering militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations is probably a good thing for the US and the rest of the world.

Ron Paul said:

Look, we are bankrupt as a nation. Our army marches in Chinese boots, while our air force flies on Saudi oil. We cannot continue to enforce a Pax Americana while our southern border allows illegals and terrorists to pour into our country. And we certainly shouldn’t be footing the defense bill for countries with whom our industries compete in the global marketplace. Bring our soldiers home. Secure America first.

Makes econonimic sence to me, nothing fringe or lunatic about it. Your economy has gone to shit and yet, you continue to borrow money from the Chinese to fund these same very wars and you think putting an end to this type of madness is lunatic and fringe. No wonder the US has gone to shit, export your jobs to China, borrow a 1/3 of your budget from China so you can go fight wars for people who don't want you there to begin with all sounds like sound fiscalally responcible econonomic policy to me.

The_Fury [Anon] said:
Comment #9 Mar 15, 2012 10:27 pm
Given the choice Obama or Paul, i would take Paul, given the choice Obama and the other guys, i would take Obama any day. Sorry for the double post, i am now going to go find my login :).

You haven't heard him in the debates then. You have to realize that when 85% of the country thinks he's a lunatic, that's pretty much cutting across party lines on either side. It's the other 15% of the country that scares me more than he does because that kind of isolationist thinking died out in 1918. Which is probably where Ron Paul belongs.

Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #11 Mar 16, 2012 11:25 am

Vote for this guy, need I say anything else?

Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #12 Mar 19, 2012 7:15 am
They think he is a lunatic because that is how the biased bought and paid for media paints him. If you actually go to his website you will see he very much supports the idea the founding fathers of the country did. Have you not noticed the "fair and balanced" fox news purposely not including Ron Paul's name in most things? I used to love fox news, and I still check it, but also check many other news sources. There is no news media out there that doesn't have a agenda. Most of the time that agenda is paid for, just like the lobbyists pay for Congress.

The plain truth is you can't afford not to vote for Ron Paul, he is the only one who would turn America around from Financial Ruins.

Ron Paul 2012 :)

Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #13 Mar 19, 2012 7:17 am
Additionally, consider I was a party line Republican for 20+ years before I truly read Ron Paul's website, and realized this man is the only one serious about saving our country from financial disaster.

Ron Paul 2012 - Woot!

I've read his website once before, I doubt very much anything has changed since I did a post about him in 2008. If we weren't in a position right now where half the Islamic world wants to see us burn and Israel with us, Ron Paul would be a viable candidate. The fact remains though that his foreign policy stance is sheer lunacy. That's based on reading his own website btw. Based on hearing his own words during the debates. Based on his own statements elsewhere.

Fox News stopped bothering with covering him because he's got no chance to win. Other candidates in his position did the smart thing and dropped out to go back to what they were doing before. Even a brokered convention has no chance of him coming out on top.

Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #15 Mar 19, 2012 3:36 pm
So your ok to see us in a great depression or worse a financial crash possibly leading to One World Currency over foreign policy? Ron Paul is not against war just wants us to follow the constitution and have congress authorize it. If you notice he is the only military vet candidate? Also the military supports him the strongest over everyone else. If we stopped holding Israel back they can more then hold their own until congress approved a war to support an ally.

Ron Paul 2012 or Executive Order 16?

Over delusional isolationism? Yes. If that's what it takes. We're not in 1914 anymore. It doesn't work to bury our heads in the sand and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist. It's folly to pretend we don't have allies and the obligations that go along with that. It's crazy to think that if we pull out of the Middle East that suddenly it'll be My Little Pony Land or something over there just because we're not around anymore. Quite the opposite actually. The whole place would already be cinders. The world changed. Ron Paul just never got the memo.

What's Executive Order 16?

Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #17 Mar 19, 2012 4:30 pm
Sorry I'm a tad passionate of what I see happening to the country that I remember.

Samson said:

I've read his website once before, I doubt very much anything has changed since I did a post about him in 2008.

Not that I'm saying you're mistaken, since I haven't gone back and reread it myself either, but do you honestly believe that a man running for President of the United States, for the second time, wouldn't bother to have his website updated, at all, in four years?

Well ok. So I just checked his site and sure enough, not much has changed on the actual issues. Some of the text is word for word what I saw there 4 years ago. The styling and format has changed though, which probably isn't what anyone cared about :P

Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #20 Mar 20, 2012 9:28 am
Bah my mistake I meant the executive order created on march 16.

That's kind of sad. I can understand that he's essentially running on the same platform so most of it wouldn't need to change much, but to try to be in the very heart of public limelight and not even bother to significantly update your website between presidential campaigns is not very smart in this age. I actually like Ron Paul and would be fully supportive of him if he's shift just a bit from being so extreme in his stance on foreign policy, but if he can't be bothered to keep up with technology, or at least pay someone to do so for him, maybe you're right and he's just not with us in the current age. :sigh:

Um, ok, Vlad, I'll bite.. which executive order was created on March 16th?
Btw, Vlad, as many years as you've been coming here to visit and comment, shouldn't you have registered by now?

This executive order.

While I've no love for Obama (really, ya think?) I'm inclined to think this order is routine in nature since it's existed in more or less the same form since the Clinton administration and martial law hasn't been declared yet. Though given Obama's nature, it's not something you can rule out entirely since it effectively gives the Executive Branch full control in the even of a "national emergency".

Early returns from Illinois have Romney in a commanding lead. A proper post will be coming in an hour or two, when there's more than 19% of the vote counted.

Isn't that order just lovely, still, I do agree that it does seem a bit more of a routine renewal than hot off the presses breaking news.

Hmm, AP had declared him the winner there six hours ago:
Associated Press said:

Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 5:43 PM PDT
Romney wins Republican presidential primary in Illinois

And in Puerto Rico two days ago.. I didn't even realize Puerto Rico had a republican primary... :shrug:

<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.

Forgot Password?

 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31