Rick Santorum swept all three contests on Tuesday, even Colorado which is a state Mitt Romney won handily in 2008. Here are the full results for each state.
Report from CBS News:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum swept the nominating contests in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado Tuesday night, putting him back in contention for the GOP nomination.
Santorum now has four victories under his belt in the GOP race, more than any other candidate. His new standing stalls Mitt Romney's earlier momentum and gives Santorum grounds to argue that he — not Newt Gingrich — is the best conservative alternative to Romney.
Speaking from his Missouri campaign headquarters in St. Charles Tuesday night, Santorum looked ahead to the general election.
"I don't stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney," he said. "I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama."
Full results are available below.
| Missouri Republican primary, 2012, 100% Reporting | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | Percentage |
| Rick Santorum | 138,957 | 55.2% |
| Mitt Romney | 63,826 | 25.3% |
| Ron Paul | 30,641 | 12.2% |
| Uncommitted | 9,859 | 3.9% |
| Rick Perry | 2,463 | 1.0% |
| Herman Cain | 2,314 | 0.9% |
| Michele Bachmann | 1,690 | 0.7% |
| Jon Huntsman | 1,045 | 0.4% |
| Michael J. Meehan | 364 | 0.1% |
| Keith Drummond | 162 | 0.1% |
| Gary Johnson | 547 | 0.2% |
| Totals | 251,868 | 100.0% |
| Colorado Republican caucuses, 2012, 100% reporting | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | Percentage |
| Rick Santorum | 26,372 | 40% |
| Mitt Romney | 22,875 | 35% |
| Newt Gingrich | 8,394 | 13% |
| Ron Paul | 7,713 | 12% |
| Other | 125 | 0.1% |
| Totals | 65,479 | 100% |
| Minnesota Republican caucuses, 2012, 95% reporting | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | Percentage |
| Rick Santorum | 21,420 | 44.8% |
| Ron Paul | 13,023 | 27.2% |
| Mitt Romney | 8,090 | 16.9% |
| Newt Gingrich | 5,128 | 10.7% |
| Write-Ins | 140 | 0.3% |
| Totals | 47,801 | 100.0% |
Auto-Generated Tags:
- as of today feb 8 2012 how many delegates does each republican candidate have
- how many delegates does each candidate have 2/8/12
- how many votes did santorum get in minnesota
- rick santorum national polls against obama
- santorum help get him elected
- voting results 2/08/12 presidential
- why is the controlled media so scared of ron paul
I am 100% sure the votes have been computer altered. NFW Ron Paul has done so poor. Exit polls don't lie but DieBold counted votes do!
Folks the fix is in. It will be 4 more years of Obama.
Strap yourself in for the ride of your life.
Hyper inflation, rioting, energy bottleneck, foods bottleneck. It will go down like an Ayan Rand Novel!
End game - Slavery under a one world corporate/communist government.
We will have a short window to stop this. Will you Mr and Mrs Sheep put down your I pad long enough to revolt?
The American Revolution was won by only 3% participation. I see this time about the same. Better start by replacing the entire Congress and Senate. If not then better move somewhere else.
If you did not vote for Ron Paul then you will get exactly what you deserve. You sheep got it with Obama and you still don't get it!
Charger John
AGREED Charger JOhn!!!
There is NO WAY RP did this poorly. NO WAY!!!
Here in Texas, if someone has any political interest at this stage, their interest lies with Ronny P. Unfortunately, there are too many folks who are not even considering a candidate at this point.
Wow. This must really hurt Romney and Gingrich's campaigns. @Tanner You're 100% correct that based only on the positions, Romney has the clear advantage. However, the first question is: can Romney win the republican nomination. Right now he's in the lead but he should be wary of Gingrich and now Santorum. If Romney does win the nomination, can he beat Obama? He'll definitely take hits for "flip-flopping" on many issues.
Darryl, glad to hear that was not what you were saying. Had me worried for a moment there.
I think your previous argument simplifies the issue quite well. Great points. Although, language is a powerful mechanism in the thought processes. At one time, what was growing inside a woman was always referred to as 'a baby.' Now we've got technical terms, fetus, embryo, which in my opinion are terms meant to sterilize from our minds, it is a baby. Now, to people who still see it as a baby, it doesn't matter what you call it-it's still a baby. But I'm not so sure about others. There's an interesting pro-choice video made by a teen on youtube and in it the teen states that they (teens who are pro-choice) will not be swayed by graphic pictures of abortions. Clearly, the graphic pictures make no connection to 'life' and a 'baby' for this teen.
I don't think there would have been any tactful way to go about it. People who are pro-choice think differently about the value of an unborn baby's life. And you're either on their side or against them.
I do believe (and you may still disagree), that Gov. Romney did indeed think he had some obligation to support the law that was already in place, when he was campaigning since it was the law. (Although it is an un-Constitutional 'law' since it is a statute written by the Supreme Court and they have NO authority to make laws. They can only execute laws which are in place.)
Just like when Sen. Santorum voted against Right to Work because he represented a non-Right to Work state (and he's been 'questioned' and called a flip flopper about that too). I'm not equating the two, but I am saying that sometimes what may seem a cut and dry decision to one person, for reasons not entirely known, it may be not so definitive to someone else. Gov. Romney realized he could not support abortion when he knew he literally would be adding to the destruction of innocent life by signing that bill. I think it was epiphany moment for him. I can respect that far more than if he had signed the bill because he campaigned 'pro-choice', as you say, and people were 'expecting' him to support its passage. And I am SO SURE it would be used against him if he had signed it. I think that on this issue in particular, since it is about life, people who would nail him to the wall as a flip flopper when he made the right ethical decision are simply looking for an excuse to dismiss him as a candidate.
amazed
As I said, Mitt Romney may have "repented" on his Pro-Choice stance. I'm not taking that away from him. However, his "epiphany" (or testimony) has never been explained in detail. To simply say "I was, but I'm not anymore" simply doesn't do it. And to "not sign a bill" is also not adequate enough to explain the change-of-mind. Once a person takes that "stand" to support the killing of innocent human life via abortion, that person enters into a spider-web of controversy. Sometimes supporting abortion can stem from living a life of callousness which will negate any other options (like your teen video), but most times it is out of Ignorance or because of desperate situations which come from panic.
As to your teen in the video (and as I tell people), Graphic Pictures ARE appropriate, as long as the pictures are TRUE. And if they are TRUE, then I believe they should be admitted as EVIDENCE. And in the quest, for the "Socratic Quest" for TRUTH, none of the EVIDENCE should be "filtered" simply because we may find it "personally" repugnant. So, if something is so HORRIBLE that we can't stand to look at it, perhaps WE SHOULD NOT BE "TOLERATING" IT.
Sadly, the Liberal Media is who DICTATES the "Morality" in this Country, especially on TV. They know (all-to-well) that the public, in general, is just "INTELLECTUALLY LAZY"!
Sorry for the duplicate, it looks like I posted it in the wrong place.
"As I said, Mitt Romney may have "repented" on his Pro-Choice stance. I'm not taking that away from him. However, his "epiphany" (or testimony) has never been explained in detail. To simply say "I was, but I'm not anymore" simply doesn't do it. And to "not sign a bill" is also not adequate enough to explain the change-of-mind."
Darryl, actually he did explain his 'change' during one of the January debates, and personally, I was satisfied with his answer. I don't know if you saw that particular debate, and if you did it must still not have settled well with you. That's okay. It did for me.
You bring up many compelling and strong arguments for pro-life, and for that I am grateful since we obviously need that in society. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about it.
"Graphic Pictures ARE appropriate, as long as the pictures are TRUE. And if they are TRUE, then I believe they should be admitted as EVIDENCE. And in the quest, for the "Socratic Quest" for TRUTH, none of the EVIDENCE should be "filtered" simply because we may find it "personally" repugnant. So, if something is so HORRIBLE that we can't stand to look at it, perhaps WE SHOULD NOT BE "TOLERATING" IT. Sadly, the Liberal Media is who DICTATES the "Morality" in this Country, especially on TV."
I couldn't agree with you more! I thought the young woman's video showed very shallow thinking. She said she wanted the truth, but in reality, she showed anything but that desire.
As for my family, we don't support TV (don't have cable, etc.), or many forms of entertainment because we find them morally reprehensible. We watch videos, occasionally go to the movies, and play video games only if the content and message are appropriate. The liberal media, as you say, may dictate what is out there–but our family doesn't have to view it, promote it, or support it. As a parent I have that obligation and responsibility to make that decision, it's only when parents abdicate, well….I think it's obvious what the results are. (And the young woman who made her video is at the top of my list of examples.)
As happy as I am that the 2 morons (Newt and Romney) didn't win, I wish the right wing extremest hadn't won. Ron Paul should have won all of these by a long shot. I am with all the other posts about voter fraud against Paul. People get a grip on yourself. you only have one option for president, Ron Paul. Mitt is a true politician, he changes what he stands for based on what he wants to win. Also, although a lot of people have disregarded his religion, research it deeply. Mormonism is NOT christianity. Contrary to the main websites, they do have multiple wives. Just research deeper than most obviously have. They do not believe in God, their god is completely different. Newt is not a leader, he is a failure. He was booted out of the house and has archived nothing in his life. When he talks about his accomplishments, he talks about what happened while he was in politics not what he did. Listen folks. Just an aside, I understand that not all marriages work out and we make mistakes. Newt is on his what 3rd marriage. That shows he cannot even keep a promise as simple as only loving your wife. Rick, although the second option for the GOP, is an extremist. He is stuck in the bully days. He thinks you can make people do what you want by force. Yeah you can for a while, but look what happens to people like that in history. They get crushed. He comes across as a typical extreme conservative. (change is bad! That aint how my daddys daddys daddys daddy did it so it is wrong) this is awful politics and an awful way of life. Rick, Newt, and Mitt need to leave. Ron Paul is the best and only option. He wants to uphold the constitution. He wants little government. He wants little to no taxes(which i remind you, the excessive taxes is the reason America was created). Some of the radical changes that Paul wants are quite extreme but if one sits back and thinks, it will make the country better. I hope people start thinking for themselves and stop letting the media make your decisions for you. Be an individual and vote RON PAUL.
Seriously folks, who do you REALLY think can go toe to toe against the icy cool persona that is Obama? Santantrum? Gingrich? Both have bouts of anger while Newt has the baggage his daughter is older than his wife. Forget Ron Paul, seriously. Mitt 'the Vulcan' Romney is the only one who can go to the debate, eat Obama's lunch and make him clean the table afterwords. Mitt is the man, deal with it and try to remember it when you're making more $ in 2013.
Whole bunch of very difficult issues to tackle. Romney's previous stance on abortion is similar to my own. Although I am a very spiritual person, with a good relation with God, I distrust and dislike most religious organizations.
I never met anyone who did not think that a abortion was the killing of a baby. Yes most will say unborn or fetus, etc, to be able to cope with the hardest decision they will ever make. And knowingly accept to carry that burden for the rest of their life, many will regret it, some will repent, some find other ways to try to comfort themselves, but none take it lightly or well.
A friend of mine had an abortion in her late teens, I remember when she approached me, suspecting being pregnant, she was very upset, scared, confused, and hurt. I was 20yo and I was raising 2 kids already with the mother and no parents to help. I believed Abortion was a criminal act of killing a baby, immoral, and inhumane. But also how hard it was to give up on many dreams. The doubts and fears of most parents of our age. I would never judge her no matter what she decided. It was ILLEGAL in south America, it was done in a small office after hours. She almost dies from bleeding after several days in the hospital. Until recently she still counted that baby as her first child 25 years later as she lights a candle for that baby each anniversary. Some others will not ever admit it openly because of being too ashamed. But I do not believe it's easy on anyone.
However final judgement is for GOD, not of men. The churches or religious organizations, who believe to represent God, are not Gods, they are men. The churches have been wrong too many times in the past, and has showed many times to commit many kind of barbaric abuses even today. I am a strong believer in God, but not the organizations who believe to represent him.
Similar as with Government, I believe in our Constitution, and the Institution but not in bureaucrats or politicians.
I am against abortion and will tell any who asks me, but only a woman has the right to choose..
The government does not have the right to force on any individual its moral believes, nor the moral believes of any majority.
Steve L
I understand how you can come to your conclusion on abortion, however, you left out some important factors that would turn your conclusion to an "about-face".
First is the abortion "act" itself. Probably the most important factor you're leaving out is that the abortion "act" involves 2 distinct individual human beings - the mother and the developing Human Being within her womb. To say it's only the mother's CHOICE to kill her offspring is to assume that the developing human being within her womb is NOT Fully Human.
Scientifically and Biologically speaking - we are FULLY HUMAN from the point of CONCEPTION. We then continue in an unbroken continuum until natural death. This pro-life position has been proven to be both scientifically and philosophically "sound". In other words, the zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, adolescent, adult, senior adult are ALL "Stages-of-Development" of the Human Species that should deserve protection under the Law.
Second is the "Legislating Morality" Debate. Pro-Choice folks tend to use this argument when defending abortion saying that the State shouldn't legislate Morality. Well, the State legislates against Murder, Rape and Child Abuse - don't they? In essence, the State is saying that it's Morally WRONG to commit these crimes. From the pro-life perspective, the only difference from these crimes and abortion is that the Developing Human Being resides within the womb of another Human Being. However, that doesn't make that Human Being "any less" Human.
There is another way to look at it. When Doctors perform surgery on a Human Fetus while yet in the womb, does that EFFECT it’s Personhood? When the Doctor removes the Fetus to perform the surgery, and then puts it back in the womb, does it become a "person", then revert back to being a "non-person" again? So what are the doctors then operating on? A WATERMELON ???
Third is the "use of force" debate when it comes to abortion. Pro-Choice people will say that the State has NO Right to "force" MORALITY on it's people. When people say this, my question for them is always this: "Do you think that the mother, who is having the abortion, is putting a Moral "Perspective" on her Unborn offspring?”
Usually they answer NO. They sometimes say: "You are ASSUMING that the Unborn Offspring are Human Beings, like everyone else is." My reply is: "and you are ASSUMING that they are not".
You're right in saying that "having an abortion" is "hardest decision" a woman will ever make. But that statement alone should draw a pause as we think about it. Could it be that Abortion ENDS the LIFE of a completely innocent and defenseless Human Being? And with that said, could there be other "Options" other than killing it?
Steve L, thank you for sharing you POV. I can see that this is a subject you have thought about very deeply and have been affected in a personal way by it. I can understand how you might feel that way. However, I do believe the argument that the state has to in some instances 'force' as you say it's moral stance on others for the common good, protection, and safety of society. When the law sanctions behavior whether good or ill there is an impact on society. We've already seen the proliferation of violence in the media through all forms of entertainment in the past 30+ years. I think when society can take the most precious connection between two human beings (that being a mother and her off-spring) and give the mother license to destroy her unborn the elements of Pandora's box are unleashed. Consequently, with each passing year, the rising generation becomes even more desensitized than the previous generation.
That's my point of view and I'm not saying you (or anyone) has to agree with me.
"As I said, Mitt Romney may have "repented" on his Pro-Choice stance. I'm not taking that away from him. However, his "epiphany" (or testimony) has never been explained in detail. To simply say "I was, but I'm not anymore" simply doesn't do it. And to "not sign a bill" is also not adequate enough to explain the change-of-mind."
Darryl, actually he did explain his 'change' during one of the January debates, and personally, I was satisfied with his answer. I don't know if you saw that particular debate, and if you did it must still not have settled well with you. That's okay. It did for me.
You bring up many compelling and strong arguments for pro-life, and for that I am grateful since we obviously need that in society. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about it.
"Graphic Pictures ARE appropriate, as long as the pictures are TRUE. And if they are TRUE, then I believe they should be admitted as EVIDENCE. And in the quest, for the "Socratic Quest" for TRUTH, none of the EVIDENCE should be "filtered" simply because we may find it "personally" repugnant. So, if something is so HORRIBLE that we can't stand to look at it, perhaps WE SHOULD NOT BE "TOLERATING" IT. Sadly, the Liberal Media is who DICTATES the "Morality" in this Country, especially on TV."
I couldn't agree with you more! I thought the young woman's video showed very shallow thinking. She said she wanted the truth, but in reality, she showed anything but that desire.
As for my family, we don't support TV (don't have cable, etc.), or many forms of entertainment because we find them morally reprehensible. We watch videos, occasionally go to the movies, and play video games only if the content and message are appropriate. The liberal media, as you say, may dictate what is out there-but our family doesn't have to view it, promote it, or support it. As a parent I have that obligation and responsibility to make that decision, it's only when parents abdicate, well….I think it's obvious what the results are. (And the young woman who made her video is at the top of my list of examples.)