| Results for U.S. Republican Presidential Primaries |
| State | Gingrich | Paul | Romney | Santorum | reporting | |||
| 03/06 | AK | 14.1% | 24.0% | 32.4% | 29.2% | 100% | ||
| 03/06 | GA | 47.2% | 6.6% | 25.9% | 19.6% | 100% | ||
| 03/06 | ID | 2.1% | 18.1% | 61.6% | 18.2% | 100% | ||
| 03/06 | MA | 4.6% | 9.5% | 72.2% | 12.0% | 100% | ||
| 03/06 | ND | 8.5% | 28.1% | 23.7% | 39.7% | 100% | ||
03/06 | OH | 14.6% | 9.2% | 37.9% | 37.1% | 100% | ||
03/06 | OK | 27.5% | 9.6% | 28.0% | 33.8% | 100% | ||
03/06 | TN | 23.9% | 9.0% | 28.1% | 37.2% | 100% | ||
03/06 | VA | - | 40.5% | 59.5% | - | 100% | ||
03/06 | VT | 8.2% | 25.5% | 39.7% | 23.7% | 100% | ||
03/06 | WY | 0% | 2.9% | 53.7% | 29.1% | 30% |
| Source: AP |
Polls have begun closing in this ten-state contest and we're getting an idea of how the night is shaping up. We'll have the complete state-by-state breakdown on Wednesday with all the numbers.
State Victories (see below for delegate info):
Romney: Virginia, Vermont, Massachusetts, Idaho, Alaska, Ohio
Santorum: Oklahoma, Tennessee, North Dakota
Gingrich: Georgia
Paul: None
Alaska: Romney declared winner
-27 del. Caucus/convention
Georgia: Gingrich declared winner
-76 del. Winner take all (by district and statewide)
Idaho: Romney declared winner
-32 del. Caucus/convention
Massachusetts: Romney declared winner
-41 del. Proportional primary
North Dakota: Santorum declared winner
-32 del. Caucus/convention
Ohio: Romney declared winner
-66 del. Winner take all (by district and statewide)
Oklahoma: Santorum declared winner
-43 del. Winner take all (by district and statewide)
Tennessee: Santorum declared winner
-58 del. In each district and statewide — if winner receives a majority, winner-take-all primary; otherwise, proportional primary
Vermont: Romney declared winner
-17 del. District: Winner-take-all primary. Statewide: If winner receives a majority, winner-take-all primary; otherwise, proportional primary
Virginia: Romney declared winner
-49 del. District: Winner-take-all primary. Statewide: If winner receives a majority, winner-take-all primary; otherwise, proportional primary
Complete results available Wednesday.
Auto-Generated Tags:
- ohio primary winner take all
- ohio primary results rigged
- what was the major political platform for super tuesday on march the 6th 2012
- what happens if a delegate votes for someone else other than the primary winner?
- what happened on march 6th 2012 elections
- super tuesday updated result
- ron paul can win 3/7/2012
- roanoke com supertuesday
- results super tuesday 2012
- 2012 primary what if nobody gets 1144
- newt teleprompter comment 06 march 2012 fox news
- march 6th 2012 debATE
any of you think your vote really counts? only if you vote for the person that is selected for you… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOJEUYFRY5Y&context=C46e0d05ADvjVQa1PpcFNisl8aFvLT6-35vBugXi5A9RHg9ZkYmVw=
I love these Urube posts. They are self serving cut ups of what occured at polling across the entire state and don't make the points the RP supporters should be making.
Complaining about voter fraud is not a bad thing. No. It needs to be verified and prosecuted if possible to the extent the law allows.
But if it keeps happening and no official challenges are filed it only serves to make the candidate look like a crybaby.
iWithout using this carefully edited piece of "news" as evidence I predict that a strong push will come from the candidate himself to press supporters for financing and get his face on TV ads and get his speeches broadcast on the many television and radio stations that are starving for election news. Then he will use the convention to lobby for candidate reasingment. Only in this way will he be able to win the Republican nomination. A long shot but it could succeed.
***But I digress. The reason I decided to reply is this: the reason the race keeps going until majority is declared. EVEN if my candidate does not win. Even if my candidate is cheated out of votes and delegates. My vote counts because my candidate (or his successor as some pundits have suggested) will have a say in the platform for whoever is elected and ALSO because my candidate (or his successor) will learn from the experience how to get those pesky conniving fixers to go leave the tally alone.
I believe that Mitt has learned from two failed attempts to get nominated and George W's successfull nomination run and presidential run that sometimes it is better to leave the popular vote to the media and go get the delegates. He still may not have the nomination but it IS clear that his strategy (or s tragedy) is to earn or steal delegates anywhere he can.
And that may be the lesson that Ron Paul (or his successor) may be trying to learn.
No matter. Vote for the person who best represents your ideology or idealism. I'll certainly be voting for mine and sending in a dollar of two to his campaign. If enough of you vote we might be able to at least get a modified platform instead of a dictated platform out of the convention. Or, dare I say, you could even see your candidate win.
Augie — off topic:
Today’s Headline:
“In ‘highly unusual’ move, Marines asked to DISARM before Leon Panetta speech!”
Not sure, but can a Marine (unless placed under arrest) be disarmed in hostile territory, even by the Four ‘Starest’ of Generals…?
(Some can put a spin that Panetta is so liked by the troops, that he does not trust his own soldiers with weapons in his presence….).
——————————————————————————————–
Curious if someone knows the answers:
1) Was it ILLEGAL — a breach of military law/conduct/rules — to DISARM the US Marines in a HOSTILE combat territory (in order to be herded without arms to listen to a speech from Citizen Panetta)?
2) Name and rank (or civilian status) of person RESPONSIBLE for disarming the US Marines?
Actually I may have the answer to that in theory.
While technically all military men have to obey any lawful order given by a superior officer, (and an order to disarm is a lawful order) it is never given in a combat zone except by the officer in command. This is how a surrender works. Only the officer in command can surrender his charge and the order to lay down arms is necessary to prevent a lone soldier from continuing to fight ignorant of the surrender.
Yes, that is exactly how rare this is used. I wonder if that means what I think it does!?
In non-combat or secure areas, however the units could be asked to muster weapons at a close-by area in order to be more able to enjoy the entertainer. Yes, entertainer. In Vietnam men were often asked to sit without rifles which were guarded by one person from the unit when Bob or Dolly came to entertain. This was so they could applaud and cheer freely.
Did this speach qualify as entertainment? Did anyone applaud? hmmmmmmmmm
Augie —
Thanks for the info, much appreciated. Very illuminating!
And a big LOL on —"Did this speach qualify as entertainment? Did anyone applaud? hmmmmmmmmm" — funny stuff!
In fairness Paneta's plane was victim to a near attack on arrival.
Augie —
Near attack by whom…. (so Marines were forced to disarm….)…?
Some crazed interpreter stole a truck and drove onto the landing strip that the illustrius secretary was supposed to land on. No bomb or gun on him but I guess he coulda run the truck into the plane. I think it scared Pinochio.
Er Paneta
Augie —
LOL!!!!!!!!! (on the nose grower comparison)