Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Jan 3. IA: Non binding closed caucus, convention: Santorum 8, Romney 7, Paul 7, Gingrich 2, Perry 0, Bachmann 0

Jan 10 NH: Semi open primary, proportional: Romney 7, Paul 3, Huntsman 0, Santorum 0, Gingrich 0

Jan 21 SC: Open primary, winner take all: Gingrich 23, Romney 2, Santorum 0, Paul 0

Jan 31 FL: Closed primary, winner take all: Romney 50, Gingrich 0, Santorum 0, Paul 0 (1/2 FL's delegates stripped)

Feb 4 NV: Binding closed caucus, proportional: Romney 14, Gingrich 6, Paul 5, Santorum 3

Feb 7 CO: Nonbinding closed caucus, convention: Santorum 17, Romney 13, Gingrich 2, Paul 1
-------MN: Nonbinding open caucus, convention: Santorum25, Paul 9, Romney 2, Gingrich 2

Feb 4-11 ME: Nonbinding semi open caucus, convention: Romney11, Paul 7, Santorum 3, Gingrich 0

Feb 28 AZ: Closed primary, winner take all: Romney29, Santorum 0, Gingrich 0, Paul 0
---------MI: Open primary, proportional: Romney 16, Santorum 14, Paul 0, Gingrich 0

Feb 11-29 WY: Non binding closed caucus, convention: Romney 12, Santorum 7, Paul 4, Gingrich 1

Mar 3 WA: Non binding open caucus, convention: Romney 25, Paul 8, Santorum 7, Gingrich 0

Mar 6 AK: Binding closed caucus, proportional: Romney 8, Santorum 7, Paul 6, Gingrich 3
------GA: Open primary, proportional: Gingrich 53, Romney 20, Santorum 3, Paul 0
-------ID: Binding open caucus, winner take all: Romney 32, Santorum 0, Paul 0, Gingrich 0
----- MA: Semi closed primary, proportional: Romney 41, Santorum 0, Paul 0, Gingrich 0
------ND: Binding open caucus, proportional: Santorum 11, Paul 8, Romney 7, Gingrich 2
------OH: Semi closed primary, proportional: Romney 35, Santorum 19, Gingrich 0, Paul 0
------OK: Closed primary, proportional: Santorum 14, Romney 13, Gingrich 13, Paul 0
------TN: Open primary, proportional: Santorum 27, Romney 15, Gingrich 8, Paul 0
------VT: Open primary, proportional: Romney 9, Paul 4, Santorum 4, Gingrich 0
------VA: Open primary, winner take all: Romney 43, Paul 3 (Santorum & Gingrich not on ballot)

Mar 10 KS: Binding closed caucus, proportional: Santorum 33, Romney 7, Gingrich 0, Paul 0
-----Guam: Non binding closed caucus, convention: Romney 9
Northern Marianas: Non binding closed caucus, convention: Romney 6
US Virgin Islands: Binding closed caucus, convention: ????

Mar 13 AL: Open primary, proportional: Santorum 19, Gingrich 9, Romney 9, Paul 0
American Samoa: Non binding ??? caucus, convention: Romney 9
----Hawaii: Binding caucus, proportional: ????
--------MS: Open primary, proportional: Santorum 13, Gingrich 12, Romney 12, Paul 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican ... ries,_2012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primar ... ebystate/r" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Santorum won Bama and Mississippi yesterday. No surprise there. Totals so far (pledged and unpledged):

Romney 489
Santorum 234
Gingrich: 139
Ron Paul 66

Total needed to clinch 1144.

This is what I find a little confusing. So far have had:
1. Non binding closed caucus
2. Non binding open caucus
3. Non binding semi open caucus
4. Binding closed caucus, proportional
5. Binding open caucus, winner take all
6. Binding open caucus, proportional
7. Closed primary proportional
7. Semi open primary, proportional (registered party members may only vote in their own party’s primary, independent may vote in either).
8. Open primary, proportional
9. Open primary, winner take all
10. Closed primary, winner take all

On the fence about semi open primaries & caucuses, letting independents vote in one of the party's contests. Definitely against open caucuses or primaries. Shouldn't let registered folks from one party vote in the other party's contest.

The thing is, the Republican party, by moving some of the bigger states till late, and changing a lot of the states that used to be winner take all to proportional, made it highly likely this would be a LONG contest. Even with a stronger candidate than Romney, it would be nearly impossible to have the race wrapped up early as in the past. From the WSJ article Feb 18 "GOP Primary Math=Long Division"

"...Republicans observed how the extended Democratic slugfest in 2008 between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton energized Democrats across the country and sharpened Mr. Obama for November. They revamped their own rules in 2010 to assure a more competitive contest in 2012....."



Now you've also had a lot of so called political pundits, including a lot of Republicans, say it was a dumb move. I like it for 2 reasons.
-If Romney was enabled to wrap this thing up early, he wouldn't have been as battle tested, esp in debates. You don't want to get to the championship game having played a weak schedule- just ask Montana.
-It would be the same old s**t in the state I live in, PA and other states that usually held their primaries late. Historically the races have been over by the time they've gotten to them. Now they won't be. I have a reason to bother to vote in the primary next month.

I hope they either keep the new format, or go to one I read about years ago, the Rotating Regional Primary System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_R ... ary_System" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But the old way of doing things, having the same states always going early, the same states always going in the middle, and the same states always going late, is BS.