If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Google)   Will Mittens lick Santorum in Colorado? Will conservatives in Missoura change the race? Will Giant Elderly Baby do any better than third? Who is RON PAUL? It's your Minnesota/Missouri/Colorado Republican election thread   (google.com) divider line 814
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

1621 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2012 at 8:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



814 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-08 12:03:39 AM  

bravian: Positive awareness is cumulative. This isn't positive. Its childish and selfish. It doesn't help anyone but the wingnuts.


I wouldn't call it negative. Childish, maybe. Selfish, eh.
 
2012-02-08 12:03:40 AM  
Will the last person to leave the GOP please turn out the lights?
 
2012-02-08 12:04:04 AM  
my guess for Colorado, it's gonna be close. Romney wins Denver, Boulder, and Larimer(Ft. Collins), Jefferson(west Denver suburbs/foothills) is a tossup/leaning Santorum, El Paso(Co. Springs) and Pueblo go to Santorum and he grabs most of the non-tourist rural counties.
 
2012-02-08 12:04:35 AM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: Where are you finding those numbers?


In MN the numbers are on the Secretary of States (new window) website.
 
2012-02-08 12:04:40 AM  

phritz: Let me get this straight ... in Minnesota, a fairly normal midwestern state (Bachman's district notwithstanding), the supposed front runner is well under 20% - basically, vote totals you'd expect from a fringe-candidate. Am I reading this wrong?


Speaking as a Minnesotan, you would have to have been very on-top-of-things to even know there was anything happening tonight. No campaigning blitz, no signage, minimal coverage in the news...only the "deeply concerned" show up; therefore, hard bias to the whatever fringe group actually attends.
 
2012-02-08 12:04:40 AM  
Stop with the glitter bombing already. It's about the only thing you could do to make these douche nozzles seem sympathetic.
 
2012-02-08 12:04:47 AM  

Smelly McUgly: There are too many Mormons there. Romney'll probably win that one.


You're probably right, but if the crazies really do come out it might be close enough to make it close...not exactly the level of momentum you want heading into the biggest day of the nomination process a few weeks later.
 
2012-02-08 12:04:55 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Car_Ramrod: Ok, I gotta say, glitter bombing seems like one of the most childish, lame things you could do to someone. I just don't understand the thought process behind it.

It's a non-violent way to get your issue in the spotlight, if only for a moment. May not seem like much but that's what many people say about certain 'months' - black history, LGBT, etc. Awareness is cumulative. It adds up.


So why Romney then? Why not glitterbomb Santorum?

/they would never get all of it off
 
2012-02-08 12:05:12 AM  

Car_Ramrod: BSABSVR: A Terrible Human: BSABSVR: And that's why you don't fark with the Secret Service, dumbass.

Wait,what?

Some guy tried to rush Romney to do something. Anderson Cooper says glitter bomb. The guy had like 4 SS agents on him really quick. Mitt Romney looked like a mildly confused doll.

Ok, I gotta say, glitter bombing seems like one of the most childish, lame things you could do to someone. I just don't understand the thought process behind it.


Disagrees (new window)
 
2012-02-08 12:06:07 AM  

rynthetyn: True. But old people with concealed carry permits in a state with stand-your-ground laws? Terrifying.


Mad Max with hoverounds, geriatrics in spiked leather riding around in a post-apocalyptic Floridascape engaged in mortal combat for Depends and Ensure drinks. Barbara Streisand becoming the iron-fisted ruler of Boca.

Terrifyingly awesome.

jadedlee: Law-dork related content, including bad but highly consequential modern SCOTUS decisions. That's a guess because of the color you're marked in and the amount of alcohol I'd consumed then and now.


Yeah, that sounds about right for me too.
 
2012-02-08 12:06:29 AM  

What Would Whoopty Do: So why Romney then? Why not glitterbomb Santorum?

/they would never get all of it off


Already done. Link (new window)
 
2012-02-08 12:06:34 AM  

Altitude5280: Gingrich won a county in Colorado.


I bet that's a wonderful place...

/for me to poop on
 
2012-02-08 12:06:48 AM  
www.tobinphoto.com County goes for Mitt
 
2012-02-08 12:06:58 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bravian: Positive awareness is cumulative. This isn't positive. Its childish and selfish. It doesn't help anyone but the wingnuts.

I wouldn't call it negative. Childish, maybe. Selfish, eh.


Its selfish if you are purposely setting back a movement so you can get yourself in the spotlight. Which is what these idiots appear to be doing.
 
2012-02-08 12:07:00 AM  

Oreamnos: Speaking as a Minnesotan, you would have to have been very on-top-of-things to even know there was anything happening tonight. No campaigning blitz, no signage, minimal coverage in the news...only the "deeply concerned" show up; therefore, hard bias to the whatever fringe group actually attends.


According to the Romney campaign, they stayed out of MN to focus on Colorado: Which they are in the process of losing by double digits to Mr. Frothy.
 
2012-02-08 12:07:00 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Car_Ramrod: childish, lame things

Consider the intended target....


Truth. I just don't agree with getting down to their level.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Car_Ramrod: Ok, I gotta say, glitter bombing seems like one of the most childish, lame things you could do to someone. I just don't understand the thought process behind it.

It's a non-violent way to get your issue in the spotlight, if only for a moment. May not seem like much but that's what many people say about certain 'months' - black history, LGBT, etc. Awareness is cumulative. It adds up.


It just seems like a really ineffective tactic. Especially when your target has SS protection.

I mean, take Black History Month. In schools, you'll have books by black authors being read in English class, kids learning about great black leaders and innovators in History class, discussing the politics of race in Civics class, etc. That's raising awareness. That's driving a conversation forward. Dumping a box of glitter on someone that already hates gay people? I know the point isn't to change THEIR mind, but I dno't see how a stunt like that drives forward any meaningful message or conversation.
 
2012-02-08 12:08:38 AM  

sirgrim: YourAFattie: stop celebrating folks.
Yeah I've seen the reports come in from my county (Arapahoe), and Romney's leading. Most of the Republics I know might grudgingly vote for him too. Hoping the farmers pull it in for Santorum, for the lols though.


/Arapahoe County fist bump
 
2012-02-08 12:08:44 AM  
So Colorado and Iowa had "caucuses", not votes. What does that mean exactly? Do they vote at a later time - or is it just a non-binding "suggestion" to the powers in charge on who they would like to see their state's delegates go to?
 
2012-02-08 12:08:59 AM  
i'm done following this. they're intentionally holding back the results from Denver out of some kind of collusion with the tv stations. that's my whacko hypothesis, at least.
 
2012-02-08 12:10:13 AM  

bravian: antidisestablishmentarianism: Where are you finding those numbers?

In MN the numbers are on the Secretary of States (new window) website.


20574 seems like a decent number. Is MN a state where you have to be registered with the party to vote in the primaries or can anyone vote?
 
2012-02-08 12:10:18 AM  
images.wikia.com goes Santorum!
 
2012-02-08 12:11:05 AM  
Here's another great quote from a supporter on his facebook page:

"Am so happy! Now, all Rick supporters should double their efforts in praying and if possible fasting. The fight has just begun"
 
2012-02-08 12:11:12 AM  

bravian: Its selfish if you are purposely setting back a movement so you can get yourself in the spotlight. Which is what these idiots appear to be doing.


Themselves? You know any of their names? I certainly don't. They're not promoting themselves. It's about the issue, not the person doing it.

Car_Ramrod: It just seems like a really ineffective tactic. Especially when your target has SS protection.


It was certainly stupid to do it to someone with SS protection. No argument there.

Car_Ramrod: I know the point isn't to change THEIR mind, but I dno't see how a stunt like that drives forward any meaningful message or conversation.


It's driving this conversation. Whether it's meaningful or not is subjective. I was aware of the issues before the deed, but I'm sure there's someone out there who wasn't. Perhaps they went to google to find out just what this glitterbomb thing is all about. And perhaps they think it's stupid too. Or maybe they don't, and they learn a little something along the way. It adds up.
 
2012-02-08 12:11:21 AM  
Watching Fox at the moment. Charles Krauthammer is sitting there, farting himself in abject horror.
 
2012-02-08 12:11:52 AM  
This might make me a bad person, but I'm really rooting for Santorum, not because I agree with anything he says, but because he isn't the "establishment's" choice. I don't want to sound like some sort of conspiracy nut, but I get the impression that Mitt was determined to be "the one" by the people who usually decide these sorts of things, and Santorum is just a wrench in the gears.
 
2012-02-08 12:12:09 AM  
The real winners tonight

www.retaildoc.com
 
2012-02-08 12:12:21 AM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: vygramul: The drop in voter participation is breathtaking.

Where are you finding those numbers?


It was on CNN. One county in Colorado, with 67% reporting, was at 5% (at best) of its 2008 turnout.
 
2012-02-08 12:14:59 AM  

vygramul: antidisestablishmentarianism: vygramul: The drop in voter participation is breathtaking.

Where are you finding those numbers?

It was on CNN. One county in Colorado, with 67% reporting, was at 5% (at best) of its 2008 turnout.


For JUST the Republican primary, or counting both together?
 
2012-02-08 12:15:39 AM  
Looks like Mitt's going to have to win Denver in a landslide to pull this one off.
 
2012-02-08 12:16:00 AM  
Dude! Santorum is CRUSHING it. Go Rick, you crazy, beautiful fundie bastard! Chum those waters!
 
2012-02-08 12:16:33 AM  

TheSopwithTurtle: jadedlee: [thefoaminghead.com image 300x494]

It's also what I'm calling the Missouri ballot.

I've got one bottle left, and now I'm tempted to open it and finish it.


In case you need more temptation/peer pressure on that front:

i762.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-08 12:18:02 AM  

vygramul: antidisestablishmentarianism: vygramul: The drop in voter participation is breathtaking.

Where are you finding those numbers?

It was on CNN. One county in Colorado, with 67% reporting, was at 5% (at best) of its 2008 turnout.


It's Arapahoe County, CO. 12% of the state population, leans conservative. Had 5,000+ Romney voters in 2008. 101 in 2012.

I have to assume that the 67% of the vote in is from the extreme eastern precincts, and that the total will pick up, but it still looks like 2,500 votes for the winner.
 
2012-02-08 12:18:21 AM  

InmanRoshi: Stop with the glitter bombing already. It's about the only thing you could do to make these douche nozzles seem sympathetic.


It was, and can be, amusing if used with proper comedic timing and SPARINGLY. It seems like every national event brings out infantile copy-cats.
 
2012-02-08 12:18:39 AM  

organizmx: vygramul: antidisestablishmentarianism: vygramul: The drop in voter participation is breathtaking.

Where are you finding those numbers?

It was on CNN. One county in Colorado, with 67% reporting, was at 5% (at best) of its 2008 turnout.

For JUST the Republican primary, or counting both together?


That's the first thing I thought.
 
2012-02-08 12:19:12 AM  

organizmx: vygramul: antidisestablishmentarianism: vygramul: The drop in voter participation is breathtaking.

Where are you finding those numbers?

It was on CNN. One county in Colorado, with 67% reporting, was at 5% (at best) of its 2008 turnout.

For JUST the Republican primary, or counting both together?


JUST the Republican primary.
 
2012-02-08 12:19:52 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bravian: Its selfish if you are purposely setting back a movement so you can get yourself in the spotlight. Which is what these idiots appear to be doing.

Themselves? You know any of their names? I certainly don't. They're not promoting themselves. It's about the issue, not the person doing it.


Vermin Supreme disagrees.

Car_Ramrod: I know the point isn't to change THEIR mind, but I dno't see how a stunt like that drives forward any meaningful message or conversation.

It's driving this conversation. Whether it's meaningful or not is subjective. I was aware of the issues before the deed, but I'm sure there's someone out there who wasn't. Perhaps they went to google to find out just what this glitterbomb thing is all about. And perhaps they think it's stupid too. Or maybe they don't, and they learn a little something along the way. It adds up.


Someone that's following the presidential race isn't aware of the issue of gay marriage?
 
2012-02-08 12:20:15 AM  
According to CNN Santorum still up by 11% with 47% reporting.
 
2012-02-08 12:22:09 AM  

jack21221: This might make me a bad person, but I'm really rooting for Santorum, not because I agree with anything he says, but because he isn't the "establishment's" choice. I don't want to sound like some sort of conspiracy nut, but I get the impression that Mitt was determined to be "the one" by the people who usually decide these sorts of things, and Santorum is just a wrench in the gears.



Yes, thank you, Captain Obvious.

/eesh, you are seriously afraid of that sounding like a conspiracy nut?
 
2012-02-08 12:22:12 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-02-08 12:22:17 AM  
For example, with 47% of the precincts reporting, they have just over 8,000 Republican voters. That includes a county that, in 2008, had 8000 GOP primary voters in that county alone.
 
2012-02-08 12:22:18 AM  
I think it's hilarious that the freepers were so incensed just a week ago at Santorum for staying in the race. Now they are all on the frothy band wagon.
 
2012-02-08 12:22:27 AM  
Can someone explain to me this whole caucus vs. primary vs. binding vs. non binding.

Does any of this voting actually mean anything tonight?
 
2012-02-08 12:22:46 AM  

jack21221: but I get the impression that Mitt was determined to be "the one" by the people who usually decide these sorts of things


The only thing that decides elections is money. Who has the most of it, who can get the most of it.
 
2012-02-08 12:23:02 AM  
they're saying Romney beat Santorum in cache.gawkerassets.com County about 1300 to 900
 
2012-02-08 12:23:04 AM  
So, assuming current trends in CO hold:

Romney: NH, NV, FL
Gingrich: SC
Santorum: IA, MN, MO, CO

Shine on you ragin' dipshiats.
 
2012-02-08 12:24:11 AM  
Larimer county: total GOP votes 2012: 202. 2008: 9000.
 
2012-02-08 12:24:39 AM  
Mittens pulls ahead in Colorado.

You can do it, Rick!
 
2012-02-08 12:25:14 AM  
CNN's update now shows Romney ahead by 333 votes with 51% of the precincts reporting.
 
2012-02-08 12:26:21 AM  
Have y'all noticed how much Jay Leno is starting to look like Newt?
 
2012-02-08 12:26:29 AM  
And Romney pulls ahead by half the mark of the beast.
 
Displayed 50 of 814 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report