Romney vs. romney (update, 04.04.12)

•

0 likes•488 views

This document shows the results of Republican primary elections in various states in 2008 and 2012. It displays the percentage of votes and placement (1st, 2nd, etc.) that Mitt Romney received in each state in both election years. An asterisk indicates states that held their contests after Romney suspended his 2008 campaign. The numbers show he improved his performance in many states from 2008 to 2012.

IA NH SC FL

2008 NH 2008 2008 2008
25.2% 31.6% 15.3% 31.0%

2nd place 2nd place 4th place 2nd place

 0.7%  7.7%  12.6%  15.4%
2012 2012 2012 2012
24.5% 39.3% 27.9% 46.4%

2nd place 1st place 2nd place 1st place

NV MO MN CO

2008 2008 2008 2008
51.1% 29.3% 41.4% 60.1%

1st place 3rd place 1st place 1st place

 1.0%  4.0%  24.5%  25.2%
2012 2012 2012 2012
50.1% 25.3% 16.9% 34.9%

1st place 2nd place 3rd place 2nd place

* Mitt Romney ended his
campaign on Feb. 7, 2008.
An asterisk signifies states
that held primaries or
ME MI AZ WA
caucuses after this date.

2008 2008 2008 2008*
51.7% 38.9% 34.5% 15.4%

1st place 1st place 2nd place (withdrawn)

 12.5%  2.2%  12.8%  22.2%
2012 2012 2012 2012
39.2% 41.1% 47.3% 37.6%

1st place 1st place 1st place 1st place

* Mitt Romney ended his
campaign on Feb. 7, 2008.
An asterisk signifies states
that held primaries or
AK GA ID MA
caucuses after this date.

2008 2008 2008* 2008
43.7% 30.2% 0.0% 51.3%

1st place 3rd place (withdrawn) 1st place

 11.3%  4.3%  61.6%  20.9%
2012 2012 2012 2012
32.4% 25.9% 61.6% 72.2%

1st place 2nd place 1st place 1st place

* Mitt Romney ended his
campaign on Feb. 7, 2008.
An asterisk signifies states
that held primaries or
ND OH OK TN
caucuses after this date.

2008 2008* 2008 2008
35.8% 3.3% 24.8% 23.6%

1st place (withdrawn) 3rd place 3rd place

 12.1%  34.6%  3.2%  4.4%
2012 2012 2012 2012
23.7% 37.9% 28.0% 28.0%

3rd place 1st place 2nd place 2nd place

* Mitt Romney ended his
campaign on Feb. 7, 2008.
An asterisk signifies states
that held primaries or
VT VA WY KS
caucuses after this date.

2008* 2008* 2008 2008*
4.6% 3.7% NA 3.3%

(withdrawn) (withdrawn) (no vote held) (withdrawn)

 35.2%  55.8%  44.0%  17.6%
2012 2012 2012 2012
39.8% 59.5% 44.0% 20.9%

1st place 1st place 1st place 2nd place

* Mitt Romney ended his
campaign on Feb. 7, 2008.
An asterisk signifies states
that held primaries or
AL HI MS PR
caucuses after this date.

2008 2008 2008* 2008*
17.8% NA 1.5% 0.0%

3rd place (no vote held) (withdrawn) (withdrawn)

 11.2%  45.4%  28.8%  88.0%
2012 2012 2012 2012
29.0% 45.4% 30.3% 88.0%

3rd place 1st place 3rd place 1st place

* Mitt Romney ended his
campaign on Feb. 7, 2008.
An asterisk signifies states
that held primaries or
IL LA MD WI
caucuses after this date.

2008 2008* 2008* 2008*
28.6% 6.3% 7.0% 2.0%

2nd place (withdrawn) (withdrawn) (withdrawn)

 18.1%  20.4%  42.1%  42.1%
2012 2012 2012 2012
46.7% 26.7% 49.1% 44.1%

1st place 2nd place 1st place 1st place

* Mitt Romney ended his
campaign on Feb. 7, 2008.
An asterisk signifies states
that held primaries or
DC
caucuses after this date.

DC 2008*
6.4%

(withdrawn)

 63.8%
DC 2012
70.2%

1st place

This document summarizes the results of the 2012 Republican presidential primaries and caucuses on a state-by-state basis, showing the popular vote percentage and number of delegates won by each of the major candidates in each state or district contest. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul were the leading candidates throughout the nomination process, with Romney ultimately clinching the nomination after winning a majority of primaries and caucuses.

Paul vs paul (update, 04.04.12)

kkellyfv

Paul vs paul (post super tuesday update, 03.22.12)

kkellyfv

Gop 2012 nomination share of popular vote and delegates per candidate (03.2...

kkellyfv

The document summarizes the results of the 2012 Republican presidential primaries and caucuses in various states from January to March. It shows the share of the popular vote and number of delegates won by each of the major candidates (Romney, Paul, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman) in each state. Mitt Romney won the most primaries, including key victories in New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, and Washington that helped make him the eventual Republican nominee for president.

Gop 2012 nomination share of popular vote and delegates per candidate (03.1...

kkellyfv

This document summarizes the results of the 2012 Republican presidential primaries and caucuses on a state-by-state basis, showing the popular vote percentage and number of delegates won by each of the major candidates in each state contest. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum emerged as the two leading candidates, with Romney ultimately clinching the nomination after winning a majority of primaries and caucuses, including key contests in Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts and Virginia.

FairVote.org - Why NPV makes sense (for Utah)

kkellyfv

The document summarizes that Ohio received disproportionate attention from presidential candidates in 2008 compared to smaller states, despite Ohio only making up around 3% of the total US population. It argues that the current Electoral College system marginalizes almost all states except a few battleground states that receive the vast majority of campaign visits and money. While defenders claim battleground states will change over time, some states like Utah and Rhode Island have not been battlegrounds in nearly a century, so the attention does not evenly shift over time as claimed. The document proposes a national popular vote as an alternative that would make every vote equally relevant and not ignore smaller states.

Portland, me 2011, mayoral election graphs (1)

kkellyfv

The document shows the results of the 2011 mayoral election in Portland, Maine over 15 rounds. It displays the percentage of the vote share received by each of the 15 candidates in each round. In the first round, Brennan received 26.59% of the vote, Strimling received 22.31%, and Mavodones received 7.7%. Over subsequent rounds, Brennan and Strimling increased their vote shares while others were eliminated. In the final round, Brennan received 50% of the vote and was elected mayor, while Strimling received 40% and there were 3,494 exhausted ballots.

This document summarizes the results of the 2012 Republican presidential primaries and caucuses on a state-by-state basis, showing the popular vote percentage and number of delegates won by each of the major candidates in each state contest. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum emerged as the two leading candidates, with Romney ultimately clinching the nomination after winning a majority of primaries and caucuses, including key contests in Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts and Virginia.

FairVote.org - Why NPV makes sense (for Utah)

kkellyfv

Portland, me 2011, mayoral election graphs (1)

kkellyfv

San francisco 2011, sheriff election graphs (1)

kkellyfv

The document presents results from the 2011 election for San Francisco Sheriff. It shows the results over three rounds of ranked-choice voting. In the first round, Mirkarimi received 27.23% of the vote, Miyamoto received 28.18%, Cunnie received 38.36%, and Wong received 6.23%. In the second round, Mirkarimi received 30.25% and Miyamoto received 29.58%. In the final round, Mirkarimi defeated Miyamoto 53.45% to 46.55%. The final vote tally was 85,608 for Mirkarimi and 74,548 for Miyamoto, with 21,679 exhausted ballots.

San francisco, 2011 district attorney election graphs (1)

kkellyfv

The document shows the results of the 2011 San Francisco District Attorney election across three rounds of ranked-choice voting. In the first round, Gascón received 23.53% of the vote and Onek received 20.75%, with no candidate receiving over 50%. In the second round, Gascón's share increased to 26.99% and Onek's increased to 47.76%. In the final round, Gascón received 62.39% of the remaining votes to win the election with 99,480 votes, while Onek received 37.61% with 59,976 votes and there were 22,827 exhausted ballots.

San francisco 2011, mayoral election graphs

kkellyfv

Portland, me 2011, mayoral election graphs

kkellyfv

The document displays the results of the 2011 mayoral election in Portland, Maine over 15 rounds. It shows the percentage of the vote share for each candidate in each round. In the first round, Brennan received 26.59% of the vote, Strimling received 22.31%, and Mavodones received 7.7%. Over subsequent rounds, Brennan's vote share increased while other candidates were eliminated until the final round, where Brennan received 50% of the vote and was elected mayor of Portland.

San francisco 2011, sheriff election graphs

kkellyfv

San francisco, 2011 district attorney election graphs

kkellyfv

The document shows the results of the 2011 San Francisco District Attorney election across three rounds of ranked-choice voting. In the first round, Gascón received 23.53% of the vote and Onek received 20.75%, with no candidate receiving over 50%. In the second round, Gascón's share increased to 26.99% and Onek's increased to 47.76%. In the final round, Gascón was elected with 62.39% of the vote to Onek's 37.61%.

San francisco, 2011 mayoral election graphs

kkellyfv

The document displays the results of the 2011 San Francisco mayoral election over 12 rounds of ranked-choice voting. Ed Lee received the most first-choice votes at 30.86% in Round 1. John Avalos was the second highest at 19.12%. The graphs show Lee's support increasing with each round while other candidates were eliminated, culminating in Lee being declared the winner with over 50% of the final round vote.

Portland, ME 2011 Mayoral Results

kkellyfv

San francisco, CA 2011 Mayoral Results

kkellyfv

Introduction of Cybersecurity with OSS at Code Europe 2024

Hiroshi SHIBATA

I develop the Ruby programming language, RubyGems, and Bundler, which are package managers for Ruby. Today, I will introduce how to enhance the security of your application using open-source software (OSS) examples from Ruby and RubyGems. The first topic is CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures). I have published CVEs many times. But what exactly is a CVE? I'll provide a basic understanding of CVEs and explain how to detect and handle vulnerabilities in OSS. Next, let's discuss package managers. Package managers play a critical role in the OSS ecosystem. I'll explain how to manage library dependencies in your application. I'll share insights into how the Ruby and RubyGems core team works to keep our ecosystem safe. By the end of this talk, you'll have a better understanding of how to safeguard your code.

Trusted Execution Environment for Decentralized Process Mining

LucaBarbaro3

Public CyberSecurity Awareness Presentation 2024.pptx

marufrahmanstratejm

leewayhertz.com-AI in predictive maintenance Use cases technologies benefits ...

alexjohnson7307

Presentation of the OECD Artificial Intelligence Review of Germany

innovationoecd

Columbus Data & Analytics Wednesdays - June 2024

Jason Packer

How to Interpret Trends in the Kalyan Rajdhani Mix Chart.pdf

Chart Kalyan

HCL Notes und Domino Lizenzkostenreduzierung in der Welt von DLAU

panagenda

Webinar Recording: https://www.panagenda.com/webinars/hcl-notes-und-domino-lizenzkostenreduzierung-in-der-welt-von-dlau/ DLAU und die Lizenzen nach dem CCB- und CCX-Modell sind für viele in der HCL-Community seit letztem Jahr ein heißes Thema. Als Notes- oder Domino-Kunde haben Sie vielleicht mit unerwartet hohen Benutzerzahlen und Lizenzgebühren zu kämpfen. Sie fragen sich vielleicht, wie diese neue Art der Lizenzierung funktioniert und welchen Nutzen sie Ihnen bringt. Vor allem wollen Sie sicherlich Ihr Budget einhalten und Kosten sparen, wo immer möglich. Das verstehen wir und wir möchten Ihnen dabei helfen! Wir erklären Ihnen, wie Sie häufige Konfigurationsprobleme lösen können, die dazu führen können, dass mehr Benutzer gezählt werden als nötig, und wie Sie überflüssige oder ungenutzte Konten identifizieren und entfernen können, um Geld zu sparen. Es gibt auch einige Ansätze, die zu unnötigen Ausgaben führen können, z. B. wenn ein Personendokument anstelle eines Mail-Ins für geteilte Mailboxen verwendet wird. Wir zeigen Ihnen solche Fälle und deren Lösungen. Und natürlich erklären wir Ihnen das neue Lizenzmodell. Nehmen Sie an diesem Webinar teil, bei dem HCL-Ambassador Marc Thomas und Gastredner Franz Walder Ihnen diese neue Welt näherbringen. Es vermittelt Ihnen die Tools und das Know-how, um den Überblick zu bewahren. Sie werden in der Lage sein, Ihre Kosten durch eine optimierte Domino-Konfiguration zu reduzieren und auch in Zukunft gering zu halten. Diese Themen werden behandelt - Reduzierung der Lizenzkosten durch Auffinden und Beheben von Fehlkonfigurationen und überflüssigen Konten - Wie funktionieren CCB- und CCX-Lizenzen wirklich? - Verstehen des DLAU-Tools und wie man es am besten nutzt - Tipps für häufige Problembereiche, wie z. B. Team-Postfächer, Funktions-/Testbenutzer usw. - Praxisbeispiele und Best Practices zum sofortigen Umsetzen

Programming Foundation Models with DSPy - Meetup Slides

Zilliz

GraphRAG for Life Science to increase LLM accuracy

Tomaz Bratanic

Overcoming the PLG Trap: Lessons from Canva's Head of Sales & Head of EMEA Da...

saastr

Skybuffer AI: Advanced Conversational and Generative AI Solution on SAP Busin...

Tatiana Kojar

Skybuffer AI, built on the robust SAP Business Technology Platform (SAP BTP), is the latest and most advanced version of our AI development, reaffirming our commitment to delivering top-tier AI solutions. Skybuffer AI harnesses all the innovative capabilities of the SAP BTP in the AI domain, from Conversational AI to cutting-edge Generative AI and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). It also helps SAP customers safeguard their investments into SAP Conversational AI and ensure a seamless, one-click transition to SAP Business AI. With Skybuffer AI, various AI models can be integrated into a single communication channel such as Microsoft Teams. This integration empowers business users with insights drawn from SAP backend systems, enterprise documents, and the expansive knowledge of Generative AI. And the best part of it is that it is all managed through our intuitive no-code Action Server interface, requiring no extensive coding knowledge and making the advanced AI accessible to more users.

Fueling AI with Great Data with Airbyte Webinar

Zilliz

More from kkellyfv

San francisco 2011, sheriff election graphs (1)

kkellyfv

San francisco, 2011 district attorney election graphs (1)

kkellyfv

San francisco 2011, mayoral election graphs

kkellyfv

Portland, me 2011, mayoral election graphs

kkellyfv

San francisco 2011, sheriff election graphs

kkellyfv

San francisco, 2011 district attorney election graphs

kkellyfv

The document shows the results of the 2011 San Francisco District Attorney election across three rounds of ranked-choice voting. In the first round, Gascón received 23.53% of the vote and Onek received 20.75%, with no candidate receiving over 50%. In the second round, Gascón's share increased to 26.99% and Onek's increased to 47.76%. In the final round, Gascón was elected with 62.39% of the vote to Onek's 37.61%.

San francisco, 2011 mayoral election graphs

kkellyfv

Portland, ME 2011 Mayoral Results

kkellyfv

San francisco, CA 2011 Mayoral Results

kkellyfv

More from kkellyfv (9)

San francisco 2011, sheriff election graphs (1)

San francisco, 2011 district attorney election graphs (1)

San francisco 2011, mayoral election graphs

Portland, me 2011, mayoral election graphs

San francisco 2011, sheriff election graphs

San francisco, 2011 district attorney election graphs

San francisco, 2011 mayoral election graphs

Portland, ME 2011 Mayoral Results

San francisco, CA 2011 Mayoral Results

Recently uploaded

Introduction of Cybersecurity with OSS at Code Europe 2024

Hiroshi SHIBATA

Trusted Execution Environment for Decentralized Process Mining

LucaBarbaro3

Public CyberSecurity Awareness Presentation 2024.pptx

marufrahmanstratejm

leewayhertz.com-AI in predictive maintenance Use cases technologies benefits ...

alexjohnson7307

Presentation of the OECD Artificial Intelligence Review of Germany

innovationoecd

Columbus Data & Analytics Wednesdays - June 2024

Jason Packer

How to Interpret Trends in the Kalyan Rajdhani Mix Chart.pdf

Chart Kalyan

HCL Notes und Domino Lizenzkostenreduzierung in der Welt von DLAU

panagenda

Programming Foundation Models with DSPy - Meetup Slides

Zilliz

GraphRAG for Life Science to increase LLM accuracy

Tomaz Bratanic

Overcoming the PLG Trap: Lessons from Canva's Head of Sales & Head of EMEA Da...

saastr

Skybuffer AI: Advanced Conversational and Generative AI Solution on SAP Busin...

Tatiana Kojar

Fueling AI with Great Data with Airbyte Webinar

Zilliz

FREE A4 Cyber Security Awareness Posters-Social Engineering part 3

Data Hops

HCL Notes and Domino License Cost Reduction in the World of DLAU

panagenda

Webinar Recording: https://www.panagenda.com/webinars/hcl-notes-and-domino-license-cost-reduction-in-the-world-of-dlau/ The introduction of DLAU and the CCB & CCX licensing model caused quite a stir in the HCL community. As a Notes and Domino customer, you may have faced challenges with unexpected user counts and license costs. You probably have questions on how this new licensing approach works and how to benefit from it. Most importantly, you likely have budget constraints and want to save money where possible. Don’t worry, we can help with all of this! We’ll show you how to fix common misconfigurations that cause higher-than-expected user counts, and how to identify accounts which you can deactivate to save money. There are also frequent patterns that can cause unnecessary cost, like using a person document instead of a mail-in for shared mailboxes. We’ll provide examples and solutions for those as well. And naturally we’ll explain the new licensing model. Join HCL Ambassador Marc Thomas in this webinar with a special guest appearance from Franz Walder. It will give you the tools and know-how to stay on top of what is going on with Domino licensing. You will be able lower your cost through an optimized configuration and keep it low going forward. These topics will be covered - Reducing license cost by finding and fixing misconfigurations and superfluous accounts - How do CCB and CCX licenses really work? - Understanding the DLAU tool and how to best utilize it - Tips for common problem areas, like team mailboxes, functional/test users, etc - Practical examples and best practices to implement right away

TrustArc Webinar - 2024 Global Privacy Survey

TrustArc

How does your privacy program stack up against your peers? What challenges are privacy teams tackling and prioritizing in 2024? In the fifth annual Global Privacy Benchmarks Survey, we asked over 1,800 global privacy professionals and business executives to share their perspectives on the current state of privacy inside and outside of their organizations. This year’s report focused on emerging areas of importance for privacy and compliance professionals, including considerations and implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, building brand trust, and different approaches for achieving higher privacy competence scores. See how organizational priorities and strategic approaches to data security and privacy are evolving around the globe. This webinar will review: - The top 10 privacy insights from the fifth annual Global Privacy Benchmarks Survey - The top challenges for privacy leaders, practitioners, and organizations in 2024 - Key themes to consider in developing and maintaining your privacy program

Energy Efficient Video Encoding for Cloud and Edge Computing Instances

Alpen-Adria-Universität

Driving Business Innovation: Latest Generative AI Advancements & Success Story

Safe Software

Are you ready to revolutionize how you handle data? Join us for a webinar where we’ll bring you up to speed with the latest advancements in Generative AI technology and discover how leveraging FME with tools from giants like Google Gemini, Amazon, and Microsoft OpenAI can supercharge your workflow efficiency. During the hour, we’ll take you through: Guest Speaker Segment with Hannah Barrington: Dive into the world of dynamic real estate marketing with Hannah, the Marketing Manager at Workspace Group. Hear firsthand how their team generates engaging descriptions for thousands of office units by integrating diverse data sources—from PDF floorplans to web pages—using FME transformers, like OpenAIVisionConnector and AnthropicVisionConnector. This use case will show you how GenAI can streamline content creation for marketing across the board. Ollama Use Case: Learn how Scenario Specialist Dmitri Bagh has utilized Ollama within FME to input data, create custom models, and enhance security protocols. This segment will include demos to illustrate the full capabilities of FME in AI-driven processes. Custom AI Models: Discover how to leverage FME to build personalized AI models using your data. Whether it’s populating a model with local data for added security or integrating public AI tools, find out how FME facilitates a versatile and secure approach to AI. We’ll wrap up with a live Q&A session where you can engage with our experts on your specific use cases, and learn more about optimizing your data workflows with AI. This webinar is ideal for professionals seeking to harness the power of AI within their data management systems while ensuring high levels of customization and security. Whether you're a novice or an expert, gain actionable insights and strategies to elevate your data processes. Join us to see how FME and AI can revolutionize how you work with data!

zkStudyClub - LatticeFold: A Lattice-based Folding Scheme and its Application...

Alex Pruden

Folding is a recent technique for building efficient recursive SNARKs. Several elegant folding protocols have been proposed, such as Nova, Supernova, Hypernova, Protostar, and others. However, all of them rely on an additively homomorphic commitment scheme based on discrete log, and are therefore not post-quantum secure. In this work we present LatticeFold, the first lattice-based folding protocol based on the Module SIS problem. This folding protocol naturally leads to an efficient recursive lattice-based SNARK and an efficient PCD scheme. LatticeFold supports folding low-degree relations, such as R1CS, as well as high-degree relations, such as CCS. The key challenge is to construct a secure folding protocol that works with the Ajtai commitment scheme. The difficulty, is ensuring that extracted witnesses are low norm through many rounds of folding. We present a novel technique using the sumcheck protocol to ensure that extracted witnesses are always low norm no matter how many rounds of folding are used. Our evaluation of the final proof system suggests that it is as performant as Hypernova, while providing post-quantum security. Paper Link: https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/257

Nordic Marketo Engage User Group_June 13_ 2024.pptx

MichaelKnudsen27

Recently uploaded (20)

Introduction of Cybersecurity with OSS at Code Europe 2024

Trusted Execution Environment for Decentralized Process Mining

Public CyberSecurity Awareness Presentation 2024.pptx

leewayhertz.com-AI in predictive maintenance Use cases technologies benefits ...

Presentation of the OECD Artificial Intelligence Review of Germany

Columbus Data & Analytics Wednesdays - June 2024

How to Interpret Trends in the Kalyan Rajdhani Mix Chart.pdf

HCL Notes und Domino Lizenzkostenreduzierung in der Welt von DLAU

Programming Foundation Models with DSPy - Meetup Slides

GraphRAG for Life Science to increase LLM accuracy

Overcoming the PLG Trap: Lessons from Canva's Head of Sales & Head of EMEA Da...

Skybuffer AI: Advanced Conversational and Generative AI Solution on SAP Busin...

Fueling AI with Great Data with Airbyte Webinar

FREE A4 Cyber Security Awareness Posters-Social Engineering part 3

HCL Notes and Domino License Cost Reduction in the World of DLAU

TrustArc Webinar - 2024 Global Privacy Survey

Energy Efficient Video Encoding for Cloud and Edge Computing Instances

Driving Business Innovation: Latest Generative AI Advancements & Success Story

zkStudyClub - LatticeFold: A Lattice-based Folding Scheme and its Application...

Nordic Marketo Engage User Group_June 13_ 2024.pptx

Romney vs. romney (update, 04.04.12)

1. IA NH SC FL 2008 NH 2008 2008 2008 25.2% 31.6% 15.3% 31.0% 2nd place 2nd place 4th place 2nd place  0.7%  7.7%  12.6%  15.4% 2012 2012 2012 2012 24.5% 39.3% 27.9% 46.4% 2nd place 1st place 2nd place 1st place

2. NV MO MN CO 2008 2008 2008 2008 51.1% 29.3% 41.4% 60.1% 1st place 3rd place 1st place 1st place  1.0%  4.0%  24.5%  25.2% 2012 2012 2012 2012 50.1% 25.3% 16.9% 34.9% 1st place 2nd place 3rd place 2nd place

3. * Mitt Romney ended his campaign on Feb. 7, 2008. An asterisk signifies states that held primaries or ME MI AZ WA caucuses after this date. 2008 2008 2008 2008* 51.7% 38.9% 34.5% 15.4% 1st place 1st place 2nd place (withdrawn)  12.5%  2.2%  12.8%  22.2% 2012 2012 2012 2012 39.2% 41.1% 47.3% 37.6% 1st place 1st place 1st place 1st place

4. * Mitt Romney ended his campaign on Feb. 7, 2008. An asterisk signifies states that held primaries or AK GA ID MA caucuses after this date. 2008 2008 2008* 2008 43.7% 30.2% 0.0% 51.3% 1st place 3rd place (withdrawn) 1st place  11.3%  4.3%  61.6%  20.9% 2012 2012 2012 2012 32.4% 25.9% 61.6% 72.2% 1st place 2nd place 1st place 1st place

5. * Mitt Romney ended his campaign on Feb. 7, 2008. An asterisk signifies states that held primaries or ND OH OK TN caucuses after this date. 2008 2008* 2008 2008 35.8% 3.3% 24.8% 23.6% 1st place (withdrawn) 3rd place 3rd place  12.1%  34.6%  3.2%  4.4% 2012 2012 2012 2012 23.7% 37.9% 28.0% 28.0% 3rd place 1st place 2nd place 2nd place

6. * Mitt Romney ended his campaign on Feb. 7, 2008. An asterisk signifies states that held primaries or VT VA WY KS caucuses after this date. 2008* 2008* 2008 2008* 4.6% 3.7% NA 3.3% (withdrawn) (withdrawn) (no vote held) (withdrawn)  35.2%  55.8%  44.0%  17.6% 2012 2012 2012 2012 39.8% 59.5% 44.0% 20.9% 1st place 1st place 1st place 2nd place

7. * Mitt Romney ended his campaign on Feb. 7, 2008. An asterisk signifies states that held primaries or AL HI MS PR caucuses after this date. 2008 2008 2008* 2008* 17.8% NA 1.5% 0.0% 3rd place (no vote held) (withdrawn) (withdrawn)  11.2%  45.4%  28.8%  88.0% 2012 2012 2012 2012 29.0% 45.4% 30.3% 88.0% 3rd place 1st place 3rd place 1st place

8. * Mitt Romney ended his campaign on Feb. 7, 2008. An asterisk signifies states that held primaries or IL LA MD WI caucuses after this date. 2008 2008* 2008* 2008* 28.6% 6.3% 7.0% 2.0% 2nd place (withdrawn) (withdrawn) (withdrawn)  18.1%  20.4%  42.1%  42.1% 2012 2012 2012 2012 46.7% 26.7% 49.1% 44.1% 1st place 2nd place 1st place 1st place

9. * Mitt Romney ended his campaign on Feb. 7, 2008. An asterisk signifies states that held primaries or DC caucuses after this date. DC 2008* 6.4% (withdrawn)  63.8% DC 2012 70.2% 1st place

Romney vs. romney (update, 04.04.12)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from kkellyfv

More from kkellyfv (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Romney vs. romney (update, 04.04.12)