Breaking: Final result gives Mitt Romney an 8-vote win in Iowa caucuses

[Fearless]

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:49 AM - Edit history (14)

Reporting from Manchester and Des Moines—

In the closest finish in the history of the Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum wound up in a virtual dead heat in the first battle for the Republican presidential nomination, with Romney emerging as the apparent winner by a margin of just eight votes.

When results from the last of the state's 1,774 precincts were tallied Wednesday morning, Romney had 30,015 votes to Santorum's 30,007.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-final-results-iowa-caucuses-20120103,0,787630.story

Final Results (2:41am):

With all precincts reporting Romney has beaten out Santorum by 8 votes.

Romney: 30,015 (24.6198%)
Santorum: 30,007 (24.6133%)
Paul: 26,219 (21.5061%)
Gingrich: 16,251 (13.3299%)
Perry: 12,604 (10.3384%)
Bachmann: 6,073 (4.9814%)
Huntsman: 745 (0.6111%)

Total Votes Cast: 121914 (as counted by 2:26am EST)


http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2012/jan/03/patchwork-vote-iowa/

Romney and Santorum are deadlocked in Iowa caucuses; Paul finishes third
(Washington Post)

DES MOINES — Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) were deadlocked for the lead in the Iowa caucuses late Tuesday night, ahead in a splintered and increasingly fractious field as the GOP presidential primary race moves to New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.

With all 99 percent of precincts reporting shortly before 2 a.m. Eastern, former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) was in a virtual tie with Romney, leading him by just four votes. Both hovered around 24.5 percent of the total.

Santorum and Romney Fight to a Draw
(New York Times)
...

In the first Republican contest of the season, the two candidates were separated by only a sliver of votes. The outcome offered Mr. Santorum a chance to emerge as the alternative to Mr. Romney as the race moves to New Hampshire and South Carolina without Gov. Rick Perry, who announced that he was returning to Texas to assess his candidacy.

CNN confirms vote count...

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia?hpt=hp_pc1

----------------------------------------

4 votes between Santorum and Romney at 226am EST! Crazy! 121,000+ votes cast in all!

[Rochester]

1. Santorum seemed to come out of nowhere

and I find him far more horrifying than Romney.

[Ruby the Liberal]

14. Nah- He's around. Just check google.

[yurbud]

64. that will last long after Santorum has become the santorum of history

[yurbud]

65. within his lifetime, people will be embarrassed to say his name in polite company or quickly add

that they mean the person not the effluvia of someone Roving while pulling a Dick Cheney.

[sakabatou]

15. No no

Santorum came out from behind.

[Surya Gayatri]

22. DUZY!!! n/t

[boppers]

25. FROTHY!!! n/t

[zonkers]

53. Really? Ass jokes feel so last week.

[tclambert]

30. Oh, I get it. That's funny because of the internet project to define the word Santorum

in a sexual way that he would find offensive, such as "Santorum means a frothy mixture of anal lube and fecal matter." It has even made it into Wikipedia:

(Dan)]Savage subsequently asked his readers to coin a definition for "santorum" that would offend the Senator. He announced the winner as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." He created a web site to promote this definition, which became a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several web search engines. He offered in 2010 to take the website down if Santorum donated US$5 million to Freedom to Marry, a group advocating legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

[Armin-A]

56. ...i take it he did not donate

there are far more important things to worry about other than "i don't want my neighbor to have a person of the same sex in their bed"

[kenfrequed]

62. Were I a repuke I would challenge this

As I am not, I don't care.

[Hokie]

2. NY Times site still not updated

It shows Santorum up by 5 votes and 99% reporting. This is a loss for Mitt no matter how you package it.

[MrBig]

5. I respectfully disagree

I think as long as Romney didn't bomb in Iowa, he's exactly where he wants to be. Iowa is a more conservative state and yet he still virtually tied for first. He'll destroy in New Hampshire and the rest will fall in line. I think these results illustrate that Romney will have to pull a MAJOR blunder to lose at this point.

At best, Santorum = Huckabee

[Lord Magus]

10. Maybe.

But it seems pretty clear that a lot of wingnuts were holding their noses and voting for Romney in the believe that he's stronger in the general election. If this pulling only 25% becomes a pattern for Romney, he's in big trouble. 25% of the vote can make you a frontrunner in a 7-person race, but after the field gets narrowed, Romney will need to draw more than that.

[DWilliamsamh]

41. That's because he is obviously the stronger candidate in the general against President Obama

Romney is one of only a couple candidates on their side who is even close to palatable for the swing voter (MOST of the voting public). I predicted last year the President had lost any chance of re-election through his feckless cowardice and abject opposition to the progressive positions he campaigned on. And if Romney is the nominee he'll win.

Don't confuse what I said for being happy about my perception. ANY Republican would be worse for the country.

[David__77]

11. What about S. Carolina?

I'm not so sure that a lot of Republicans don't have a problem with the author of "Romneycare" who "used to" support abortion rights and civil unions. He's obviously a path to defeat for the Republicans in my eyes. He's like McCain or Dole - a stand-in for the establishment who is there for entitlement's sake and that's it.

[MrBig]

49. You make some good points

I agree that he is just like McCain and Dole and clearly an establishment candidate. For all of the Tea Party bravado, etc., Republicans still seem reluctant to elect a fringe candidate (pretty much any of the other wackos running save Huntsman who is less wacko) and thus I think Romney's Iowa showing illustrates that they're going to pick him simply because they think it gives them the best shot of winning in the general election.

In South Carolina, Romney is polling second behind Gingrich, though after Gingrich's Iowa showing, maybe his votes go to Santorum? But I'm sure some will go to Romney. Romney will not bomb in any of these other states while he has a great chance of pulling off wins in Florida and other Super Tuesday states.

Honestly, this is starting to remind me a bit of a bizarro 2004. A lot of Democrats went with Kerry thinking he presented the best shot at beating Dubya. This, despite the fact that a more liberal and (at that time) idealistic candidate was available in John Edwards. We all know how that turned out. I hope this election cycle repeats that performance.

[onager]

63. I spent Xmas in S.C. - Romney may have a bigger problem there

The Bain connection. The local media were all over that story. Some openly called Romney a job-destroyer, not a job creator.

When Romney headed Bain, it bought out a division of Hallmark (Cards) in S.C. that employed several thousand people. As usual for Bain, it strip-mined the company assets and fired all the employees. Their jobs went overseas.

People in SC still seemed very pissed about that, so I'm curious if it will be an even bigger issue in the primaries.

I was in Upstate South Carolina, the most isolated, conservative and religious part of the state - about 40 miles from Bob Jones University in Greenville.

Great LTTE in the local paper - the writer said he had followed the Repub candidates closely, and had decided there was only one possible candidate he wanted within 5 miles of the nuclear button: Barack Obama.

[Hokie]

58. You are probably right

I think Romney erred by predicting a sure win and then just eking one out. A minor glitch at best and will probably be forgotten after a win in NH next week. he is definitely the front runner in a weak field.

[uppityperson]

3. santorum eeks me out also.

EEK!

[LisaM]

4. He's eeky and ooky

But I think you meant "ekes".

[Fearless]

6. I did didn't I. Nice catch!

[nobodyspecial]

7. I guess that comment about giving other people's money to blacks

resonated with his base. Poor Huntsman. He is the only candidate worth considering and he tanked. I guess you need hatred, fear and demagoguery on your side to win the GOP vote. I was happy Newt finished so poorly.

[Lord Magus]

12. Huntsman only looks decent by comparison to the other Repigs.

Looked at standing alone he's terrible.

[nobodyspecial]

55. Oh, I wouldn't even consider voting for him

I just meant he's not batshit crazy like the others.

[Lil Missy]

8. By 18 votes? Would that trigger a recount?

[Fearless]

9. Nope...

"Iowa state GOP official Doug Heye said Tuesday there will be no recount, even if Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney are exceptionally close when the vote count is finished."


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/01/03/iowa_gop_no_recount_in_case_of_close_iowa_vote/

[SixthSense]

19. The vote count doesn't matter - only the delegate count

and it appears that the only one who played the delegate game correctly was Ron Paul

Vote count leaders or not, Santorum and Romney both lost tonight because they didn't play by the rules of the game (no doubt made deliberately this way to give insiders a permanent advantage).

Enjoy but don't be drinking anything while you read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002115162

[oberliner]

26. Not true - in fact, the vote is the only thing the matters

It's all about the narrative.

If Paul came in first, they'd have to talk about him.

Now, they don't.

He has been summarily dismissed now by the media for "coming in third" even though he got the same number of delegates as first and second.

But all we will hear about in the news is Romney and Santorum.

[SixthSense]

28. What matters in the end

is how many delegates each candidate has at the nominating convention. Check out the article I linked, Paul may very well end up with almost all of the Iowa delegates.

As far as the narrative goes, the corporate media will construct the narrative they want no matter what happens on the ground. When Paul was polling first/tied for first they explicitly refused to cover him and even said that if he won, Iowa would be meaningless!

The narrative was never something he could really directly affect - check out the very personal contempt aimed at him by both FNC (nominally "right" ) and CNN (nominally "left" ) - but the narrative doesn't cast any votes at the convention...

Given the primary schedule, Paul doesn't need any narrative help at all until at least February, by which time Santorum will have been exposed and it will be next-man-up vs. the despised Romney again.

The really interesting scenario is if this keeps up like this all throughout the primary season so that nobody walks into the convention with a majority of the delegates. At that point they could pick anybody in a brokered convention, and that doesn't necessarily have to be one of the people who were on the ballot in Iowa.

[ieoeja]

66. Clinton came in third. And yet all we heard about was Obama and Clinton, not Obama and Edwards.

While I supported Obama from day one, I never understood the media ignoring the fact that Edwards beat Clinton in Iowa last primary. That was just weird.

[Guilded Lilly]

13. Santorum, once he is *known* will be toast.

Having grown up in Pittsburgh, the name Santorum is not foreign to me, as it is to most of the United States.

He has been corrupt for a long long long time. He is sex-obsessed, self-righteous to the core, anti women, anti gay and more than a little creepy. Google Penn Hills and Santorum. Google Santorum and Corrupt 2006. The list goes on. And soon, with the way this media hounds out every single breath these people make, they will be on these things. They've basically ignored him while everyone else has been flavor of the month. And the Republican poobahs that be know damn well Santorum will be a flunkee against Obama. They will do their own hatchet job on Santorum.

And Mitt? BLOWHARDDDDD. He essentially got less votes than he did four years ago didn't he? Wasn't it a bit over 30,000?
The only winner in Iowa was our President.

[Skittles]

29. I AGREE WITH THIS ASSESSMENT

YES INDEED

[ellisonz]

16. Pukey.

[Major Hogwash]

17. Well, that wasn't very nice of Romney.

Mitt's going to win all the rest.
Why couldn't he let ol' Rick have just one measly caucus.

Thank gawd Michele said she is not dropping out just yet.
She won't get much more than 1% of the vote in any other state, but she will make ridiculous speeches predicting wins in all of those other states before the votes are cast all the same.

I wonder if "Mister 9-9-9" is going to unsuspend his campaign now.

Release the kraken!

[Pab Sungenis]

40. When is the Minnesota primary?

I just want her to stay in the race long enough to not be able to run for her Congressional seat.

[Major Hogwash]

70. I don't know, but Michele decided to pull a Palin.

She quit.

LoL

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

18. Nearly 122,000 votes cast in a...

... 7 candidate race, with the 1st and 2nd place finishers separated by less than 7 one-thousandths of 1 percent of the total votes cast?

7 ONE-THOUSANDTHS? Really? Anyone with a prob/stat actuarial background out there care to offer some insight as to the likelihood of such a result?

People may recall the initial results of the Kloppenburg-Prosser Supreme Court Judge race in Wisconsin last year also had them separated by a fraction of a percent (something like 14 one-hundredths I think) and it didn't seem to set off any alarms.

Are we being conditioned to accept such results as nothing unusual? Seems to me these frequent virtual dead heat finishes are now all too common and VERY suspect.

Please feel free, anyone, to take me to school on why I shouldn't be bothered by this. I'll try to follow along. Maybe I'm missing something here.

[ThreePoint]

50. It's not that uncommon or unlikely

That's not a statistical anomaly, what it is is the results approaching the margin of statistical "noise," where the outcome could plausibly be affected by error in the voting process. Yet close elections, closer than this one are not unheard of, and are even more likely when the number of undecided voters increases. Here's a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_close_election_results

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

73. Thank you for your response and the link.

That's an interesting list of close election results. I see it goes back to the 1800s and includes election results from multiple countries.

As for the separation of less that 7 one-thousandths of 1 percent not being a statistical anomaly, perhaps we should visit the question of what constitutes of statistical anomaly.

If you flip a true coin 100 times and it comes down heads exactly 50 times and tails exactly 50 times, is this a statistical anomaly? If we conducted this experiment (100 coin flips) a hundred million times surely we would get the 50-50 result more than once, but within what variable range should we expect it? How many occurrences out of a hundred million before we say this 50-50 result we're getting is happening too often, outside the expected range and constitutes an anomaly?

I think we're seeing too many dead heat election results over the last decade in this country, and in fact, I see in the list you provided, 20 of these close elections were from the US. And of these 20, which dated back to an 1839 Massachusetts gubernatorial race (a span of some 170 plus years), 14 have taken place since the year 2000 (over two thirds of them just from the last decade). What, if anything, are we to make of that?

Here's what I make of it: I think dead heat election results are being engineered/predetermined, and that there's a link between this phenomena and the widespread introduction of e-voting in the US. Also, I believe e-voting is controlled through private corporate proxies by the GOP, which has enabled them to steal numerous elections over the last decade.

All that said, my understanding is that the Iowa Caucuses were done with paper ballots, but also that they were taken away to undisclosed locations for tallying overseen by the GOP.

[ThreePoint]

74. In the coin-flipping example, the odds of getting heads is 50%,

in a hundred million flips you only get one count of heads-tails. Statistically, it should be close to 50:50; it would be an anomaly to be 99:1, though.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

75. I appreciate your input, Threepoint, and...

...welcome to Democratic Underground!

[Skittles]

20. SQUEEZES OUT SANTORUM?

OMG

[Surya Gayatri]

23. LOL! Great catch...

the visual is almost too revolting to contemplate! SG

[Ellipsis]

27. He does look relieved.

[ejbr]

33. I need to know who on DU checked his pants! n/t

[onehandle]

21. The fix, is in. nt

[Surya Gayatri]

24. Wow, that comes out to about a million $ per vote!

Santorum spent nothing compared to Mitt and got the same result minus 8. SG

[tclambert]

31. And none of them got to 25%.

Not exactly landslide numbers there, Mittens.

[liberal N proud]

32. Mittens finally gets to drive the clown car

Sort of!



How long before he crashes?

[SixthSense]

34. should correct the headline to read

"Electoral fraud gives Mitt Romney an 8-vote win in Iowa caucuses"

Follow the Rove... he telegraphed their manufacturing of votes out of thin air for the establishment-favored candidate. How does someone who is essentially a talking head get inside information on a precinct that just so happened to undercount Romney votes (and only Romney votes)?

I'm the furthest thing from a fan of Santorum as my other comments will attest, but they flat-out stole the win from him in broad daylight.

[rocktivity]

46. Combine that with the decision to count the votes

in an "undisclosed location..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=113678


rocktivity

[itsrobert]

35. Where's the missing 1 percent votes?

MSNBC is reporting only 99 percent in. What about all the votes, especially with only 8 votes difference?

[Fearless]

48. There are a few very small counties that have votes still not tallied..

They are as follows (from what I could find)

County (reporting %)

Kossuth 95%
Lee 95%
Tama 94%
Appanoose 92%
Van Buren 88%
Clayton 79%

Most if not all of these counties have a few hundred people in them... so they are missing maybe 3-10 votes each. As to why this is... I assume that some rural voting locations haven't turned in their counts yet. But that is speculation.

[tclambert]

36. It's good for Democrats if the Republicans continue to spend vast sums on close primaries.

So encourage Rick Perry to stay in the race. Root for more 25% to 25% results. And let's hope for a really divisive Republican Convention.

[alp227]

37. Check out all the exploding heads here! Seems that Karl Rove is a deep cover Democrat!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2828417/posts

[MaineDem]

38. It's about delegates so wasn't it a three-way tie?

But the press will report it as a win for Mittens so that's the take-away for most people.

[OneBlueDotBama]

42. My understanding is the top three...

ended up with 6 delegates each, meaning they are all well on their way to the remaining 1138 needed to secure the nomination.


http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/IA-R

[MaineDem]

51. This is why Maine Dems don't release total numbers from their caucuses

Just delegate counts.

[RickFromMN]

39. Watched the coverage on MSNBC. Interesting take on Gingrich. I'm upset with Bachmann.

Gingrich is mad. Seems Romney's super PAC money crushed Gingrich. Gingrich wants revenge.

When the Conservative branch of the Republican Party is done,
that branch will say they will vote for Romney in the General Election, but will lack enthusiasm.
On Election Day, in November, wonder how many of them will blow off the election.

Anything Bachmann doesn't like is left wing.
Bachmann doesn't like Ron Paul's foreign policy.
Therefore, Ron Paul's foreign policy is to the left of Obama and is left wing.

A foreign policy of not wishing to get involved in wars in other parts of the world is neither left or right.
It is called non-interventionism. Look at the 1930s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts_of_1930s
From this URL,
"Powerful forces in United States Congress pushing for non-interventionism and strong Neutrality Acts were the Republican Senators William Edgar Borah, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Gerald P. Nye and Robert M. La Follette, Jr.,[1] but support of non-interventionism was not limited to the Republican party. The Ludlow Amendment, requiring a public referendum before any declaration of war except in cases of defense against direct attack, was introduced several times without success between 1935 and 1940 by Democratic Representative Louis Ludlow."

It's not just the Democrats who can suspect bankers and arms dealers want us involved in wars overseas.
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/AmericanIsolationism
From this URL,
"In the wake of the World War I, a report by Senator Gerald P. Nye, a Republican from North Dakota, fed this belief by claiming that American bankers and arms manufacturers had pushed for U.S. involvement for their own profit. The 1934 publication of the book Merchants of Death by H.C. Engelbrecht and F. C. Hanighen, followed by the 1935 tract "War Is a Racket" by decorated Marine Corps General Smedley D. Butler both served to increase popular suspicions of wartime profiteering and influence public opinion in the direction of neutrality. Many Americans became determined not to be tricked by banks and industries into making such great sacrifices again."

It's far easier for Bachmann to label, as left wing, Ron Paul's military foreign policy.
I guess Bachmann can get away with it. You can fool most of the people some of the time.
I think I have that wrong. I think it should be, you can fool most of the people most of the time.

[EFerrari]

43. Now we know Ted Baxter can take Herb but just barely.

[Javaman]

44. Yeah, a regular fucking landslide.

[TomClash]

45. Fixed by Rove

. . . to give Romney a little bump.

You just know it.

[Wait Wut]

47. My favorite line of last nite...

...from the husband, "I have more FB friends than Huntsman got votes."

[Corruption Winz]

52. Iowa.. the pulse of the nation. n/t

[JJW]

54. Kaopectate

Kaopectate, known medically as bismuth subsalicylate, is an orally taken medication from Chattem, Inc. for the treatment of mild diarrhea.

[DCBob]

57. This pretty much guarantees a Romney nomination.

He will win NH easily which combined with Iowa win gives him a major boost into SC. Then momentum takes over.

[LynnTTT]

59. I understand that some retired people in Adams County couldn't decide whether or not to reschedule

I understand that some retired people in Adams County couldn't decide whether or not to reschedule, so Mary, Gloria, Sam, Jerry, Mike, Betty, Will and Barbara Jean stayed home and played bridge after all... and the butterfly effect turned history.

[MindMover]

60. The title Dead Heat is fitting for these two Republicants........NT

[KamaAina]

61. I heard they found nine spoiled Santorum ballots

they were covered with some sort of frothy mixture.

[BanTheGOP]

67. Actually, this is GREAT NEWS

Let me be blunt: if anyone but Mitt Romney is nominated, unless Mitt runs as independent (which he won't), Barack Obama will get shallacked in the election as the GOP has combined vote fraud with an unprecedented propaganda campaign by the teabaggers. That's why it was CRUCIAL that Mitt Romney win in Iowa.

Even if it was by as many votes as most GOP asshats pay their employees per hour, it is SIGNIFICANT that we can say,

ROMNEY WON IOWA.

This is extremely important. Why??

First, it will allow the media to help us sell the fact that Romney is the GOP nominee. Once that situation is well in hand, we need to then shift our energy to Ron Paul to run 3rd Party. THIS IS WHY it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that Romney is the nominee.

If Ron Paul is the 3rd Party candidate, then Barack Obama can win with as little as 37% popular vote! This is important.

Once Barack Obama wins the second term, then he can ignore Congress and concentrate more on Executive orders like MSNBC hosts are reporting. We can prevent economic genocide put out by the teabagger congress (the senate will be stolen by the GOP, and the House will increase in teabagger filth), and hopefully ensuring economic fairness.

Finally, we REALLY have to seriously look at banning the Republican Party. But first things first.

Bottom line...it is a GOOD THING our operatives were able to ensure a Romney victory. We need to propel this victory to depress the teabagger voters, ensuring that Ron Paul runs 3rd Party and the Progressive Agenda is completed in Obama's second term.

[Deb]

68. Whew! That squeeker took my breath away.

Thanks for posting

[DonCoquixote]

69. Mitt failed

He was not supposed to be challenged by a nobody, and only squeak past Ron Paul. I watch Morning Joe where Joe Scan tried to say the "tea Party is dead", but how can they see that when people are so desperate for not Mitt that the "New hot not mitt" meme is still rolling? It's less than a month from Florida, and unless Mitt wins Florida BIG, he is dead.

[Zorro]

71. Romney Jubilant After Finishing in Dead Heat with Walking Joke in Sweater Vest

Mitt: ‘The Eight People Have Spoken’

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/01/04/romney-jubilant-after-finishing-in-dead-heat-with-walking-joke-in-sweater-vest/

[Ter]

72. Are there ever recounts in primaries?

8 is awfully close, and certainly close enough it it were a general election.

[MaineDem]

76. Of course primary votes can be recounted but these were caucuses not primaries

People actually get up and gather as a Presidential preference group. Depending on the size of the main group, individuals supporting each candidate go to different corners of the room or to different rooms. Votes are counted that way. There aren't ballots that can be recounted. Everyone in the Presidential Preference group would be able to count how many people it had in their caucus.

Make any sense? Caucuses can be very confusing.

[Fearless]

77. There will be no recount.

The Iowa GOP leader is saying that whatever happens it stands as is.

[Ter]

78. I wonder if he would have said the same thing if Paul had won by 8 votes

Hmm...

[dentynepure]

79. 14 votes!

I think it was a 14 vote margin and the GOP leader said 30,007 instead of 30,001. He screwed up on TV and they changed the truth to match his mistake - classic Republican.