Who won the Iowa caucuses? Er …

posted at 8:40 am on January 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

On the night of the Iowa caucuses, the state GOP reported that Mitt Romney had won … by eight votes.  In terms of delegate distribution, that would have produced a tie, if in fact the Iowa caucuses assigned delegates at all to the national Republican convention, which it most assuredly does not.  It’s a non-binding preference poll; Iowa’s delegates get selected at the state convention months from now, and the preference poll has no role in that selection process.

Thanks to the close vote, people have waited for the certified count to see who really won the Iowa caucuses.  And the answer is — er, we still don’t really know:

It’s a tie for the ages.

There are too many holes in the certified totals from the Iowa caucuses to know for certain who won, but Rick Santorum wound up with a 34-vote advantage.

Results from eight precincts are missing — any of which could hold an advantage for Mitt Romney — and will never be recovered and certified, Republican Party of Iowa officials told The Des Moines Register on Wednesday.

GOP officials discovered inaccuracies in 131 precincts, although not all the changes affected the two leaders. Changes in one precinct alone shifted the vote by 50 — a margin greater than the certified tally.

The certified numbers: 29,839 for Santorum and 29,805 for Romney. The turnout: 121,503.

It’s not a surprise that the ultra-thin gap of eight votes on caucus night didn’t hold up, but it’s tough to swallow the fact that there will always be a question mark hanging over this race, politics insiders said.

Santorum can now claim to have won the Iowa caucuses.  That and $4.50 will buy you a skinny peppermint mocha latte in South Carolina, where Santorum’s status has been slipping ever since he decided to tilt at a few windmills in New Hampshire.  Just as the actual Iowa caucus night was a virtual tie, the same still holds now.  Iowa benefited both Santorum and Romney, and that won’t change, even if the impact for Santorum turned out to be rather short-lived.

The better question is this: why should we pay this much attention to a non-binding caucus that can’t get a close count straight?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Not Romney won.

bgibbs1000 on January 19, 2012 at 8:43 AM

It defies credulity that not one, but EIGHT, precincts can’t produce certified vote counts.

flyfisher on January 19, 2012 at 8:44 AM

Got it…Mitt +8 WINNER now Mitt -34 Virtual Tie. Love the way this is starting to be spun. 8 counties of Iowa cannot figure out certification process. You all had 14 days to send in a form.

Does this make Iowa all the more irrelevant as maybe Romney is now spinning, or is there that shall I say “Establishment” conspiracy confirmed?

PuritanD71 on January 19, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Doesn’t matter. The media has already played out its narrative.

TXGOP on January 19, 2012 at 8:45 AM

looks like the latter day saint didn’t win back to back.

tom daschle concerned on January 19, 2012 at 8:46 AM

I hope they figure this out soon ’cause it like totally is gonna affect how I vote.

/

mankai on January 19, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Weak.

saus on January 19, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Iowa caucuses unresolved as Santorum moves ahead after a recount with several precincts missing

Des Moines RegisterStory metadata:
Submitted 4 mins ago from caucuses.desmoinesregister.com by editor
http://www.breakingnews.com/
============================

REGISTER EXCLUSIVE: 2012 GOP caucus count unresolved
4:00 AM, Jan 19, 2012
**********************

THE RESULTS: Santorum finished ahead by 34 votes
MISSING DATA: 8 precincts’ numbers will never be certified
PARTY VERDICT: GOP official says, ‘It’s a split decision’

Rick Santorum – Final total: 29,839 Change: -168
Mitt Romney – Final total: 29,805 Change: -210

It’s a tie for the ages.

There are too many holes in the certified totals from the Iowa caucuses to know for certain who won, but Rick Santorum wound up with a 34-vote advantage.
(More….)
==============

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/19/register-exclusive-2012-gop-caucus-count-unresolved/

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 7:41 AM

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Regarding Santorums 34 vote lead,heres the County Map,
from Iowa Caucus night!
—————————-

Iowa Caucus: Live Election Results
By National Journal Staff
*****************************

Updated: January 3, 2012 | 7:46 p.m.
January 3, 2012 | 7:15 p.m.
As live results of the Iowa Caucus come in tonight, follow this map to see who is winning, and where. Data is provided by the Republican Party of Iowa.
=========================

http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/iowa-caucus-live-election-results-20120103

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 7:46 AM

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 8:48 AM

why should we pay this much attention to a non-binding caucus that can’t get a close count straight?

Says the guy whose junior Senator was selected by a three-judge panel.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Move Iowa to last.

meci on January 19, 2012 at 8:49 AM

It was a statistical tie. And, that is the way the convention delegates will be apportioned. It was not a winner take all election. Personally I would have liked to have had a run-off between the top two. But that is not the way the system works.

SC.Charlie on January 19, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Repost from the headline thread, ie: my idea for primary reform:

I’d like the whole thing to be staged out over a period of about 4 months with the whole country going in quarters. IE: we have 4 “Super Tuesdays”, consisting of the NE, SE, Midwest, and West.

That would mean four primary dates and the thing is over, with a month for campaigning in between each one. The order in which they are scheduled changes every 4 years in a rotation, thus, every 16 years your state gets to be in the “first primary”.

No more Iowa and New Hampshire “always first”. States can set their election laws, but the PARTIES get to decide how delegates are proportioned. Any state that violates this scheme gets zero delegates, and thus, no say in the nominating process.

wildcat72 on January 19, 2012 at 8:50 AM

The better question is this: why should we pay this much attention to a non-binding caucus that can’t get a close count straight?
================================================================

Because,the idiots on Morning Joe,were trying to make a connection
to Broward County hanging chad thingy!!

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM

A win is a win, unless it’s a tie loss…

Fallon on January 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM

The better question is this: why should we pay this much attention to a non-binding caucus that can’t get a close count straight?

We shouldn’t. I’m getting sick and tired of bluish states like Iowa and New Hampshire setting the tone for the nominating process for a party that claims to be conservative. I’m not saying the first primary or caucus needs to be in a place like Texas or Oklahoma, but for God’s sake, can we not hand that privilege over to a state that went for the Democrats in the 2 previous Presidential elections?

Doughboy on January 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Regional primaries or a national one – only way to end this mess.

gophergirl on January 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM

But…it was such a historic victory.

A. Weasel on January 19, 2012 at 8:52 AM

How’s about this post say we all seized on a narrative of near total inevitabitlity re Romney, and it was built in some part to his ‘historic’ wins in Iowa and NH, except he tied in Iowa (well actually probably lost by a few votes) and his only seal so far is NH, so nothing is inevitable and we should be extra wary of playing the narrative in this race because it’s not always in tune.

saus on January 19, 2012 at 8:52 AM

You know, it really doesn’t matter who won. It was a tie when we thought Mitt was up by 8 and its a tie now. With the missing votes, we don’t know who got the most votes, but we can surmise that it still would have been a tie.

And one more thing: Missing votes? Really? This is just one more reason not to let Iowa (or any state, for that matter) go first every stinking year. That has got to be changed.

rogaineguy on January 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM

We all know who this helped.

I wonder if this had turned out to favor Romney somehow the caucus would have been able to be certified….

So Romney didn’t sweep anything – the meme is dead. He won New Hampshire. It’s down to South Carolina are they smart enough to figure out they are being played?

Dr Evil on January 19, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Iowa?

Where is that again?

PappyD61 on January 19, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Yep yep yep!
Not even 30,000 votes for one guy. (out of 121,503 votes)
Then, go to a smaller state for bigger results.
After South Carolina, yep yep yep…we should have our nominee!
This one should drop out, and that one should drop out-what/why? So, by the fifth state we have determined who the other fifty states will have for their nominee? Let’s disenfranchise millions of people! Yep! Works for me!

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 8:54 AM

All the more reason to overhaul the primary process to a nationwide, single day event like the general.

Fletch54 on January 19, 2012 at 8:55 AM

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 8:54 AM

I should have said – other 54 States.

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

I’d like the whole thing to be staged out over a period of about 4 months with the whole country going in quarters. IE: we have 4 “Super Tuesdays”, consisting of the NE, SE, Midwest, and West.

wildcat72 on January 19, 2012 at 8:29 AM

My response from the headline thread:

That would make it impossible for candidates with little money, like Santorum, to compete. Having a couple of smaller states be first allows for lesser funded candidates to compete on a retail politics basis.

I don’t mind the idea of rotating the states, but blocking it off makes it tough.

Also, I really think we ought to have closed primaries. I’m tired of the media and non-Republicans having a hand in picking the Republican nominee.

beatcanvas on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

It defies credulity that not one, but EIGHT, precincts can’t produce certified vote counts.

flyfisher on January 19, 2012 at 8:44 AM

My guess is those 8 counties make it an even bigger loss for the establsihment candidate Romney, hence they won’t be reported.

bgibbs1000 on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

it’s time the first state to vote in the nation is one with closed voting, and many many delegates at stake. i’m tired of democrats picking my team captain, if you aren’t a republican , you should have no say who represents me in the general election, period. also, when the demoncrats run in 2016 to unseat santorum, the debate moderators should be, rush, sean, laura, ann, and michelle. enough of the leftist media asking questions about everything BUT the record of ostupid the marxist.

tm11999 on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

looks like the latter day saint didn’t win back to back.

tom daschle concerned on January 19, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Can’t we just let the Democrats own religious bigotry? Do Republicans too have to join the mudslinging?

rogaineguy on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Romney should withdraw from the primaries and endorse Newt. Its obvious he has no chance to win the republican nomination

gerrym51 on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Romney’s sweep was being used by the media for his inevitable meme. That’s why we should pay attention to Iowa, the uncertified results were being used to manipulate public opinion. The media is calling this a tie because the caucus can’t be certified. It’s not a tie Santorum won it’s pretty straight forward he won more votes that they can actually count.

So those 8 precincts that are missing what if they weren’t Santorum or Romney votes? No one else thinks this smells?

Dr Evil on January 19, 2012 at 8:57 AM

My guess is those 8 precincts counties make it an even bigger loss for the establishment candidate Romney, hence they won’t be reported.

bgibbs1000 on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

bgibbs1000 on January 19, 2012 at 8:58 AM

The better question is this: why should we pay this much attention to a non-binding caucus that can’t get a close count straight?

Wow – questioning something ex post facto… so – novel of you Ed.

Yet those weeks worth of “Romney equity” cant be taken back now, can they???

So Romney won a useless state he lives in, while not winining Iowa – and about to lose SC… yup folks – the most electable Republican candidate can’t even win early Primary’s and Caucus’.

Oh – and wait until Romney does win – and the Dems beat the rich white guy over the head with class warfare political tricks, that will leave him scrambling to defeat, ala McCain and his “house ownership issue” in 2008.

One has a bitter ex wife lined up for interview, the other – millions in hidden Caymen accounts.

Now guess which one loses elections.

Odie1941 on January 19, 2012 at 8:58 AM

the debate moderators should be, rush, sean, laura, ann, and michelle. enough of the leftist media asking questions about everything BUT the record of ostupid the marxist.

tm11999 on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Agree, although some of the best moments in the debates have been when the candidates put the media in its place for stupid questions.

beatcanvas on January 19, 2012 at 8:58 AM

I should have said – other 54 States.

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

ummmm,uhhhh….aaaaaaaahhhum should`nt it be 57?

NY Conservative on January 19, 2012 at 8:59 AM

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 8:54 AM

I should have said – other 54 States.

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

There were a whole bunch of things you shouldn’t have said in that earlier post, but you focused on the one thing you should have said. Go figure.

rogaineguy on January 19, 2012 at 9:01 AM

My guess is those 8 precincts counties make it an even bigger loss for the establishment candidate Romney, hence they won’t be reported.

bgibbs1000 on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

bgibbs1000 on January 19, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Not a bad guess.

flyfisher on January 19, 2012 at 9:04 AM

The establishment stole this election.

The 8 precincts they “lost” Rick S won on election night.

Just remember the establishment line.

8 votes a “win”

34 votes “Split Decision”

boogaleesnots on January 19, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Rick Santorum – Final total: 29,839 Change: -168
Mitt Romney – Final total: 29,805 Change: -210

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 8:47 AM

If I’m reading this right both canidates last votes. How in the heck can that happen in this day in age? And on top of that 8 precints votes cannot be certified, my god man what is happening.

I agree with gophergirl it’s time to have either regional primaries/caucusi or national. Enough with this “history says” Iowa and NH goes first. Heck put state names on ping pong balls and pick them out at ramdom like a bingo parlor, at least then some conservative states might get a shot at having any influence in picking our canidate.

D-fusit on January 19, 2012 at 9:05 AM

So, no unsubstantiated accusation of voter fraud here, then? A very close race, with results coming in two weeks later, and the lead changing hands?

Oh, I get it. That’s only a Democrat thing.

YYZ on January 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Iowa?

Where is that again?

PappyD61 on January 19, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Ray, people will come Ray. They’ll come to Iowa for reasons they can’t even fathom. They’ll turn up your driveway not knowing for sure why they’re doing it…

And, they will caucus, Ray. They will caucus like there’s no tomorrow even though it’s a non-binding vote and “delegates get selected at the state convention months from now, and the preference poll has no role in that selection process.”

And, the winner, Ray. The winner will…

…remind of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh… people will come Ray. People will most definitely come.

Uh… and then, a different winner will declared weeks later, even though it no longer matters.

Is this heaven?

It’s Iowa.

Fallon on January 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM

And those 8 precincts could have made Santorum’s WIN bigger; never thought I’d see Ed spinning for McCain 2.0 here.

why should we pay this much attention to a non-binding caucus

You sure didn’t act that way the night of the caucus. Elections are not fashion; the actual results should NOT go out of style.

Bottom line: SANTORUM WON!

michaelo on January 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Eight precincts are missing? Who was responsible for getting those votes certified? Surely every precinct should have had more than just one person responsible for doing the counting and reporting of the results and those people should be held responsible by the Republican Party.

SC.Charlie on January 19, 2012 at 9:07 AM

O/T,on Newty!
==============

More:

Gingrich dismisses ex-wife’s ABC News interview while on the Today show this morning

- @USATODAYStory metadata:
Submitted 10 mins ago from content.usatoday.com by editor
===========================================================

Gingrich campaign releases daughters’ letter on eve of ex-wife’s TV Interview – @nationaljournalStory

metadata:
Submitted 11 mins ago from nationaljournal.com by editor

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 9:07 AM

That would make it impossible for candidates with little money, like Santorum, to compete. Having a couple of smaller states be first allows for lesser funded candidates to compete on a retail politics basis.

I don’t mind the idea of rotating the states, but blocking it off makes it tough.

Also, I really think we ought to have closed primaries. I’m tired of the media and non-Republicans having a hand in picking the Republican nominee.

beatcanvas on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

I’d think making the early contest larger would probably mean that more money would go to lesser candidates sooner.

You could break the 4 regions into 8, and do 8 primary dates instead of 4 if you wanted to. My main issue is with the whole “my state goes first, always” BS which is both patently unfair, and frankly, possibly a violation of the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause at least in spirit. By the time my state’s primary happens there no longer is a primary race. Ergo, I never actually GET to have a role in choosing my party’s nominee! Which is why the states should be broken up into blocs and the primary order shifted every 4 years so that in each person’s voting lifetime their state will be in the first bloc at least once…

Still though, candidates like Santorum, with little money still aren’t competing that well even in the system we have now.

wildcat72 on January 19, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Hey, maybe Jon Huntsman won… :-)

:-(

Abby Adams on January 19, 2012 at 9:09 AM

The establishment stole this election.

The 8 precincts they “lost” Rick S won on election night.

Just remember the establishment line.

8 votes a “win”

34 votes “Split Decision”

boogaleesnots on January 19, 2012 at 9:04 AM

What’s worse is that the Ronulans are starting to claim that the 8 “lost” precincts were “lost” on purpose by the establishment to prevent Paul from winning Iowa…

I guess the Ronulans are to our party what the LaRouches are to the democrats…

wildcat72 on January 19, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Uh… and then, a different winner will BE declared weeks later, even though it no longer matters.

Fallon on January 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Arrgh! Where’s my editor?

Fallon on January 19, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Whenever things are this close there is always going to be more focus on the small discrepancies that are unnoticeable in 99.9% of elections and in the end, it doesn’t really matter who won as both got a bump and most people considered it a virtual tie.

Zybalto on January 19, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Wow, just pathetic spin by Ed. Guess we all know who HotAir shills for.

+8 Romney: Romney WON Iowa, its a historic sweep, blahblahblah

+24 Santorum: Er, we still don’t know, its a virtual tie, it doesn’t matter, blablabla

Norwegian on January 19, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Putting aside Dem/Rep, Romney/ABR, this is pathetic. In the US of A we can’t f***g count votes properly in the year 2012?

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 9:12 AM

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 8:47 AM
If I’m reading this right both canidates last votes

D-fusit on January 19, 2012 at 9:05 AM

D-fusit:Could be!!

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 9:12 AM

So Hot Air has become Romney Air.

bgibbs1000 on January 19, 2012 at 9:12 AM

I should have said – other 54 States.

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM
ummmm,uhhhh….aaaaaaaahhhum should`nt it be 57?

NY Conservative on January 19, 2012 at 8:59 AM

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 8:54 AM

I should have said – other 54 States.

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM
There were a whole bunch of things you shouldn’t have said in that earlier post, but you focused on the one thing you should have said. Go figure.

rogaineguy on January 19, 2012 at 9:01 AM

No, after South Carolina 3 states will have voted…so there would be 54 more…unless I can’t count Hawaii anymore, since last time JugEars was there it was…”in Asia”.

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Exactamundo Ed, Iowa irrelevant

cmsinaz on January 19, 2012 at 9:13 AM

I know it’s hard establishment beltway pukes, say it, romneycare LOST!!!

Get Tokyo Rove, Brit hume, O’reilly et al doing around the clock programing explaining how Romneycare just lost Iowa.

I’m sick of how the GOP & their pimps are trying to get that liberal Romneycare over the line.

Romneycare has $230 million in personal fortune, the entire elite GOP population, been greasing the turnstiles for six years etc. and he still can’t get over 30% of the vote.

Understand this establishment, 70% of GOP voters aren’t voting for your hack boy!

Danielvito on January 19, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Shame on you Iowa.Campaigns are made or ended based on your state and who wins.For weeks now Romney has been running around the country saying he made history by winning both Iowa and New Hampshire.If you people in Iowa cannot do a simple vote count in 2 days or less your state should NEVER again been the first in the nation caucus,primary or anything.Again SHAME ON YOU IOWA .

logman1 on January 19, 2012 at 9:13 AM

If I’m reading this right both canidates last votes. How in the heck can that happen in this day in age? And on top of that 8 precints votes cannot be certified, my god man what is happening.

When you get unofficial results from all precincts and then lose eight precincts before you make the official tally, everybody loses votes. But the question of how you lose eight precincts is a good one. You can just imagine Iowans keeping the tally sheets in a milk jug. They have lost the credibility to go first, after this.

And BTW. to all you Ron Paul conspiracy nutjobs: Nothing to see here. Move along. If it helps you sleep better at night saying that there is a Romney conspiracy to suppress votes, that’s one thing. But just know that it didn’t happen.

rogaineguy on January 19, 2012 at 9:13 AM

We should be getting another Karl Rove article about the historic nature of this anytime now…..

…..Beuller? …..Beuller? …..Beuller?

itsspideyman on January 19, 2012 at 9:14 AM

The Iowa state GOP has now made the Iowa Caucuses completely irrelevant and has disenfranchised all caucus voters by REFUSING to declare SANTORUM the winner. Too many HOLES? Yep – way too many GOP establishment A–HOLES trying desperately to help hopeless Romney – in opposition to the will of voters.

Pork-Chop on January 19, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Wow, just pathetic spin by Ed. Guess we all know who HotAir shills for.

+8 Romney: Romney WON Iowa, its a historic sweep, blahblahblah

+24 Santorum: Er, we still don’t know, its a virtual tie, it doesn’t matter, blablabla

Norwegian on January 19, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Same thing with polls:

Poll show Romney winning vs. Obama = See, he is electable, he must be the nominee.

Next day poll shows Romney losing vs. Obama = Polls don’t mean anything this early.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Norwegian on January 19, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Ties and close losses go to Romney because he’s inevitable, doncha know?

BuckeyeSam on January 19, 2012 at 9:14 AM

That would make it impossible for candidates with little money, like Santorum, to compete. Having a couple of smaller states be first allows for lesser funded candidates to compete on a retail politics basis.

I don’t mind the idea of rotating the states, but blocking it off makes it tough.

Also, I really think we ought to have closed primaries. I’m tired of the media and non-Republicans having a hand in picking the Republican nominee.

beatcanvas on January 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM
I’d think making the early contest larger would probably mean that more money would go to lesser candidates sooner.

You could break the 4 regions into 8, and do 8 primary dates instead of 4 if you wanted to. My main issue is with the whole “my state goes first, always” BS which is both patently unfair, and frankly, possibly a violation of the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause at least in spirit. By the time my state’s primary happens there no longer is a primary race. Ergo, I never actually GET to have a role in choosing my party’s nominee! Which is why the states should be broken up into blocs and the primary order shifted every 4 years so that in each person’s voting lifetime their state will be in the first bloc at least once…

Still though, candidates like Santorum, with little money still aren’t competing that well even in the system we have now.

wildcat72 on January 19, 2012 at 9:07 AM

The best news is – people are talking about changing the broken system – and thats a start.

IMHO – there needs to be “new republican registrants” per state or region factored into the Primary calendar. This will allow an accurate $$$ matching with party momentum, instead of wasting and throwing money at states who are both insignificant in the national tqally – and have very little, if any Rep momentum within their states. Its a dead horse.

Take 3-5 swing states – see which are ranked highest in Rep % momentum – then award them with an early, well funded and covered Primary.

This, of course, is a direct threat to the Establishment who are still prioritizing useless states, instead of rallying around the momentum states and regions. The south should represent 50% of the first 20 Primary’s due to the massive D to R swing in the past 30+ years alone…

Odie1941 on January 19, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Does each caucus location equal a precinct?

flyfisher on January 19, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Iowa Caucus!

“What do you mean the numbers don’t match”!
——————–Madam ChairWomen
====================================

Clinton pair become CNN media stars in the wee hours
Jan 4,2012 -8:10PM
******************
Video(2:12)

In the end, the viewing public’s best insight into resolution of the closest Iowa caucuses in history came down to a pair of diligent 70-year-old Clinton women checking their paperwork while on the phone with CNN early Wednesday.

Rick Santorum held a 10-vote margin over Mitt Romney after midnight, but one precinct in Iowa, the 2-2 in Clinton County, was missing. CNN tracked down Edith Pfeffer, chairwoman of the Clinton County Republican Party, at her Clinton home.

Pfeffer had gone to bed hours earlier and was roused by her phone ringing, the clangs of her doorbell and the persistent tap of Carolyn Tallett’s knuckles on her window.

“I didn’t know what in the world was going on,” Pfeffer recalled Wednesday afternoon.

She let Tallett inside, who quickly explained. Pfeffer answered the phone. It was a CNN producer. Could they put the pair live on the air? Sure, they said.

CNN anchors John King and Wolf Blitzer asked Pfeffer about the missing numbers. Pfeffer shuffled through her papers, and read the precinct totals and county totals off to King. King wrote them on a touch-sensitive TV screen.
(More….)
===========

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/04/clinton-pair-become-cnn-media-stars-in-the-wee-hours/

canopfor on January 5, 2012 at 6:02 AM

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 9:16 AM

No wonder the republican establishment is so eager to grease the skids by disqualifying the conservative candidates from the Virginia, D.C., Illinois, Rhode Island, and who knows how many other primaries. Mr. “Electable” may not be so…electable after all. Bravo and congratulations to Rick Santorum! I would go for him or Newt Gingrich in a heart beat. The more I’m finding out about Romney, the more I’m re-assured of why I dislike and distrust him so much. Palin’s endorsement or Susan Molinari’s…hmmm.? That’s a no-brainer and speaking of no brains, Molinari wasn’t exactly the brightest bulb during that period in Congress anyway.

mozalf on January 19, 2012 at 9:16 AM

I should have said – other 54 States.

It should be the other 57 states.

Obama said he had been to 57, and had 3 more to go. So if we’re done with 3, we still have 57 left.

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 9:17 AM

“Results from eight precincts are missing”

Incompetent Iowa Idiots!

crash72 on January 19, 2012 at 9:17 AM

The better question is this: why should we pay this much attention to a non-binding caucus that can’t get a close count straight?

Well, sometimes the votes for the two top candidates is within the margin of error for the election. The result is a de facto tie. We end up accepting one or the other as in Florida in 2000. It’s really ok. It’s not democracy being undermined.

Now, if this was occurring too frequently, it would be a problem.

thuja on January 19, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Wow

Results from eight precincts are missing — any of which could hold an advantage for Mitt Romney — and will never be recovered and certified, Republican Party of Iowa officials told The Des Moines Register on Wednesday.

Why?

tinkerthinker on January 19, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Does each caucus location equal a precinct?

flyfisher on January 19, 2012 at 9:15 AM

flyfisher:The Iowa County Map,breakdown is above!:)
===================================================

http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/iowa-caucus-live-election-results-20120103

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 7:46 AM

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 9:18 AM

The better question is this: why should we pay this much attention to a non-binding caucus that can’t get a close count straight?

Exactly…..

Baxter Greene on January 19, 2012 at 9:18 AM

But…but…this can’t be. He’s hysteric…err…I mean historic! It’s his turn! Errr…he’s a Conservative! No…Really, he is! He drives a pick-up truck and everything! Ummm…everybody keeps money in the Cayman Islands, don’t they?

LOL.

kingsjester on January 19, 2012 at 9:19 AM

This, of course, is a direct threat to the Establishment who are still prioritizing useless states, instead of rallying around the momentum states and regions. The south should represent 50% of the first 20 Primary’s due to the massive D to R swing in the past 30+ years alone…

Odie1941 on January 19, 2012 at 9:14 AM

The Republican establishment likes the current system because it lets them force the country club (Nixon/Rockefeller/Bush) candidate down our throats. That is how our nominating system is set up.

The democrat establishment does something similar, except that their nominating process is set up with so many fixed “superdelegates” that it is impossible to win their nomination from the voters, every candidate has to pander to the unions, feminazis, enviro-wacks, etc, etc.

Obama didn’t win their nomination in 2008 by winning primaries (it took him forever to close that out, remember?) He won it by convincing the various factions of the party that hold the superdelegates to switch their allegiance to him from Hillary.

Our party fixes things the same way by making sure that the first states, and thus, the momentum, favor the establishment candidate.

wildcat72 on January 19, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Putting aside Dem/Rep, Romney/ABR, this is pathetic. In the US of A we can’t f***g count votes properly in the year 2012?

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 9:12 AM

I’d point out that these were not votes per se It was a non-binding caucus with a nose count and not paper ballots. But to your bigger point, the left is unwilling to do what it takes to make vote counting more accurate. First and foremost is the need for presenting valid identifaction but that, of course, hurts the ability of illegals and the dead to vote along with ACORN’s multiple voting schemes. Just look at King County, Washington where elections get certified despite the fact that more votes are cast than there are registered voters!

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Wow, just pathetic spin by Ed. Guess we all know who HotAir shills for.

+8 Romney: Romney WON Iowa, its a historic sweep, blahblahblah

+24 Santorum: Er, we still don’t know, its a virtual tie, it doesn’t matter, blablabla

Norwegian on January 19, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Wow. You ought to read a few more of Ed’s posts before you yourself post. Ed shills for all of the Anti-Romneys. He’ll shill for anyone as long as his name isn’t Romney. BTW, this is even more true of Allahpundit. (As if that were possible.)

rogaineguy on January 19, 2012 at 9:20 AM

The better question is this: why should we pay this much attention to a non-binding caucus that can’t get a close count straight?
Well, sometimes the votes for the two top candidates is within the margin of error for the election. The result is a de facto tie. We end up accepting one or the other as in Florida in 2000. It’s really ok. It’s not democracy being undermined.

Now, if this was occurring too frequently, it would be a problem.

thuja on January 19, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Not exactly right. A statistical “tie” and/or within the margin or error for any election – always triggers an additional event to conclude who won.

Run-offs are the most common form of concluding event.

2000 has nothing to do with this – the actual votes certified vs thrown out were determined, whereas a final tally concluded a winner.

Odie1941 on January 19, 2012 at 9:21 AM

It should be the other 57 states.

Obama said he had been to 57, and had 3 more to go. So if we’re done with 3, we still have 57 left.

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 9:17 AM

/sigh

Yeah, it’s pointless to even mention… But if anyone with an R by his (or her) name said something as stupid as that… (how hard IS it to remember that we have 50 states even IF you were educated in foreign countries?) even if their skin were dark, that person would have been ridiculed away by the media and the comedians to a Tora Bora CAVE!

wildcat72 on January 19, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Yawn . . . only goes to show how inept the Iowa GOP really is and reinforces the belief that Iowa’s results don’t mean spit in the outcome of selecting the eventual standard bearer. How many delegate votes . . . . a mere handful? Caucuses and open primaries are making the GOP look stupid!

Bob in VA on January 19, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Wow. You ought to read a few more of Ed’s posts before you yourself post. Ed shills for all of the Anti-Romneys. He’ll shill for anyone as long as his name isn’t Romney. BTW, this is even more true of Allahpundit. (As if that were possible.)

rogaineguy on January 19, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Which is somewhat surprising given that BOTH Ed and AP are probably more moderate than most of the Hot Gas readership…

wildcat72 on January 19, 2012 at 9:24 AM

I apologize to my Hotair family for my states miserable failure of a job. I signed up as a precinct rep to my county to help hammer out our platform in March and rest assured the hierarchy will hear it from me.

No wonder the Repunks can’t beat democrats they can’t even get their own votes right.

That being said, I am sure the word will come down from on high later today that Mittens has won S.C. and Floriduh already so whats the point, it’s inevitable.

The in the tank tools for Romney on Fox are saying it doesn’t matter Romney got all the good press. Geez I wonder why.
Maybe cause Fox has turned into a Romney cheer team and no-one waits for certification?
Maybe cause he (Romney) in fact did call a couple of these late precints wondering about the totals on election night?

Flyfisher there were two precincts at my caucus location, essentially city and rural.

ConcealedKerry on January 19, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Rick Perry is suspending his campaign, that’s it for me there is no one left running I have any interest in.

Dr Evil on January 19, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Don’t know about Iowa, but Texas wins big.
Our Governor is coming home.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 19, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Ugharoo,I’ll try this the third time!

Rick Perry dropping out!!

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 9:25 AM

So, who is the gov’ner going to support?

kingsjester on January 19, 2012 at 9:26 AM

I’d point out that these were not votes per se It was a non-binding caucus with a nose count and not paper ballots.

AHHH, Paper ballots at my precinct and we were asked to watch the count if we wished to.

ConcealedKerry on January 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM

wildcat72 on January 19, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Yes sir, or ma’am…

The 2008 Dem “tricks” are pretty interesting when you look at an Establishment darling (Clinton) who then got thrown to the side – fraud and all – in favor of the new Establishment hack (Obama), namely the super delegates vs delegates – and the certification process. Many Clinton supporters claim it was flat out illegal and in fact – never officially certified.

Romney is the Rep Establishment hack this year, bells and all. However – he is far different from McCain – because at least McCain was tracking higher than 30%, while not spending 1/10th of the Romney money.

And I’m telling you – the class warfare schtick being ratcheted up by Obama and the Dems will throttle Romney if he wins the Rep nod.

Odie1941 on January 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Results from eight precincts are missing

Kathy Nickolaus is the elections clerk in Iowa too?

///

Flora Duh on January 19, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Flyfisher there were two precincts at my caucus location, essentially city and rural.

ConcealedKerry on January 19, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Wouldn’t it come as a surprise to the caucus attendees that the winner of their caucus cannot be ascertained?

flyfisher on January 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 9:25 AM

The only interest I had in this primary was Rick Perry running so now there is no real reason to keep following the primary. Mitt Romney will be the nominee, and he will lose to Barack Obama in the general.

On the upside, I am happy with our Governor at least he stepped up, many who could have run, decided to sit this primary out.

Dr Evil on January 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM

So, no unsubstantiated accusation of voter fraud here, then? A very close race, with results coming in two weeks later, and the lead changing hands?

Oh, I get it. That’s only a Democrat thing.

YYZ on January 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Democratic baseball bats and dead people were missing this time around.

unclesmrgol on January 19, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Early-early in half-sleep dawn, I was listening to Eric Erickson on CNN. He sounded stern & angry, issuing a warning to Gov. Perry. It was something like:

If you don’t drop out before South Carolina votes on Saturday, and Mitt Romney wins, you will be seen as a ‘spoiler’ throughout the rest of this race.

Fell back to sleep thinking,
Sheesh, wasn’t that guy a friend of Perry’s or something?

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 19, 2012 at 9:33 AM

flyfisher on January 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM

There was no problem at my location it had 300 attendees and the votes were paper ballots hand counted and watched by whomever wanted to. Our totals were correct!

Total time to get in, hear the speeches, vote, count and sign up for positions took about two hours.

ConcealedKerry on January 19, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I am amused that the “elite” (ie bought and paid) considered this part of a “HISTORIC” achievement last week for Romney.

Now…. it’s nothin’

golfmann on January 19, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Geez Perry can’t even quit right, I’m thinkin, I’m in, I’m gonna win , I’m in till Floriduh, I’m OUT!

What a waste of time, money and HotGas!

ConcealedKerry on January 19, 2012 at 9:38 AM

flyfisher on January 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM

There was no problem at my location it had 300 attendees and the votes were paper ballots hand counted and watched by whomever wanted to. Our totals were correct!

Total time to get in, hear the speeches, vote, count and sign up for positions took about two hours.

ConcealedKerry on January 19, 2012 at 9:34 AM

That’s about what I thought. None of this is rocket science. I simply don’t believe there are eight entire precincts missing. I believe any fifth grader could do the math to determine the winner. I believe someone, or a group of someones, didn’t like the final tally.

flyfisher on January 19, 2012 at 9:40 AM

What Iowans need is an old Scrooge sitting busy in his counting house.

What the Party needs is to move the “first” to a state with members who can count, we have until around mid-2015 to make it happen.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 19, 2012 at 9:42 AM

The important thing was to have Romney win, so the Iowa GOP jumped the gun and declared him the winner, even though the vote tally hadn’t been finalized or certified. Romney having been declared the winner, it appears 8 caucuses tossed their records prematurely, thus we will never know what their actual vote was.

And this is the kindest interpretation to put on the whole mess.

Normally in elections, when the tally is as close as 8 votes, there is at least one recount, and often recount after recount. So we can either say “the fix was in” or decide that Iowa’s reputation for probity and competence was greatly exaggerated.

Scriptor on January 19, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Not meaning to knock all of Iowa but if your state GOP party can’t deliver the results for a damn beauty pageant why should the national party play along? Let this be the last year Iowa tries to maintain relevance in our GOP elections. Let the dems have it.

DanMan on January 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM

I’d point out that these were not votes per se It was a non-binding caucus with a nose count and not paper ballots.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2012 at 9:20 AM

All Iowa GOP precinct caucuses are supposed to use paper ballots.

J.S.K. on January 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Comment pages: 1 2