Report: Iowa Recount Puts Santorum Ahead By 34 Votes, Result 'Unresolved'

http://www.npr.org/blogs ^ | January 19, 2012 | by Mark Memmott

[RetSignman]

Rick Santorum has ended up 34 votes ahead of Mitt Romney after a recount of the results from the Jan. 3 Iowa Republican presidential caucuses, The Des Moines Register is reporting.

But, the newspaper adds, Iowa GOP officials say that results from eight of Iowa's 1,774 precincts "will never be certified" because they're missing — meaning the outcome remains basically unresolved, as the Register's headline says. Or, as one Republican official tells the Register, it's going to be viewed as a "split decision."

[dools007]

This is what passes for politics. Expect truth, ethics and logic to be casulaties in the war for the US Presidency.

[Happy Valley Dude]

So, Santorum’s delegate count from Iowa increases from 0 to 0.

[Lady Lucky]

Romney by 8 = WIN
Santorum by 34 = TIE

Got it!

[RetSignman]

Chip Saltsman spokes person in Iowa...’Mitt has already sucked up all the gravy in Iowa’.

So he doesn’t matter? Has he ever heard of vomiting and gravy is so easy to throw up.

[RockinRight]

Well the delegate count stays the same...

[RockinRight]

If the story as is some are claiming, then isn’t Marianne Gingrich herself a guilty accomplice to this?

Who paid her? That’s my question.

[RetSignman]

[Who paid her? That’s my question.]

...and how much, my guess is fifty or sixty dollars.

[nomobs]

Wow - if Denver had just gotten one more point they would’ve tied New England

[RetSignman]

Beck will be in a total mild down mode today.

[Ernie Kaputnik]

“...we still can’t count the frigging votes right???? Oh, but our good old IRS can count every penny if we owe them anything.”

Of course. Our electoral process is completely corrupt, just like the damn political hacks that are in charge of it. It’s not about what the majority of voters want. It’s about the money. Always has been. Always will be.

[John 3_19-21]

Agreed.

However, it is being used to cause as much damage as possible by the way it is being teased by ABC and in the headlines on Druge and on other sites.


Remember what Rather said; " It's not the accuracy of the report, it's the seriousness of the charge."

[a real Sheila]

this only further convinces me that the fix is in.

Sickening.

[EQAndyBuzz]

SANTORUM NEEDS TO CREATE AN AD ABOUT THIS AND RUN IT IN SC & FL.

Romney didn’t win Iowa. The MSM gave him Iowa and now that he lost it, they will put it on page A23.

This is an opportunity for every candidate to go after the MSM and accuse them of making Romney the candidate as they did McCain in 2008.

If the Tea Party (are they even around any more?) had some money, they could hit the MSM and DNC very hard. I believe people are ready to hear the truth.

Time to give it to them.

[Calliecat]

I think to some extent this hurts Newt since he is suggesting that Rick Santorum should bow out - get out of Newt's way..

It should hurt him, if for no other reason than his insufferable arrogance. It's a pattern with Newt---he makes some ill-advised comment like this, on the tail of the "Armageddon" one, which followed his assurance that he would be the Republican nominee.

There are things I respect about Newt, namely his intelligence and somewhat ingenious mind, but I also consider him petty and high-handed. Strong debate performances(he is brilliant) aren't enough to gain my confidence.

I wish we could shake all of these candidates up in a bag---we might come out with someone compelling. Right now, I can't wholeheartedly back any of them, although I can say I have more respect for Santorum than the others. He's a weak candidate, but I do think he has mostly stayed above the fray.

Regardless of the eventual nominee--and I'll support him-- that person is going to have to wise up and develop a fire-proof hide. I'm not in the camp that believes it will be a cakewalk against Obama. In an ideal world, any of our candidates could best this miserable President, but he will continue to have the media on his side. It will work around the clock, just like in 2008, to weaken our candidate in voters' minds. It's going to be a very tough and bloody race.

[RJS1950]

When they declared for mitt the twit it was historic; when Santorum wins in the real count it’s a tie. Several boxes of ballots are missing and may never be found. It sounds very much like the Iowa GOP is ineptly trying to put in the “fix” like the democrat party does everywhere. Why again is it that we let a few states pick our candidates? We wail and moan about the MSM and democrat party picking our candidates but we don’t seem to mind when the GOP elite in a few states do it. We are again back to either SC or FL making the choice for all of the rest of us so why bother with any other primaries. What a pile of crap.

[Fawn]

Wow...I predict MASSIVE voter fraud this November. Sure win for Obama.

[ElectionInspector]

Wow...I predict MASSIVE voter fraud this November. Sure win for Obama.

...exactly right, and it’s interesting that Rino Repeubs will engage in vote count fraud to further a candidate as well...
no honesty left in the USA...

ymmv

[JohnBovenmyer]

The Des Moines Register has a fair amount of detail and is mostly practicing journalism here.

They link to a spreadsheet with the precinct breakdown for the 1766 precincts they were able to certify. That spreadsheet verified my surmise that whatever the votes were in the other 8 non-certified precincts, they are not being counted. They're not even lines on the spreadsheet. Hopefully someone will perform further journalism and discover what went wrong. As of this posting the Iowa GOP site hasn't been updated today; the Register is the only site with data posted.

I don't have time for a full comparison now, but a glance at the "certified" spread sheet in comparison to the one posted after "Mitt won" revealed a couple interesting points.

First, they broke down the voting by others in more detail. Sarah Palin only received 23 votes statewide. Cain received 45. Some much for their hopes of resurrection.

Second, although they aren't providing totals from the 8 "non-certified" precincts now, their unofficial results were provided earlier this month and if unchanged would provide Santorum with an additional 35 vote margin:

46 Romney
81 Santorum
64 Paul
30 Gingrich
31 Perry
15 Bachman
2 Huntsman
269 Total

So although they are now saying Santorum 'won' in the 99.5% complete 'final' tally, had it been 100% the best available data suggests he really won by about 69 votes. The size and trend of those 8 unofficially counted precincts makes it fairly likely that Santorum really did win Iowa.

So we're off to an interesting day. Santorum flips Mitt in Iowa. Perry reported to be dropping out. Newt gets dropped on by ex #2 tonight and what will likely be an interesting debate tonight. I'm off to work so will be offline awhile.