Did Santorum win Iowa after all?

[red headed stranger]

Interesting news out of Iowa:

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

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.

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.

Definitely some fishiness going on over there.  

[wmenorr67]

Is ACORN back?

[longeyes]

Eight precincts missing?  And shenanigans in the 2008 run?  Seems to me Iowa has pretty much lost its cred, such as it was.

[red headed stranger]

I remember the night I was watching the returns and switching between CNN, FOX, and MSNBC.  the channels all showed Santorum with a slight lead, and Romney starting to catch up for most of the late night coverage.  

Then, CNN started reporting that they had heard from "a source in the Romney Campaign" that the GOP had called the Romney camp to congratulate them on winning.  

When they went to the live feed at the Romney headquarters, there was nobody there.    Nobody sitting in anticipation, waiting to hear news, no one.  

Add that to the very convenient rule that there is no recount allowed no matter how close the race, and things really smell fishy. 

  It really seems to me that the establishment needed the air of inevitability around their guy, no matter what.  /

[Blakenzy]

There's some good ol' Banana Republic vote riggin' for ya!

[Fitz]

HEY! WHO CARES! ANYBODY BUT OBAMA, AMIRITE!?!?!?

[longeyes]

We should care because we've permitted this nonsense--the early caucus and primary charade--to steal from us our right to choose our best candidate.  Iowa is a promotional event for that state, not a serious reflection of American preferences.  New Hampshire permits non-committed voters to cross over--what sense is there in that?  All of this is about raising ad revenue for the networks and for the political media-creating operations.

[Jamisjockey]

But hey, lets trust the GOP and the establishment candidates....they know better and aren't afraid of Iran!   

[roo_ster]

HEY! WHO CARES! ANYBODY BUT OBAMA, AMIRITE!?!?!?

Any of the current crop of GOPers would be an improvement.  Maybe not as large an improvement as I'd like. 

I'd rather not see BHO stuff COTUS with more half-wit tokens who toe the leftist line.

[Blakenzy]

Any of the current crop of GOPers would be an improvement.

Oh  hell  no... that's just not true. What, is having an (R) behind your name some kind of cleansing magical symbol? There are some in there that would be equal, if not worse. Some in there WOULD follow suit with Obama's transgressions on the Constitution, maybe even expand on them, the only difference being that "we" would let our guard down and turn a blind eye, only because the person in question is  labeled a "conservative", whatever that means these days.

[Jamisjockey]

Oh  hell  no... that's just not true. What, is having an (R) behind your name some kind of cleansing magical symbol? There are some in there that would be equal, if not worse. Some in there WOULD follow suit with Obama's transgressions on the Constitution, maybe even expand on them, the only difference being that "we" would let our guard down and turn a blind eye, only because the person in question is  labeled a "conservative", whatever that means these days.

Amen.

After all, it was an (R) president with an (R) Congress and an (R) senate who gave us the patriot act, went several years without even considering a balanced budget, and got us involved in two simultaneous land wars. 
Of course, when the Dems took control of both houses, then the budget problems are their fault? Huh.
If you're going to hell, should you be more concerned about the vehicle you're arriving in, or the destination itself?  Just sayin.

[TommyGunn]

Amen.

After all, it was an (R) president with an (R) Congress and an (R) senate who gave us the patriot act, went several years without even considering a balanced budget, and got us involved in two simultaneous land wars. 
Of course, when the Dems took control of both houses, then the budget problems are their fault? Huh.
If you're going to hell, should you be more concerned about the vehicle you're arriving in, or the destination itself?  Just sayin.

If the **** demorats won't turn the car around, then you atleast stop supporting them.   The repukeagains atleast try ....or give a few talking points .... to using the brakes.  They've been better at some times than others.


Or alternatly, make sure you have asbestos underwear.

[roo_ster]

Oh  hell  no... that's just not true. What, is having an (R) behind your name some kind of cleansing magical symbol? There are some in there that would be equal, if not worse. Some in there WOULD follow suit with Obama's transgressions on the Constitution, maybe even expand on them, the only difference being that "we" would let our guard down and turn a blind eye, only because the person in question is  labeled a "conservative", whatever that means these days.

I call bullshit.

Who in the GOP is in any danger of winning the nomination?
Romney the Mormon not endorsed by evangelical bigwigs
Newt
Rick the Catholic endorsed by evangelical bigwigs
Ron

Any of them would be better than BHO.  Not exactly a high bar, of course.

Of the four, I think I'd prefer Ron, especially after the conniptions I have seen by GOP establishment partisans and the neo-con (original definition) contingent.  Come the general election, if Ron ain't the GOP standard bearer, I could hold my nose and expect a somewhat slower descent in this handbasket by yanking the lever for NewtRomRick. 

A little more time beats less time to fix the problems that bedevil us.

[longeyes]

All are better than Obama.

None can fix America as it is currently constituted.

[MicroBalrog]

On the contrary, anybody can fix America. The user manual is right there.

All you need to do is start vetoing, repealing, and pardoning.

Statism is complex.

It is like the decision to have a tree in your yard. You need to choose the right kind of tree - cedar? oak? maple? The right arborist, the right soil, the right location. If you want to have a cedar tree, and then plant a maple, you screwed up the tree project. Even on its own terms, for big government to succeed the right people must be in charge.

For those of us opposed to the welfare state, it's like the decision not to plant a tree at all. There's no need for a proficient arborist... you just don't plant it.

[TommyGunn]

Damn thing was planted a long time ago ...........................

[erictank]

If the **** demorats won't turn the car around, then you atleast stop supporting them.   The repukeagains atleast try ....or give a few talking points .... to using the brakes.  They've been better at some times than others.


Or alternatly, make sure you have asbestos underwear.

Someone who *TALKS* about how it's necessary to hit the brakes and turn the car around, while mashing on the accelerator and steering straight in the same direction we've been going, is *NOT* our friend.  He is *NOT* better than "the other guys".  Talk is NOTHING.  Show me some freaking ACTION! 

Paul has at least been actively trying to turn the car around and hit the brakes.  The other (R) candidates?  Yeah, not so much. Tell me again why I should vote for NewtRomRick?  Oh, right - because otherwise, my vote is "wasted" - if not an outright vote for Obama.   No thanks.  I'm not voting for the guys who TALK about hitting the brakes and turning the car around.  I'll vote for someone who's ACTED to do so, even though others continue to wrest the wheel out of his hands and stomp on the accelerator.

Like Micro said - it's really not that complicated.  Want liberty?  VOTE FOR IT! Don't cast a vote for more-of-the-same, and then wonder why you get more of the freaking same!

[geronimotwo]

Someone who *TALKS* about how it's necessary to hit the brakes and turn the car around, while mashing on the accelerator and steering straight in the same direction we've been going, is *NOT* our friend.  He is *NOT* better than "the other guys".  Talk is NOTHING.  Show me some freaking ACTION! 

Paul has at least been actively trying to turn the car around and hit the brakes.  The other (R) candidates?  Yeah, not so much. Tell me again why I should vote for NewtRomRick?  Oh, right - because otherwise, my vote is "wasted" - if not an outright vote for Obama.   No thanks.  I'm not voting for the guys who TALK about hitting the brakes and turning the car around.  I'll vote for someone who's ACTED to do so, even though others continue to wrest the wheel out of his hands and stomp on the accelerator.

Like Micro said - it's really not that complicated.  Want liberty?  VOTE FOR IT! Don't cast a vote for more-of-the-same, and then wonder why you get more of the freaking same!

i agree with this 100%

[slingshot]

I think in the primaries, you should vote your heart.  I voted last time for Huckabee even though I was pretty sure he would not win my state.

[charby]

The problem with Iowa was that the news was so freaking pushy to get an answer before 9pm. With a caucus one caucus could last several hours if the partipants are willing to go the extra mile. During the Republican caucus there is a straw poll for candiates, but it also allows people to bring forward planks for the party platform which can get heated and the arguement may last for hours until there is a consensus. People are also elected to the county and district party conventions and some people can get heated about which candiate supporter is going on to county convention.

I was chair of my caucus and I had to put the gavel down several times on irrational people.

The Democrat caucus is even crazier, instead of a straw poll for candidates there has to be a super majority for one candidate before they can close the vote.

Plus GOP of Iowa changed their reporting method of the precinct votes 2 weeks before caucus due to concerns that occpiers where going to hack into the process. The website got overloaded and wend down several times that night.

A caucus is not a primary where there is a end time to tally votes and you can predict when the majority of the votes will be reported in.

[longeyes]

On the contrary, anybody can fix America. The user manual is right there.

All you need to do is start vetoing, repealing, and pardoning.

Statism is complex.

It is like the decision to have a tree in your yard. You need to choose the right kind of tree - cedar? oak? maple? The right arborist, the right soil, the right location. If you want to have a cedar tree, and then plant a maple, you screwed up the tree project. Even on its own terms, for big government to succeed the right people must be in charge.

For those of us opposed to the welfare state, it's like the decision not to plant a tree at all. There's no need for a proficient arborist... you just don't plant it.

I wish this were true, but when you say "all you need to do..." you ignore that fact that there's no "you" there any more in the way you seem to think.  We the People are now We the Peoples, and that was all along the agenda of the Left in America.  We have lost the cultural homogeneity we once had.  To ignore this and continuing demographic and philosophical fragmentation is to ignore social reality.  The GOP candidates have the manual but they don't have the troops.  My view is we can save some of America or save a new America but not America as a whole any more.  To believe in an "indivisible" America, to continue to talk of our polity as "united," either now or in the future, is self-destructively naive.  "We" and "they" are miles apart and never the twain shall meet.

[dogmush]

I wish this were true, but when you say "all you need to do..." you ignore that fact that there's no "you" there any more in the way you seem to think.  We the People are now We the Peoples, and that was all along the agenda of the Left in America.  We have lost the cultural homogeneity we once had.  To ignore this and continuing demographic and philosophical fragmentation is to ignore social reality.  The GOP candidates have the manual but they don't have the troops.  My view is we can save some of America or save a new America but not America as a whole any more.  To believe in an "indivisible" America, to continue to talk of our polity as "united," either now or in the future, is self-destructively naive.  "We" and "they" are miles apart and never the twain shall meet.

I think you severely overestimate both our current divisions and our historical unity.

America has, since before it's inception, been made up of disparate groups that disagreed on most everything, and had no desire to be changed.  If anything it's that ability to live your life without assimilating that kicked off this country.  And our history is rife with internal factions fighting each other, sometimes politically and sometimes with arms.  I know you think that America needs a "divorce" but that opinion is based on a skewed "disney"fied idea of what we once were.  The truth is that America's factions are less at each others throats now then at many other times in our history.  Times that we survived because people didn't quit and go for a "divorce".

[TommyGunn]

Someone who *TALKS* about how it's necessary to hit the brakes and turn the car around, while mashing on the accelerator and steering straight in the same direction we've been going, is *NOT* our friend.  He is *NOT* better than "the other guys".  Talk is NOTHING.  Show me some freaking ACTION!  

To whom are you refering now, Bush or Obama?  Bush was no friend but Obama has added 5 trillion $$ to our debt in far less time than Shrubbie added his $.

Paul has at least been actively trying to turn the car around and hit the brakes.  The other (R) candidates?  Yeah, not so much. Tell me again why I should vote for NewtRomRick?  Oh, right - because otherwise, my vote is "wasted" - if not an outright vote for Obama.  No thanks.  I'm not voting for the guys who TALK about hitting the brakes and turning the car around.  I'll vote for someone who's ACTED to do so, even though others continue to wrest the wheel out of his hands and stomp on the accelerator.

Like Micro said - it's really not that complicated.  Want liberty?  VOTE FOR IT! Don't cast a vote for more-of-the-same, and then wonder why you get more of the freaking same!

You can vote for whatever Jackwagon you want to.  You can  "waste" your vote and vote Ron Paul. You will feel good about having done the right thing but come Wednesday morning he won't be the president elect.  
Go find one poll that allows any reasonable person to conclude R. Paul has a snowball's chance in h3ll.  And do it without whining about how "if people would just vote for who is the right person/stop voting fo the 'leesor of evils' blah blah blah."  I didn't construct the reality we live in and the fact Paul polls in single digits is not by my design, nor do I have the power to change it.
If R. Paul's foreign policy weren't so dangerously unrealistic I would support him, and I suspect a great many people would also. I actually do like many of his economic ideas.
Do you REALLY believe if Ron Paul we're president, he could change things??
Remember one thing.  "The president proposes, the kongress disposes."  An old bromide there, meaning that, atleast in this case, President Ron Paul is going to have ....wait for it ..... wait for it.....

......


0% support in kongress.

Now he can flap his gums all he wants.  Do you really think pols like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Charlie Schumer are going to give a rat's petoot of support for his programs?
And if you think the repukes will you're smoking something that should be by prescription only.  Ron Paul is only a R  by default.  
So, sorry, even should Paul become president, he ain't gonna accomplish one thing.
And don't tell me a nation of entitlement-sated sheeple are going to rise up and support Paul and force kongress to act, either.  I don't do political comedy on weekends.

As I said, you can vote for whomever you like.  Me, I shall, as always, vote the lesser of evils.  Don't like that?  Tough.  Will I sleep at night after I do it?
Better than I will if I don't .......
But, unless real conservatives take over kongress in a fell swoop, we're toast.
It's over.
Finished.

The president alone can't do friggin' diddly.


Are we all feeling all warm and fuzzy now?  
Enjoy it while you can --- ain't gonna last!!

[red headed stranger]

The problem with Iowa was that the news was so freaking pushy to get an answer before 9pm.

Agreed.  On the channels I was watching, the commentators were acting like whiny kids that were upset the family car hadn't made it to Disneyland yet. 

[Physics]

To whom are you refering now, Bush or Obama?  Bush was no friend but Obama has added 5 trillion $$ to our debt in far less time than Shrubbie added his $.

You can vote for whatever Jackwagon you want to.  You can  "waste" your vote and vote Ron Paul. You will feel good about having done the right thing but come Wednesday morning he won't be the president elect.  
Go find one poll that allows any reasonable person to conclude R. Paul has a snowball's chance in h3ll.  And do it without whining about how "if people would just vote for who is the right person/stop voting fo the 'leesor of evils' blah blah blah."  I didn't construct the reality we live in and the fact Paul polls in single digits is not by my design, nor do I have the power to change it.
If R. Paul's foreign policy weren't so dangerously unrealistic I would support him, and I suspect a great many people would also. I actually do like many of his economic ideas.
Do you REALLY believe if Ron Paul we're president, he could change things??
Remember one thing.  "The president proposes, the kongress disposes."  An old bromide there, meaning that, atleast in this case, President Ron Paul is going to have ....wait for it ..... wait for it.....

......


0% support in kongress.

Now he can flap his gums all he wants.  Do you really think pols like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Charlie Schumer are going to give a rat's petoot of support for his programs?
And if you think the repukes will you're smoking something that should be by prescription only.  Ron Paul is only a R  by default.  
So, sorry, even should Paul become president, he ain't gonna accomplish one thing.
And don't tell me a nation of entitlement-sated sheeple are going to rise up and support Paul and force kongress to act, either.  I don't do political comedy on weekends.

As I said, you can vote for whomever you like.  Me, I shall, as always, vote the lesser of evils.  Don't like that?  Tough.  Will I sleep at night after I do it?
Better than I will if I don't .......
But, unless real conservatives take over kongress in a fell swoop, we're toast.
It's over.
Finished.

The president alone can't do friggin' diddly.


Are we all feeling all warm and fuzzy now?  
Enjoy it while you can --- ain't gonna last!!

All I can say to that is that I'd rather see Ron Paul try to do the right things and fail, than see the others succeed at the wrong things.