Two weeks after voters cast their ballots in the 2012 Iowa Caucuses, the outcome of the race remains in doubt.
On election night (January 3), the storyline was that former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum had eked out a narrow victory over presumed GOP nominee Mitt Romney. By the following morning (January 4), though, the story had changed – with Romney emerging with what appeared to be a narrow eight-vote victory.
That’s been the defining narrative ever since, in fact … with the national press eagerly anticipating Romney’s impending South Carolina victory as his “third straight” primary win.
Of course on the verge of all those “three for three” headlines – which represent an essential component of Romney’s Borg-like assimilation of the GOP nomination – there’s been a slight hiccup in the plan.
The problem? Santorum may have won Iowa after all.
Iowa counties have until the end of the day on Wednesday to submit their final paperwork to the state’s Republican Party – which will certify the results by Friday (hopefully). So far, 95 of the state’s 99 counties have submitted their results – and the state party has uncovered several “typos” that have affected the vote totals.
According to Iowa sources who spoke with The Washington Examiner earlier this week, Santorum was leading Romney by 80 votes.
Hmmmm ….
So … is there an elaborate conspiracy at work here?
Of course not … close races require all sorts of counting and recounting (let’s not forget we’re living in a nation that elected its 43rd president on the basis of a few “dangling chads” in Florida). Also, while the mainstream press is bending over backward to secure the GOP nomination for Romney they’re also not looking to repeat any “Dewey Defeats Truman” moments.
Anyway, a Santorum “win” in Iowa isn’t likely to change the trajectory of events here in South Carolina – or beyond – but if such a victory is announced on the eve of a Romney win in the Palmetto State it could ruin Romney’s whole “three for three” spin.
By Debbie January 18, 2012 at 8:58 am
Good. Because Romney is a crook and doesn’t belong in the White House.
By ? January 18, 2012 at 8:59 am
I read a some article from a guy who was in the state dept. for some time and dealing specifically with international elections on behalf of our country.
He said the US would have declared the Iowa election “compromised” by the standards it applies to other countries.
Votes counted in secret at an unknown location(at the time), no outside observers, and no recount…
What a joke.
By snodgrass January 18, 2012 at 9:19 am
We’re supposed to believe that ALL the errors applied to just these two candidates with no mistakes regarding the others who were voted on? Almost every poll indicated a tight race between Paul, Romney, and Santorum. Isn’t it convenient that Paul’s third place finish has never been questioned.
By The Colonel January 18, 2012 at 9:28 am
Didn’t take long for the Paulistas to show up did it?
By dirtbogger January 18, 2012 at 10:19 am
and then then for the establishment ballwashers follow soon after
By dirtbogger January 18, 2012 at 10:25 am
holy shit that can be their label (Ballwashers) here ye, here ye, from this point forward establishment supporters are to be known as Ball Washers! Wear it as a badge of honer for you have no other honer!
By The Colonel January 18, 2012 at 10:45 am
Honer?
By The Colonel January 18, 2012 at 11:03 am
Oh, I got it, you meant boner as in the thing you rub while thinking about Ron Paul as your president.
Keep spanking it and if it gets to raw you can just substitute mental masturbation. Either way your candidate will wind up as a stain on the mattress
By :) January 18, 2012 at 1:41 pm
The Colonel is interested in your boner dirtbogger. Being a ballwasher it only makes sense.
It’s a short trip from one to the other.
By The Colonel January 18, 2012 at 4:18 pm
“It’s a short trip from one to the other”, and :) can sell you a road map, he’s made that trip many times.
By tomstickler January 18, 2012 at 10:29 am
As Arte Johnson’s little German character used to say on Laugh-in, “Verrry interesting: but dumb!”
The Iowa contest was not an election in the sense that New Hampshire and South Carolina are. It was a caucus, where the qualifications to “vote” are very different.
Nevertheless, how the “votes” are counted, where and by whom is the crucial issue. SOE Software is an elections results reporting company used by South Carolina. Precinct-level results are funneled through SOE’s servers before they reach the public, allowing a perfect opportunity for a man-in-the-middle to fiddle with the results. With South Carolina still using the 100% unverifiable iVotronic machines, the public confidence in elections is further diminished.
Oh, BTW, SOE was recently bought by SCYTL, a global technology company based in Barcelona that wants to have all of you vote over the Internet.
By dirtbogger January 18, 2012 at 10:56 am
fergive tha spellin I’m suthern spell like I talk. Honor!
By James the Foot Soldier January 18, 2012 at 11:02 am
Since the Iowa caucuses don’t award any delegates who gives a rat’s ass other than the political operative/whores who make their living washing the balls of the candidate running through their trailer parks.
Caucuses on the democrat side are the only resaon Obama was foisted upon America and ought to be tossed upon the scrap heap of history right next to Ron Paul’s manifesto.
By :) January 18, 2012 at 11:02 am
“You know, comrades,” says Stalin, “that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.”
By willblogformoney January 18, 2012 at 11:09 am
They were manually counting slips of paper in front of all the network cameras. How could anyone concentrate? Did you ever just start yelling out numbers when someone was trying to count? That’s all I could think of.
By dirtbogger January 18, 2012 at 11:10 am
it must hurt your feelings James the Keyboard Camando
By dirtbogger January 18, 2012 at 11:11 am
go wash you some balls James
By dirtbogger January 18, 2012 at 11:13 am
Colonel, go fry you some chicken when you get done ball lickin
By The Colonel January 18, 2012 at 11:23 am
Finger licking sir, finger licking…
By JX January 18, 2012 at 11:55 am
You’ve been reading too many of those “stole the votes” blogs, mostly from Ron Paul people.
By ? January 18, 2012 at 12:31 pm
The issues isn’t who “stole the votes”, it’s “are the votes counted properly.”
No amount of vote mis-counting is going to change Paul’s outcome, I think you’re projecting.
The issue is way more important, did Romney actually win or not? 8 vote spread, with no recount?
The whole idea of Mitt’s “electability” is predicated on this notion he won Iowa by 8 votes.
Don’t you think it’s important to verify that is the case?
There’s no mention of Paul anywhere in the article. Maybe you’re reading into things.
By Crooner January 18, 2012 at 1:31 pm
All of this is why the mantra of the election commission has long been “we don’t care who wins, but Lord, don’t let it be close.”
By James the Foot Soldier January 18, 2012 at 3:35 pm
what hurts AMERICA is the fact 3 states and their 20 electoral college notes have this un-holy alliance in determining the POTUS.
How’s that worked the past 30 years?
By ? January 18, 2012 at 4:00 pm
I agree with you. There should be one giant primary, done all at once via time zone adjustment.
This notion that three states represent enough of a cross section of American society to determine who gets to run is absurd.
It’s almost as absurd as 536 people in DC deciding what’s best for the entire country.
Whoops, bad example.
By James the Foot Soldier January 18, 2012 at 6:37 pm
THAT would in fact be a SUPER Tuesday.
A rotating 4 Region primary would MUCH better serve AMERICA.