Althouse: Suddenly, Santorum is the winner of the Iowa caucuses.

January 19, 2012

Suddenly, Santorum is the winner of the Iowa caucuses.

Ah! What could have been!

What could have been?

40 comments:

madAsHell said...: Well, that makes things interesting, and maybe, there were some shenanigans to make things interesting.

How many counties could not be certified?; 1/19/12, 9:33 AM
David said...: I question the timing.; 1/19/12, 9:33 AM
edutcher said...: 34 whole votes.

Even more impressive than 5.

And what David said.; 1/19/12, 9:35 AM
Kev said...: (the other kev)

And Iowa slides further into irrelevancy. The caucuses were already just a front for candidates of both parties sucking up for ethanol subsidies and the first-in-the-nation momentum they brag about is worthless if the ballots can't be counted right the first time.; 1/19/12, 9:35 AM
traditionalguy said...: Did I just read that Cardboard Man is a loser?

And over at the ABC office of the Campaign to Re-elect Obama there is a news flash of a rediscovered shocking surprise expose about Gingrich having been a bad husband ten years ago.

Inquiring minds want to know why the Obama Team wants to throw South Carolina victory to Romney so that the nomination contest ends with Romney ahead?; 1/19/12, 9:42 AM
pm317 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/19/12, 9:46 AM
Hizzle said...: Well, considering Santorum was thought to be the winner by 8 votes for a few days after Iowa, I think he's already gotten whatever bump he would have gotten with an 34 vote win.; 1/19/12, 9:47 AM
Scott M said...: ABO. Everything else is background static.; 1/19/12, 9:48 AM
bagoh20 said...: Santorum was in my high school class, and I have noticed via Facebook that 50 year old women who post bible passages in there status are mostly pretty hot, which is kind of hot on top of it, but they would never like me except in secret where nobody ever finds out. That's hot.

Tits.; 1/19/12, 9:50 AM
Wince said...: "Suddenly Santorum"?; 1/19/12, 9:51 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Well, that makes things interesting, and maybe, there were some shenanigans to make things interesting."

Given how close were the votes, it's a stretch to assume shenangans when simple error is the simpler and more likely explanation.

WF: "orkbran" The Demons' Choice!

No matter: Santorum has no chance to prevail in a general election.; 1/19/12, 9:55 AM
Cedarford said...: Apparantly, the Iowa Party will not call a winner, but a tie - as they have 8 missing Precinct ballot tallies that are apparantly gone, wiped off the face of the Earth, no one can find.

Sloppy, but that is the nature of these caucuses with so much manually tallied and delivered in bunches to overloaded election center workers.

So all they can do is say Santorum is ahead in the last tally, but they cannot declare it a win based on the discovery of the loss of all votes from 8 Precincts.

And it doesn't really matter at this time..; 1/19/12, 9:56 AM
Simon said...: It doesn't make any difference to me who won it by a nose. Here's what I said on the night: "[It's a h]uge win for Romney, obviously. Six months ago, everyone knew that Romney couldn't even compete in Iowa; today, he either won it or came in a very close second to a candidate who has spent a year doing doing but Iowa and is custom-tailored to a SoCon audience. It's hard to see that as anything but a massive win." I still think that's right. The winner in Iowa was Romney, regardless of whether he finished first or second; by coming within a nose in a state that everyone had written off for his campaign, he did enough.; 1/19/12, 9:56 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Santorum was in my high school class...."

Was he a sanctimonious, moralizing religious fanatic and dick then, too?; 1/19/12, 9:57 AM
Scott M said...: Was he a sanctimonious, moralizing religious fanatic and dick then, too?

An interesting question coming from a sanctimonious, moralizing statist fanatic. I don't know you personally, RC, so I don't know if you're a dick. I assume you would acknowledge the same is true between you and Santorum, correct?; 1/19/12, 10:01 AM
Robert Cook said...: "I assume you would acknowledge the same is true between you and Santorum, correct?"

No. Santorum asserts his zealotry and sanctimony quite openly. No hider of his light behind a bushel, he!

Me? I'm a sprite, a gadfly in the spoiled ointment spread so liberally (if you'll pardon the expression) around these environs.; 1/19/12, 10:09 AM
Mark O said...: "Santorum was in my high school class...."

So, did he lose the girl in the third act to a moralizing, loony, Model UN freak?

And did that freak's former girlfriend dish dirt in the school paper?

Doom; 1/19/12, 10:09 AM
bagoh20 said...: "Was he a sanctimonious, moralizing religious fanatic and dick then, too?"

Our respective cliques we're about as opposite as was possible, so we didn't hang, but my small home town has a large religious component.

On Facebook, a lot of my classmates still seem pretty religious, which seems strange to me know living in L.A. where I almost never hear mention of the bible during my day. It's a stark difference, and I'm not judgmental about either sensibility - they both have their costs and benefits.

As for leadership, I see the same dangers in both types - knowing the unknown with absolute certainty. Although I would say the religious are little less overbearing and more humble.; 1/19/12, 10:11 AM
Scott M said...: On Facebook, a lot of my classmates still seem pretty religious, which seems strange to me know living in L.A. where I almost never hear mention of the bible during my day.

What's striking to me are the high school classmates who were the most hedonistic at the time, but post near-daily excerpts from the Bible on Facebook today. I tend to avoid engaging most of them, but one was a close friend. The change is, indeed, stark.; 1/19/12, 10:15 AM
Brian Brown said...: Santorum asserts his zealotry and sanctimony quite openly

Which is what you do here with every post.; 1/19/12, 10:16 AM
sonicfrog said...: Al Gore was overheard saying "I Demand A Recount!".; 1/19/12, 10:19 AM
Richard Dolan said...: Iowa represents an advance of sorts since the Hanging Chads of 2000. Florida 2000 posed the simple question of how clear must the voter's mark be to count as a vote. Iowa has managed to have whole precincts vanish into a black hole. It's the electoral equivalent of the quantum indeterminancy principle replacing would-be Newtonian certainties -- it's impossible to tell who won.

In such a quantum electoral world, elections are not what they seem.; 1/19/12, 10:29 AM
Simon said...: Robert Cook said...
"Santorum asserts his zealotry and sanctimony quite openly. No hider of his light behind a bushel, he!"

You seem to be quite open in asserting your zeal and pious righteousness in your cause (I won't call it sanctimony because that calls into question your sincerity for no reason, although it's hard to see what basis you have for questionig Santorum's sincerity). So what's the difference (which I think was Scott's point)?; 1/19/12, 10:31 AM
Scott M said...: In such a quantum electoral world, elections are not what they seem.

How are the electrons doing?; 1/19/12, 10:34 AM
Andy said...: What could have been?

We probably would have got more "frothy mixture" jokes as we laughed him off the national stage.; 1/19/12, 10:38 AM
Simon said...: It's quite indicative that Andy not only fails to be appropriately embarrassed by a particularly vile episode in lefty behavior, relegating it to the ashpile of history, but that he seems to actually revel in it, raising it quite unbidden, almost as if he was proud of it or agrees with it. If so, that would bespeak a fundamental lack of decency that transcends the understandable political expedient, and which would certainly explain the moral decay of that party.; 1/19/12, 10:50 AM
Joe said...: The Iowa republicans are so disorganized that they've lost the counts for several counties, so any number at this point is meaningless.

This only reinforces my view that the GOP should have four regional closed primaries (not caucuses), once a month starting in March.; 1/19/12, 10:54 AM
edutcher said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/19/12, 10:58 AM
edutcher said...: Robert Cook said...

"I assume you would acknowledge the same is true between you and Santorum, correct?"

No. Santorum asserts his zealotry and sanctimony quite openly. No hider of his light behind a bushel, he!

Me? I'm a sprite, a gadfly in the spoiled ointment spread so liberally (if you'll pardon the expression) around these environs.

No, Cook is Stalinism's last apologist, so far behind the curve even Pete Seeger has passed him.

Andy R. said...

What could have been?

We probably would have got more "frothy mixture" jokes as we laughed him off the national stage.

Hate to tell him, but the opinion of a handful of psychotic deviants, and that's what Dan Savage and his admirers are, is not the nation's bellwether.

What Hatman just said makes himself look like a bigger fool than usual.; 1/19/12, 11:00 AM
Scott M said...: What Hatman just said makes himself look like a bigger fool than usual.

Don't be so hard on him. He just realized yesterday that his great big national party selected a candidate based primarily on his skin color. I'm sure he's still reeling a bit. Tragic.; 1/19/12, 11:03 AM
Simon said...: Joe said...
"This only reinforces my view that the GOP should have four regional closed primaries (not caucuses), once a month starting in March.

I don't see any reason to deviate from the traditional timeline, but I'd like both parties to be using closed primaries, and I'm sufficiently committed to that idea that I'd accept a timeline modification as acceptable collateral damage.; 1/19/12, 11:25 AM
Hagar said...: In 2000, George Bush won New Mexico by 4 votes on election night. Then someone, a union official in Las Cruces IIRC, "found" an envelope with 11 votes all for Al Gore, which put the Democrats 7 votes ahead. Apparently that was not enough, so they "found" another envelope with 352 votes for Gore, so that he officially ended up 359 votes ahead.
Some Republicans started to protest and wanted a recount, but Mickey Barnett said, "Let it go; it's over."
To my mind Barnett was wrong. For the next 4 years the electoral maps showed New Mexico as a large blue promontory into the sea of interior red states, and that had a psychological impact I am sure, though based entirely on those envelopes "found" after the election was over.

Every vote counts, indeed!; 1/19/12, 11:36 AM
SHH said...: It is mind boggling that election results are broadcast to ANYONE, prior to all ballots being securely submitted, & out of the hands of the precincts. That said, I deplore the entire primary process. It would be far better to have the presidential primary for all parties on the same day, thus enabling all to vote for their particular favorite. The San Francisco California Mayoral process has reputedly come up with a clever method of primary voting:
 All votes on the same day.
 Voters assign preference (1st, 2nd, etc.) to all candidates running.
 If there are 2 candidates with clear majorities under 50%, they will be the candidates in another election.
 If nothing is clear, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. All voters 1st choice vote for the eliminated candidate are discarded & their 2nd choice is now counted. This continues until there are 2 clear majority candidates.
 If a single candidate ends up with more than 50% of the vote, that candidate wins. There is no need for an additional vote.
I like it.; 1/19/12, 11:38 AM
Simon said...: Hagar, I should mention my piece How to fix concerns of ballot stuffing. As the nation grows more and more divided, and more closely divided, it's a problem that we need to fix.; 1/19/12, 11:56 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Inquiring minds want to know why the Obama Team wants to throw South Carolina victory to Romney so that the nomination contest ends with Romney ahead?

If Obama's campaign staff had their way, Gingrich would be the nominee.

But go ahead and believe that ABCNews is somehow in a conspiracy with the Obama campaign to torpedo Gingrich's already weak chances in South Carolina.; 1/19/12, 12:28 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Meanwhile, you might want to consider why Rush Limbaugh has failed to endorse an alternative to Romney. I suppose he is also working in concert with the Obama campaign, as his actions, or lack thereof, are helping ensure "that the nomination contest ends with Romney ahead."; 1/19/12, 12:32 PM
Carnifex said...: You people are missing the point. The republican nominee WILL be Mitt Romney. The rep. elite, who despise conservatives at best, have ordained it, and so it shall be. Have none of you noticed the chicanery with moving dates for primaries, ala Florida, and apparently "losing" several counties worth of votes in Iowa? Or what happened in Virginia?

Did you think this was coincidence? There are no coincidences!

This is the reason Romney can't rise above 30% in the polls of republican voters. The base see's him for what he is, an elitist with more in common with Obozo than them.

Have you not noticed all these guys dropping out of the race but his polling doesn't go up? Their votes go to the next not-Romney. But the attrition of money will knock off everyone.

Soon, the herd will be thinned out till only Paul and Romney are left. Paul is so out there he only attracts the "true believers". Give the Paul-bots their due, they're at least trying to buck the system.

In the end we're left with the choice of Obozo, or Obozo lite, with maybe a splash of Paul for coloring. Either way, the bankers win, for both have deeper ties to Wall Street than Main Street.

OWS was right.

How depressing.; 1/19/12, 1:01 PM
sakredkow said...: OWS was right.

Who woulda thought?; 1/19/12, 1:51 PM
Thorley Winston said...: I agree with the other kev and Simon. The sooner we can reduce the Iowa caucuses to irrelevancy, the sooner we can break our addition to ethanol subsidies.; 1/19/12, 2:38 PM
Thorley Winston said...: You people are missing the point. The republican nominee WILL be Mitt Romney. The rep. elite, who despise conservatives at best, have ordained it, and so it shall be. Have none of you noticed the chicanery with moving dates for primaries, ala Florida, and apparently "losing" several counties worth of votes in Iowa? Or what happened in Virginia?

How does the incompetence of the people running the caucuses in Iowa help Mitt Romney or any other candidate? IIRC Iowa’s selects delegates who can “vote their conscience” so the results of the caucus night (whether certified or not) aren’t particularly meaningful. Given how close the top three candidates finished, it’s just as likely that they could all vote for Ron Paul at the convention.

I’m fine with States moving the dates of their primaries forward (and I’m warming up to the idea of condensing them into regional primaries). There is not conceivable reason why Iowa and New Hampshire should have the prominence that they do. Florida has more electoral votes and matters more in the general election.

As far as Virginia, it sounds like Gingrich and Perry didn’t have the organization to get the requisite number of votes required by Virginia law that that Romney and Paul did. That speaks to the strength of their organization IMO. Besides which Perry’s dropping out and if Gingrich after living in Virginia for most of the last ten years didn’t build up enough contacts in what is effectively now his home state to get on the ballot, it’s better we find out now than in the general election. I seem to recall the embarrassment of Al Gore not carrying his home State in 2000 and would prefer not to have a repeat.; 1/19/12, 2:47 PM