.

Another Possible Iowa Miscount Could Leave Santorum Smiling and Romney Frowning

One Iowa precinct says the votes were miscounted on Caucus night Tuesday. If so, it would make Rick Santorum the rightful winner of the first in the nation caucus for the GOP presidential nominee, they say.

First or second, at this point does it really make that much of a difference?

On Tuesday night, well Wednesday morning actually, Mitt Romney walked away from the Iowa Caucus the winner by the narrowest of margins. A separated the former Massachusetts governor from runner-up Rick Santorum.

But, gold and silver in this case is nearly interchangeable. Because the vote was so close, both candidates are expected to earn an equal number of Iowa delegates, which go towards deciding the nominee.

Second seems to be treating Santorum pretty OK, too. He has brought in $2 million in the two days since the Iowa Caucuses.

Still, there is the matter of bragging rights, and now it's even less clear who gets them.

Des Moines TV station KCCI is reporting the vote for Romney may have been over-counted by 20, which would make Santorum the winner.

Here is some of the report:

But in the quiet town of Moulton, Appanoose County, a caucus of 53 people may just blow up the results.

Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn't.

"When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I've got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa," True said. "Not Mitt Romney."

A spokeswoman with the Iowa Republican Party did not immediately address True's assertion, but stressed that he was not a precinct captain and was not authorized to discuss the vote. The 20-vote discrepancy remained, late Thursday, unconfirmed.

Stephen Schmidt January 06, 2012 at 04:05 PM
Well even if the delegates were bound, there is proportional rewarding of delegates this year so they would get roughly the same number either way. I think the only way it matters is 1.) From a historical perspective 2.) From a way that it sort of makes Iowa Republicans look bad if it changes to Santorum due to another miscount, even though in a vote this close I'd be surprised if the order didn't change a lot in any state if they did a recount. Practically, from the media's perspective, there were two winners from the Iowa Caucus. I think the Iowa Republicans should just call them co-winners and let us all know who won by 3 votes later.
randy crawford January 06, 2012 at 09:08 PM
1of2-- Let's face facts. Caucus eve 2008 there were 239,000 Democrats participating (at the Democrat caucuses, that is). Caucus eve 2012 there were 25,000 Democrats participating (again, at the Democrat caucuses, that is). So, in 2012, guess where the missing 214,000 Democrats were caucusing? Clue #1: Sue Dvorsky let the cat out of the bag when she commented the next day about, gee, lookie how in the Democrat strongholds around Iowa the caucus counts had come up so great for Romney. Clue #2: anyone at a Republican caucus who was checking people in and then collecting the ballots later on couldn't help but notice the mountains and mountains of new 'Republican' faces who were strangely out of place, had no known previous Republican connections, didn't have anything to say about the candidates, and were there only to quickly vote and be gone. All of the 'missing' 214,000 Democrats obviously didn't go on over the fence to hijack the Republican tally, but a whole lot of them did just that, just to make mischief. And you can be sure that thousands of them were there to put their greasy thumbs on the balance for Romney and not Santorum. If the fake Democrat spoiler votes could be stripped away, Santorum likely would still have his 30,007 and Romney probably didn't get even 25,000 real Republican votes. Birds of a feather flock together, and Romney is much more in agreement with Obama than most realize. The proof? Just go to opensecrets.org and look at who contributes...
randy crawford January 06, 2012 at 09:27 PM
20f2-- Just go to opensecrets.org and look at who contributes big-time to both Obama and Romney: Morgan-Stanley, Goldman-Sachs, J.P. Morgan-Chase, Citigroup, UBS, and other networking fellow travelers who know how to make hundreds of billions conveniently disappear, and then whine how Uncle Sam's house is on fire so we all have to sacrifice to save the economy. That way you and I get stuck with the bill, a vanishing dollar, and incomes shipped faster and faster to China. Are you entertained in ignorance and ready to continue being an all-day sucker for these clowns, boys and girls? The current flavors available from Tweedledee and Tweedledum amount to (a) arsenic, and (b) strychnine.
Maria Houser Conzemius January 07, 2012 at 03:27 PM
randy crawford, is our government for sale on both sides of the political aisle? Absolutely. But the lesser of two evils is still Obama, if only for the sake of Supreme Court nominees down the road.
Gary Dekko January 07, 2012 at 07:10 PM
Not a big deal as Romney is winning the presidency
Tonto January 08, 2012 at 04:29 PM
Just about time for the liberal jackels to start attacking Romneys children and family pets to tear them to sherds :(
Joanne S. January 12, 2012 at 12:46 AM
The newspapers are saying Romney has "2 in a Row." Someone reading that may not realize the original report gave Romney the win by only 8 votes, so yes, it is a big deal. Perception in politics is everything. It should be "Santorum, 1; Romney 1."

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something