Santorum officially declared winner in Iowa

[Dari]

I'm only posting this because I don't like Romney. I don't even care about the other Republican candidates.

link

1 hour ago
Iowa GOP emphasizes Santorum won Iowa


Posted by
CNN Politcal Unit

(CNN) – Seeking to put to rest any confusion, the Iowa Republican Party affirmed late Friday night that Rick Santorum took first place in the Iowa caucuses.

The group sent a statement in an effort to "clarify conflicting reports" after the state party released its certified results Thursday showing Santorum had edged rival Mitt Romney by 34 votes.

Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @politicalticker

Because the results from eight precincts were still missing, some reports in the news media suggested a real winner may never be known.

However, Iowa Republican Party Chairman Matthew Strawn and the State Central Committee officially on Friday called the election for Santorum in a statement, re-emphasizing its announcement from the previous day.

"In order to clarify conflicting reports and to affirm the results released ... by the Republican Party of Iowa, Chairman Matthew Strawn and the State Central Committee declared Senator Rick Santorum the winner of the 2012 Iowa Caucus," the statement read.

Original results from the contest on January 3 showed Romney had eked out a victory over Santorum by eight votes. The final results, however, were not certified until this week.

Romney called Santorum on Thursday to congratulate him.

 

[cybrsage]

He looks like he will do well in Carolina too.

 

[cganesh75]

so the tradition of "Iowa winner wont get the nomination" continues

 

[cybrsage]

so the tradition of "Iowa winner wont get the nomination" continues

I bet Romney is relieved!

 

[JS80]

That's a shame. He's basically a socially conservative Ron Paul Jr (lite version). Maybe Ron Paul should have pretended to be socially conservative to get the GOP nom then not for general.

 

[randomrogue]

How can a guy who's against abortion in the case of rape win an election? How can someone who's for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage win? How is that even possible? Guy is a whack job.

 

[MovingTarget]

I dislike many of Mr. Santorum's views, but at least he is more genuine/honest about them than Romney. I'm not surprised as the margin of victory for Mr. Romney, as originally reported, was a statistical dead heat as it was within the typical margin of error.

 

[xBiffx]

To be clear 8 precincts' results are still missing and will never be found. They didn't "certify" anything so nothing is absolute here.

 

[IonusX]

That's a shame. He's basically a socially conservative Ron Paul Jr (lite version). Maybe Ron Paul should have pretended to be socially conservative to get the GOP nom then not for general.

except santorum wants to blast the m,iddle east and northern africa off the face of the earth.. and teen decimate the population of israel.

 

[ultimatebob]

Bah... who cares. Iowa picks corn... Super Tuesday picks the candidate.

 

[ultimatebob]

How can a guy who's against abortion in the case of rape win an election? How can someone who's for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage win? How is that even possible? Guy is a whack job.

Have you ever been to Iowa? Half of the state is populated by Christian conservatives that LOVE people who think like Santorum.

 

[Craig234]

I dislike many of Mr. Santorum's views, but at least he is more genuine/honest about them than Romney. I'm not surprised as the margin of victory for Mr. Romney, as originally reported, was a statistical dead heat as it was within the typical margin of error.

So the hell what? If I find a guy who will be 'honest' about burglarizing your house and raping your family, does that help? It's the POLICIES that matter.

Our elections are already far too much like American Idol, where the policies are determined by the monied backers and the politicians are cheap con men to make you prefer them.

This is the George Bush thing all over again - 'don't like his policies, but seems nice'.

Is it any wonder why, when Karl Rove recruited George Bush, his comment that the one thing that sold him was Bush's 'blue eyes he knew would appeal to voters'?

So Bush was nothing but a guy to get voters by being 'folksy' and saying 'nukyoolur' and other crap with the backing of the interests for massively corrupt policies. Good going!

So who cares how bad Santorums policies are if he's honest about them? All that matters is his saying 'I'll support a tax plan' that gives your money to the rich - but appears honest.

This is why our elections are so dominated by money, because big money for marketing gives people these 'likeable' candidates who are the whores for the wealthy.

How many votes in 2000 and 2004 were based on marketing campaigns to make voters dislike the nominees? 'That Kerry seems too French'. Nevermind his policies.

'That Al Gore, you just can't trust him - why, I heard from a Republican who got the lie from his marketers that Gore lied about inventing the Internet, though he didn't.'

Now, I'm not defending Romney here - judge him by his policies too. Yes, the criticims he's a phony are valid, and they're so extreme as to raise issues about him.

But don't back a Santorum because he 'seems honest' in presenting horrible policies. By the way, that's what the con men do. They con. They seem honest!

Do you want to be the fraud victim who tells the story, 'he seemed so honest'? Where is one word about whether Santorum's polices are good in the post above?

 

[MovingTarget]

So the hell what? If I find a guy who will be 'honest' about burglarizing your house and raping your family, does that help? It's the POLICIES that matter.

Our elections are already far too much like American Idol, where the policies are determined by the monied backers and the politicians are cheap con men to make you prefer them.

This is the George Bush thing all over again - 'don't like his policies, but seems nice'.

Is it any wonder why, when Karl Rove recruited George Bush, his comment that the one thing that sold him was Bush's 'blue eyes he knew would appeal to voters'?

So Bush was nothing but a guy to get voters by being 'folksy' and saying 'nukyoolur' and other crap with the backing of the interests for massively corrupt policies. Good going!

So who cares how bad Santorums policies are if he's honest about them? All that matters is his saying 'I'll support a tax plan' that gives your money to the rich - but appears honest.

This is why our elections are so dominated by money, because big money for marketing gives people these 'likeable' candidates who are the whores for the wealthy.

How many votes in 2000 and 2004 were based on marketing campaigns to make voters dislike the nominees? 'That Kerry seems too French'. Nevermind his policies.

'That Al Gore, you just can't trust him - why, I heard from a Republican who got the lie from his marketers that Gore lied about inventing the Internet, though he didn't.'

Now, I'm not defending Romney here - judge him by his policies too. Yes, the criticims he's a phony are valid, and they're so extreme as to raise issues about him.

But don't back a Santorum because he 'seems honest' in presenting horrible policies. By the way, that's what the con men do. They con. They seem honest!

Do you want to be the fraud victim who tells the story, 'he seemed so honest'? Where is one word about whether Santorum's polices are good in the post above?

Whoa, hold your horses there Craig. I never commented about the merits/evils of Santorum's policies. My point was that we know much less about Romney than we do Santorum. It wasn't meant to be an endorsement of one over the other. Romney has tried to reveal as little as possible about his past and current positions, and that vagueness will likely win him the nomination. Thats the tragedy here. I DO remember the whole fiasco in 2004 where a lot of people voted for GWB because they "would rather have a beer with him than Kerry". People should vote based on facts alone, not feelings.

 

[MovingTarget]

Bah... who cares. Iowa picks corn... Super Tuesday picks the candidate.

Fair enough. Honestly, states like Iowa play too big a role with this early primary/caucus role. Primary elections should be held closer together, imho.

 

[randomrogue]

Have you ever been to Iowa? Half of the state is populated by Christian conservatives that LOVES people who think like Santorum.

I haven't even driven through the state. I generally try to avoid as much of the flat boring part as possible.

 

[CallMeJoe]

That's a shame. He's basically a socially conservative Ron Paul Jr (lite version). Maybe Ron Paul should have pretended to be socially conservative to get the GOP nom then not for general.

Senator Santorum is far beyond "social conservatism"; he is an outright theocrat.

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea ... Many in the Christian faith have said, 'Well, that's okay ... contraception's okay.' It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be... I'm not running for preacher. I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.

...in our case, we have civil laws but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law... we will never have rest because that law does not comport with God's law

 

[dmcowen674]

To be clear 8 precincts' results are still missing and will never be found. They didn't "certify" anything so nothing is absolute here.

The thing that is absolute is that based on what was counted the Iowa GOP lied about Romney winning.

 

[Thump553]

How can you certify results when the results from EIGHT PRECINCTS are missing?

It is incredibly ironic that this happened in a GOP caucus, as GOP supposedly being so concerned with election fraud. I guess what happens after the ballot is cast doesn't matter to them. Remember also this where the GOP promised to be extra secure because of an alleged threat from those dirty stinking Occupy hippies.

 

[xBiffx]

The thing that is absolute is that based on what was counted the Iowa GOP lied about Romney winning.

You can no more prove that than someone can prove that they didn't. Troll elsewhere.

 

[Karl Agathon]

I dislike many of Mr. Santorum's views, but at least he is more genuine/honest about them than Romney. I'm not surprised as the margin of victory for Mr. Romney, as originally reported, was a statistical dead heat as it was within the typical margin of error.

+1

Some of Mr. Santorums views are quite a bit to the right of where mine are, but at least he makes no bones about telling you what they are. You pretty much know what you get with Rick. With Mr. Romney? Not so much!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
The thing that is absolute is that based on what was counted the Iowa GOP lied about Romney winning.

You can no more prove that than someone can prove that they didn't. Troll elsewhere.

They declared Romney as the winner by 8 votes and 2 weeks later said oops, nope Santorum won by 34 votes.

It's proven and in the history books.

Anyone trolling, that would be you.

 

[Craig234]

+1

Some of Mr. Santorums views are quite a bit to the right of where mine are, but at least he makes no bones about telling you what they are. You pretty much know what you get with Rick. With Mr. Romney? Not so much!

See my reply to movingtarget for why you are being a bad voter.

 

[MovingTarget]

See my reply to movingtarget for why you are being a bad voter.

Where does Karl state that he is using that as a basis for his vote? You are making a big assumption there.

 

[sportage]

The question is... does iOwa Matter?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...past-iowa-caucus-results-gx,0,3033522.graphic

 

[hal2kilo]

Oh wow, the RNC smothered Santorum's campaign...just long enough.