E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The Republican Party of Iowa announced Thursday that Rick Santorum finished ahead of Mitt Romney in its Jan. 3 caucuses, meaning the contest resulted in a virtual tie between the two candidates.
After more than two weeks of certifying the results, the former Pennsylvania senator pulled ahead of Romney by 34 votes despite Romney being declared the winner on Jan. 3 by an 8 vote margin.
The final official numbers stand at Santorum with 29,839 and Romney with 29,805, but the results from eight of the 1774 precincts could not be located and certified, leaving lingering questions as to who is the actual winner of the Iowa Caucus.
NBC News will not declare a winner in the Iowa Caucus. With the missing precincts, it is impossible to know the final results.
But the Santorum campaign believes the former Pennsylvania senator is the winner of the caucus – campaign email reads “Santorum wins Iowa” – and that this new development will perhaps help him the South Carolina primary on Saturday.
"We've had two early state contests with two winners — and the narrative that Governor Romney and the media have been touting of 'inevitability' has been destroyed,” National Communications Director Hogan Gidley said in a statement about the candidate.
“This latest defeat of Governor Romney in Iowa is just the beginning, and Rick Santorum is committed to continuing the fight as the clear, consistent conservative voice in this race,” the statement continued. Santorum was the one candidate who practically lived in Iowa – holding more events in the Hawkeye State than anyone else this cycle.
The Romney campaign, which always downplayed expectations in the state, is also pushing this as a tie.
“The results from Iowa caucus night revealed a virtual tie,” Mitt Romney said in a written statement released by his campaign. “I would like to thank the Iowa Republican Party for their careful attention to the caucus process, and we once again recognize Rick Santorum for his strong performance in the state. The Iowa caucuses, with record turnout, were a great start to defeating President Obama in Iowa and elsewhere in the general election.”
Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn said the verdict from the first-in-the-nation caucus state is just too close to call.
“Just as I did in the early morning hours on January 4, I congratulate Senator Santorum and Governor Romney on a hard-fought effort during the closest contest in caucus history,” Chairman Strawn said in a statement. “Our goal throughout the certification process was to most accurately reflect and report how Iowans voted the evening of January 3. We understand the importance to the candidates involved, but as Iowans, we understand the responsibility we have as temporary caretakers of the Iowa caucuses.”
It is important to note that the Iowa Caucus results are not binding, meaning the results do not dictate which candidate the delegates at the national conventions in the summer have to vote for. So not having an actual “winner” of the caucuses will not have as big of an impact as it would in other binding states.
But a shift in results — from Romney ahead on caucus night, to Santorum now ahead weeks later — does appear to raise some questions about the Iowa Caucus process.
"This is bad news for the Iowa caucuses. It undermines their credibility in future presidential races. When so much is riding on an accurate count, to flub the counting will diminish the significance of the events in the future,” former longtime Des Moines Register political reporter David Yepsen told NBC News.
"Plenty of people are looking for reasons not to come to Iowa and this gives them another. You could title this story as Farewell to Corn Dogs," Yepsen said, who also noted that this isn’t the first time Iowa Caucus result have been called into questions. “Given that, the Iowa Republicans were on notice and should have done more to guard against this problem."
And no matter how the results turned out weeks later, many believe the limelight already passed for the “winner” — it passed on Jan. 3.
“This result doesn't change anything. The narrative was set following the caucuses, and reset after the New Hampshire primaries,” one Republican strategist and caucus veteran said.
Leave a Comment:
Won in IOWA? Only 643 people and 1,654,000 cows live there. So what's the big deal?
Was that early retirement?
Senior citizen moment of the day! We didn't want him in Pennsylvania, why in the world would we want him in the White House?
Your excused by this Retired CPO from PA voting for Romney (in Florida) - sorry!
DanG.: The harder I look at all of these candidates the better Romney looks by the minute! Missed only one election in 42 years was deployed overseas and absentee ballots were not available.
I would guess Ron Paul won those 8 missing precincts. Amazing we still don't know how to count votes nor make deliveries, guess they should have hired UPS .
"The Republican Party of Iowa announced Thursday that Rick Santorum finished ahead of Mitt Romney in its Jan. 3 caucuses, meaning the contest resulted in a virtual tie between the two candidates."
Umm, there were only a few extra votes that changed the outcome, so wasn't it already a virtual tie between the two candidates before the revelation that Santorum actually won the caususes instead of Romney? How has the updated vote count made it now result in a virtual tie? That's what it was already. I think the writer of this article has a pro-Romney bias. Just my opinion.
My head is spinning. Unbelievable!
So what now?! Can we expect another month before we know who won the Presidential election this November?!
Why is it so complicated in America anymore?! Why can't I believe that it is a nation, for the people, by the people anymore?!
It only takes Oregon about two weeks to count their initial votes. It gives the local Democrats plenty of time for those late mailings - wink, wink.
The only thing that Iowa proved was that Republicans can't count.....don't count....and won't count.
Why Iowans Can't Count............Iowa Republicans Cut School Budgets
How can a state lose 8 precincts of votes? Who knows who did what. This whole thing makes one wonder if the vote counters really do their job or do what they are told.
Vote counting in a secret location, "missing" precincts, errors not a "Big deal"??
I smell a rat. Even perceived voter fraud can be devastating to a democratic republic. If this was any other country, I'd say that it sounds like the election was rigged....
Also, anyone who thinks an error on the vote count is not a "Big Deal" (Santorum) has no business running for any office is a democratic republic. A comment like that would lose my vote for the town dog catcher.
Ron Paul 2012!!!
About me.....I voted for Reagan....Then Bush Sr. Then Clinton, twice....Then Bush Jr. (Mistake there), Then Gore....Then Obama and I will vote for Obama again because he is the right man for the job at this point. The Republican party has lot their way and have forgotten that the people are who the politicians work for. If they ever re-instill this into their politics and find someone worth voting for, then chances are that I will give it a look-over. Until then......Obama and who ever else runs against these anti-Americans! We do NOT need to be thrown to the Corporate Elitist/Banking system any more!
Amazing, they will never be able to know who won, so they declare Santorum? If there was widespread problems and no way to check, there is no winner.
However, I'd say that it's clear the whole issue was to deny Dr. Paul a win. Most of Dr. Paul's supporters can now assume he did win, and was denied the win, just as the media and politcos said.
The polls showed Dr. Paul way out in front. The media was fuming, insisting a win by Dr. Paul was meaningless.
They stole the election but they couldn't hide that fact.
You have to announce you are the winner AT the game not afterwards....this means absolutely nothing.
They need a new vote or go with the first 1# of votes that came in showing Dr. Paul leading.
The facts in a nutshell, one incompetent won and the other incompetent almost won.
No matter how you spin this you end up with an incompetent.
What a sad day for what used to be a proud Democracy!
this scum from texas is as dumb as bush.
I can not beleive that the Republican party is incapable of presenting a candidate who could at least be qualifed and worthy of the office of President of the United States of America, not an Autocrat but an American Statesman.
WHO CARES!
No way he can win Nationally !
Mormon Mafia?
No.......Mormon Math
So, Rick Sanctimonious is declaring victory in Iowa? Big deal. He should follow Rick Perry's lead an bail out. Has it dawned on anyone to ask why Ricky couldn't get reelected to the Senate before even considering him for the Presidency? There's got to be a reason Pennsylvania voters rejected him.
Who cares? Does it really matter. Rick is not going to make it.
you can take the iq of bush and romney and they will not add up to obamas
Quick, someone file a brief or do whatever you have to do so the Supreme Court can halt the recount of votes !!
I've read some of these comments and notice a general lack of edumacation, bad sentence structure, misspelled words and a terrible knowledge of American history. Let me guess, your for Obama... This country is hurtling down the wrong road so fast we may miss the point of no return. One idiot said we are to diverse for a christian leader?! Dont suppose you know what the inside of a foxhole looks like. You have the right to do and say anything in our country because you were born here I'm sure not because of anything you've sacrificed for this country personally. Someone said from the outside looking in that Obama isnt the problem but the American people who voted him in, they are the problem. Mittens, you are kidding right, a vote for him is no vote at all. Santorum says what he means, he is honest, beleives in God and may be the one candidate who actually thinks. God bless him and help the rest of us!
jstanthrjrhd,
Just to point out some errors in your blog.
'your for Obama' should be - you're for Obama
to diverse should be - too
Dont suppose should be - Don't
that Obama isnt the problem should be - isn't
you are kidding right should end with a - ?
says what he means should end in a - . - and the next - he - should be capitaltized.
beleives should be - believes
Those are just a few found at a glance. Hope that helps.
Won't help. America is in its last days, as professied by Dr. Robert Jeffers, listen to 90.9 It is the only place where we can have any ray of hope. It is going to be tough to choose between a sitting muslim president, who fools others to believe he is Christian, and a mormon. Which is a lesser evil?
Give it a rest. No one's buying that "Muslim-in-disquise" story anymore but you and the other tinfoil hats.
Sounds like a lack of competence to me. First they anoounce one winner, then maybe a different one, but who can tell, because they lost some of the results. If the repubs can't accurately count less than 60,000 votes in 2 weeks, why should we trust them to run the country?
This doesn't mean sh*t. Puff yourself up all you want Spamtorum, but as much as I would like to see Obama rip you to shredds, you're not going to get the nomination.
Let us all thank the "rush to judgment" media for declaring a winner in the Iowa caucus before a winner could be certified. Thank you media for vaulting Mitt-Witt to the front runner post. With lost results, the actual result will probably never be known. Thank goodness it happened in an Iowa caucus. If it had happened in a real political event it could conceivably be disastrous.