2012 Election | Iowa | Mitt Romney | News | Republican Party

Mitt Romney Wins Iowa Caucus by 8 Votes: VIDEOS

Romney

Mitt Romney won Iowa's Republican caucus by just eight votes over a surging Rick Santorum last night, the AP reports:

Their near-even finish at about 25 percent each, punctuated by libertarian-leaning Ron Paul’s close third-place showing, illustrates the sharp divide in the GOP going forward and the work ahead for the candidates hoping to establish a winning coalition...

...“You have one, deep within the right, and a scrapper, who did it the old-school, shoe-leather way,” said John Stineman, an Iowa Republican strategist who ran Steve Forbes’ 2000 Iowa caucus campaign. “And you have the candidate who is the national front-runner, who put together a strategy for how they compete and manage expectations.”

Santorum carried vast tracts of Iowa’s rural areas and its conservative northwest, having methodically campaigned in each of Iowa’s 99 counties. For months, he persisted in meeting county party leaders a handful at a time, in 381 local meetings.

The Des Moines Register's report is here. Graph below via the Register.

Romney spoke with his supporters before the official results were announced.

Romney's speech, along with Santorum's, Paul's, Gingrich's, Perry's, and Bachmann's,
AFTER THE JUMP...

IowaCaucus

Santorum:

Paul:

Gingrich:

Perry:

Bachmann:

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Perfect! He'll have to fight for every vote, exhausting his resources. A complete nut is going to show the party for what it is. And then there's the other complete nut. The blowhard Newt is dead. Perry has been exposed as a genuine idiot. Bachmann even more so. Outstanding!!

    Posted by: Craig | Jan 4, 2012 7:15:03 AM


  2. Romney will go with a hard-right hater for his running mate. It could well be Santorum (shudder), Perry, but most likely Huckabee, who has been quietly waiting in the wings.

    Posted by: cranky1 | Jan 4, 2012 8:00:15 AM


  3. Who won in Iowa? Obama did!

    Posted by: stand by your man | Jan 4, 2012 8:08:21 AM


  4. Huckabee said of Romney in '08 that he reminds voters of the guy who fired them, not the guy working at the next office or cube (like the earthy Huck, if he says so himself). Romney, and the DNC, never will forget that. So it won't be Huck. But Stand by your Man is right in that Mittens must go right. Not just for a running mate, but in the way he governs for at least four years, if elected. Thune, Rice, Bush, Martinez, Alexander, Haley, and McDonnell are likelier picks, with Thune the standout.

    Posted by: Morning Tundra | Jan 4, 2012 8:26:35 AM


  5. An arresting assertion. Tell me more. Why did Obama win in Iowa?

    Posted by: uffda | Jan 4, 2012 8:36:23 AM


  6. Correction: Cranky1 is right, not Stand.

    Posted by: Morning Tundra | Jan 4, 2012 9:24:35 AM


  7. And I'm getting Bobble-heads of all of them!

    Posted by: johnny | Jan 4, 2012 9:49:52 AM


  8. It still bothers me how well Santorum did there at the end.

    Posted by: SgtSausagepants | Jan 4, 2012 10:59:28 AM


  9. I presume the Romney pic is his wife and sons...my gaydar is seriously going off...which one of his boys is one of our bois??

    Posted by: Things that make you go Hmm | Jan 4, 2012 11:05:33 AM


  10. It's disheartening and an indication of a serious disconnect from reality that exit polls showed a large part of the Santorum faithful believe Abortion is the most pressing issue in American life and politics. Presumably all the Preborn survivors to be saved from the butchers would enjoy full employment, assurance of at minimal social safety nets and fulfilling lives in their futures. Of course, the overlap with the Tea Party enthusiasts works against most of that.
    Lordy, lordy....

    Posted by: gregory brown | Jan 4, 2012 11:37:56 AM



  11. Santorum? Really? Wow... Umericans are even dumber than I thought. By all means pick him as your candidate. The world wants to laugh even harder that you would vote for a man whose name means frothy mix... The only thing sillier would be voting for a dead person... But at least the sea person can't wreak as much havoc as Santorum could... Scary.

    Posted by: Graphicjack | Jan 4, 2012 2:43:44 PM


  12. romney is worth 200 million and opposes the "death tax" because it means that he'd only be able to leave his children 110 million dollars when he finally kicks the bucket.

    and of course 110 million dollars isn't NEARLY ENOUGH when divided amongst all those kids, and even if he loses a few to suicide it'll still not be enough. or something.

    right? because all good Christians know that the most important thing is dying with the most money.

    as for Romney's kids - its like the first rule or Mormonism - you're gonna have a few gay kids. you can't have more than 5 children and not pop out at a 'mo or three. ditto with Santorum.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jan 4, 2012 2:54:33 PM


  13. I must admit that it was surprising to see Santorum do so well in Iowa when he's been polling in the single digits nationally for months. I'll never undertand why Republican voters went through every other non-Romney candidate before Santorum - I mean seriously, the serial-adulterer Newt over Rick Santorum? I think its possible that the Senator now has a real chance to give Romney a run for his money and capture the nomination - but we'll see.

    However, the fractured conservative field split between Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, and Gingrich should give pause to everyone who tries to paint social conservatives as monolithic, zombified, and narrow-minded. No one anywhere seems to have posed the obvious question: shouldn't people so narrowly based have an easier time agreeing on a candidate? Socons have never been people who agree on everything. And note that the top two candidates (Romney and Santorum) are a Mormom and a Roman Catholic - proving wrong those who claim that evangelicals are bigoted against religions not their own.

    Posted by: Mary | Jan 4, 2012 7:18:41 PM


  14. Isn't it interesting that neither Mitt nor his father nor any of his sons have ever served in the U.S. Miitary? I guess they realize that this duty is the responsibility of the lower classes.

    Posted by: jack | Jan 5, 2012 4:11:41 AM


  15. Jack, you raise a good point. There are many conservatives who are armchair warriors. The neocons in particular, among whom miliary service is rare, have a strange habit of referring to American troops as "we." Liberals have every right to call them out on this.

    Posted by: Mary | Jan 5, 2012 7:11:24 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Will Washington State's Chris Gregoire Endorse Marriage Equality Tomorrow?« «