Conspiracy in Iowa?

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
It is possible, certainly.

Just wondering aloud if the Republican Overlords have something to do with this ... strange set of circumstances.
Click to expand...

But you've yet to make a coherent argument as to what the GOP's motivation could have been in rigging the results.
 
#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
It is possible, certainly.

Just wondering aloud if the Republican Overlords have something to do with this ... strange set of circumstances.
Click to expand...

Some good facts in this article:

Santorum finished 34 votes ahead of Romney in new Iowa tally; votes from 8 precincts missing - The Washington Post

1774 total precincts - 8 missing (about a 1/2 percent)

122,000 total votes x 1/2% = 610 votes. On average both Romney and Santorum were pulling 24.5% of the vote (about 150 each). For your Santorum by 300 scenario to occur, Santorum would need to capture 50% of those precincts while Romney got nothing. If Romney got 10% then Santorum would need 60%. There is no evidence to suggest that huge swing would occur.

As to the "overlords" whoever they are - why would they allow the switch from Romney +8 to Santorum +34?

You are seeing conspiracy where it doesn't exist.
 
#28
#28
It does not make any difference if Santorum or Romney won. It was a toss up and any bounce from Iowa, which there was very little, is over and done with. Doing well in Iowa is overrated. Santorum received 9.4% of the vote in NH and is polling 3rd place in SC.
 
#30
#30
bamawriter said:
But you've yet to make a coherent argument as to what the GOP's motivation could have been in rigging the results.
Click to expand...


Ummmm ... not further embarrass the establishment candidate?

See bham's linked article below. Seems like nerves are getting a bit frayed up there.


volinbham said:
Some good facts in this article:

Santorum finished 34 votes ahead of Romney in new Iowa tally; votes from 8 precincts missing - The Washington Post

1774 total precincts - 8 missing (about a 1/2 percent)

122,000 total votes x 1/2% = 610 votes. On average both Romney and Santorum were pulling 24.5% of the vote (about 150 each). For your Santorum by 300 scenario to occur, Santorum would need to capture 50% of those precincts while Romney got nothing. If Romney got 10% then Santorum would need 60%. There is no evidence to suggest that huge swing would occur.

As to the "overlords" whoever they are - why would they allow the switch from Romney +8 to Santorum +34?

You are seeing conspiracy where it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


The GLARING hole in your analysis is that we don't know which 8 they are. You are assuming an even distribution of votes within each, which is incorrect.

I bet if you ask Santorum's camp what they think they believe they've been robbed.
 
#31
#31
lawgator1 said:
Ummmm ... not further embarrass the establishment candidate?

See bham's linked article below. Seems like nerves are getting a bit frayed up there.
Click to expand...

Again, Santorum "won" whether he finished in first or not. If the Republican establishment were doing everything they could to boost Romney, they did a terrible job of it.

Romney was coming out of Iowa as the frontrunner, no matter what. The "victory" would go to whomever gave him the greatest challenge. That was Santorum, win or lose. But in order to actually unseat Romney as the frontrunner, Santorum would have needed a big victory, and even your 300 vote assumption wouldn't have accomplished that.

You are desperately trying to find a conspiracy that, even if it exists, accomplished nothing.
 
#32
#32
The real conspiracy, if you want to call it that, is all the Paul supporters stayed for the 2nd vote, which is the actual selection of delegates. Iowa is non-binding, once they get to the convention they can vote how they please. Even if Paul isn't a strong contender at that point, he can give the state to the candidate of his choice.
 
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
Ummmm ... not further embarrass the establishment candidate?

See bham's linked article below. Seems like nerves are getting a bit frayed up there.





The GLARING hole in your analysis is that we don't know which 8 they are. You are assuming an even distribution of votes within each, which is incorrect.

I bet if you ask Santorum's camp what they think they believe they've been robbed.
Click to expand...

Glaring? I'm using averages which is the best available data. Even if they were larger than average precincts, the math still holds - Santorum would need to far outperform Romney in every single one gain the edge you say.

Let's apply some logic - don't you think we'd hear about the 8 largest precincts missing? Don't you think that would be cause for officials and candidates to call for an investigation? How about the people in the precincts? If they knew they are a huge Santorum precinct and their results weren't counting don't you think they'd be raising hell? The missing precincts are known.

Is Santorum calling for any action? Hell no because he knows right now he got the most votes and was considered a winner.

There is zero evidence of the conspiracy you
 
#34
#34
volinbham said:
Glaring? I'm using averages which is the best available data. Even if they were larger than average precincts, the math still holds - Santorum would need to far outperform Romney in every single one gain the edge you say.


Let's apply some logic - don't you think we'd hear about the 8 largest precincts missing?

Not if the goal is to save Romney's arse by keeping the margin slim and by failing to be able to certify.

Don't you think that would be cause for officials and candidates to call for an investigation? How about the people in the precincts?


Not if the goal is to keep a lid on Santorum's margin of victory and to avoid certifying the result so that Romney can claim a tie.



If they knew they are a huge Santorum precinct and their results weren't counting don't you think they'd be raising hell? The missing precincts are known.


Not if the Republican Overlords don't want it to happen, no.



Is Santorum calling for any action? Hell no because he knows right now he got the most votes and was considered a winner.

He is complaining.

There is zero evidence of the conspiracy you
Click to expand...



I am just wondering how this could happen just as we head to a major primary in South Carolina.

I suppose in the end its probably nothing and just coincidence that, just days before the establishment candidate is fighting to end the anti-Romney crusade in South Carolina, the Iowa caucuses are suddenly voided by the state GOP in such odd fashion.

I think the forum would be going ballistic if it were Ron Paul who had come in second by eight votes, then was now ahead by 34, but the result would never be official.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
I am just wondering how this could happen just as we head to a major primary in South Carolina.

I suppose in the end its probably nothing and just coincidence that, just days before the establishment candidate is fighting to end the anti-Romney crusade in South Carolina, the Iowa caucuses are suddenly voided by the state GOP in such odd fashion.

I think the forum would be going ballistic if it were Ron Paul who had come in second by eight votes, then was now ahead by 34, but the result would never be official.
Click to expand...

How in the hell are they voided? There was a preliminary count which put Romney at winner pending full certification and after certification it is declared a tie. I fail to see the "voiding" and the process actually allows Santorum to claim getting more votes.

You are really reaching here with zero evidence and 100% conjecture.

Who are these Republican Overlords you keep referring to an how could they silence the voters of any given precinct?
 
#36
#36
Oh noes - the Republican Overlords have been overthrown!

First Read - Iowa GOP switches stance, declares Santorum winner

After the Republican Party of Iowa released the final certified results Thursday morning with eight missing precincts, Strawn released a statement saying he wanted to congratulate both "Senator Santorum and Governor Romney on a hard-fought effort during the closest contest in caucus history.” The press release specifically did not state a specific winner of the Jan 3. Caucus, rather implying it was a tie.
But this afternoon, Strawn went on WHO Radio in Iowa and announced there should be no “ambiguity,” that Santorum is, in fact, the winner.
Click to expand...
 
#40
#40
I just wonder why so much money is spent in Iowa.\

When it's for non-incumbents, it seems the winner of the Iowa caucus only ends up getting the nod half the time.
 
#43
#43
IIRC, they received 5 delegates each. That will not change. I don't see this as a big deal.
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
But what effect would it have had on South Carolina if it was announced three days before the vote there that Romney had actually lost Iowa by a decent margin? Say, 300 votes?

And in the general, what does it say that Romney apparently cannot win even half of the votes of his own party in any of these primaries or caucuses?

By the way, it is being reported that earlier in the week it was leaked that Santorum was ahead by 80 votes.

And, did you know that the Iowa Republican party at the end of last month suddenly, and without explanation, moved the vote counting process away from the state's GOP headquarters, which is where it is supposed to be done and that this was done such that the votes would be counted in private?
Click to expand...

Your characterization of 300 votes as a decent margin in a caucus with about 125,000 votes is laughable.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top