About 8:30PM CST: NY Times Front Page Has Auto-Updating Iowa Caucus Returns

… on the very front page. It’s at about 24% reporting as I write.

UPDATE with 30% reporting: Romney 23.1%, Paul 23.0%, Santorum 22.9%. Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann not in the running.

UPDATE with 46% reporting: Santorum 24.1%, Romney 23.9%, Paul 21.9%.

MEANWHILE, back in the real world, there is bitter dispute among conservators at the Louvre over the process and result of the restoration of one of Leonardo’s paintings.

UPDATE with 52% reporting: Santorum 24.3%, Romney 23.7%, Paul 21.6%.

A THOUGHT: if anyone imagined s/he was going to run away with this one, they were either very foolish or sadly underprepared on the state of Iowa’s GOP voters. Also on the NYT front page is a slideshow of Iowa caucus participants; they’re mostly older, and overwhelmingly… almost monolithically… white. This may or may not typify Republicans in the nation at large; my guess is that it does not, at least not to the same degree. The support for the nut-jobs is a bit of a surprise to me, though the polls predicted it.

UPDATE with 79% reporting: Romney 24.9%, Santorum 24.4%, Paul 21.2%.

UPDATE with 88% reporting: Santorum 24.6%, Romney 24.6%, Paul 21.1%. (Corrected. Santorum, Romney now running neck-and-neck, barely a dozen votes’ difference.)
UPDATE with 89% reporting: Santorum 24.7%, Romney 24.6%, Paul 21.1%. If Iowa were America, you could begin imagining what living in a theocracy would be like.

UPDATE with 92% reporting: Romney 24.7%, Santorum 24.7%, Paul 21.1%. (Romney by 13 votes. Thirteen. Votes.)

UPDATE with 93% reporting: Santorum 24.7%, Romney 24.6%, Paul 21.1%. (Santorum by 60-odd votes… correction… 134 votes.)

UPDATE with 96% reporting: Santorum 24.6%, Romney 24.6%, Paul 21.3%. (Santorum by less than 100 votes. Recount likely?)

UPDATE with 97% reporting: Santorum 24.6%, Romney 24.6%, Paul 21.3%. (Santorum by 37 votes.)

QUIRK! The percent reporting just dropped back to 96%. Did somebody “find” some votes somewhere?

UPDATE with 98% reporting: Romney 24.6%, Santorum 24.5%, Paul 21.5%. (Romney by 41 votes. Yep. I’ll bet someone “found” some votes.)

UPDATE with 99% reporting: Santorum by 5 votes. Jeebus!

QUIRK! The NYT map now has several counties with the displayed numbers of votes all “NaN” … all you old hands at JavaScript know and love NaN; she, um, it, stands for “not a number,” and means you’re attempting to display the result of an invalid arithmetic operation, e.g., divide-by-zero.

NOTE: Rick Perry says he will asses his campaign’s future. Oh, wait, that’s ASSESS his campaign’s future. Considering the candidates, I know you will forgive my understandable mistake.

UPDATE with 99% reporting: Santorum by 34 votes.

NO UPDATE with 99% reporting: Since it doesn’t really affect anything, I’m giving up. It’s midnight, and I’m tired of this…

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • MandT  On Tuesday January 3, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    Santorum is the perfect crackpot: he believes that a living corpse (Terry Shivo) and fetuses are people. That latter view may change when he realizes fetuses, as a rule, don’t vote.

    • Steve  On Tuesday January 3, 2012 at 9:50 pm

      MandT, what can I say about a man who accuses the rest of us of favoring “man-on-dog” sex, when our side is almost uniformly more opposed to cruelty to animals than his is. He’s a nut, and many Iowans are nuts enough to vote for him.

      Ron Paul is even more disturbing. I’ve seen him successfully manipulate otherwise reasonable Texans who under ordinary circumstances would not agree with him on anything, but they are somehow persuaded that he is “libertarian” (small-l). He’s not libertarian; he’s crazy. So Iowa Republicans are approximately evenly divided among two nut-jobs and a 1%-er. Why do they get to go first? can someone justify that for me?

  • Bryan  On Tuesday January 3, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    First off, Iowa doesn’t do recounts, no matter how close things appear to be, because they can’t. This is a caucus not a primary, so the ‘ballots’ are usually blank paper on the Republican side, and the Democrats use a show of hands.

    The reality is that they are voting for county delegates to a district meeting who will vote for the delegates to the state convention, where the actual decision will be made. The caucuses are supposed to decide the distribution of 25 of the state’s 28 delegates, but the media is only reporting on 11 delegates.

    This process is about a half-step above the Ames Straw Poll at the state fair, and really signifies nothing. All of the money spent is for ‘bragging rights’ and nothing more.

    • Steve  On Tuesday January 3, 2012 at 11:34 pm

      Thanks for clarifying that, Bryan. Less rigorous balloting + more levels = more room for manipulation of the popular vote, which is exactly what I’d expect of Republicans.

      Still, it’s fascinating to speculate on why the NYT backed up its percent-reporting number briefly. Were some votes counted twice, and had to be “uncounted”? Just how topsy-turvy IS the Iowa process?

  • Bryan  On Tuesday January 3, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    This is a ‘vote’ that only counts people who can go to a hall on a Tuesday evening to spend 2 or 3 hours ‘discussing’ politics. The ‘rules’ tend to be ad hoc for every caucus area.

    It now looks like they are going to provisionally assign all 25 delegates, which would be a delegate for every 4% of the vote, except it is done by counties and districts, so the number of ‘votes’ may not correspond to the number of delegates you receive. Based on the county map at CNN Santorum may get more actual delegates than Romney, even if Romney wins in the vote count. Romney’s support is in the ‘cities’, while Santorum us scooping up the rural areas. [I used to live in Omaha and had friends in Iowa.]

    A livestock auction by any other name still smells of manure.

    • Steve  On Wednesday January 4, 2012 at 12:19 am

      Ah, yes, Bryan… I’ve occasionally called that process “democracy with rounding error.” It really adds a certain, um, “flexibility” to the process, especially in the matter of presidential electors, but again, that’s a discussion for another day. I’m glad I had nothing better to do this evening; if there had been something I really wanted to do, I might feel cheated by the whole “election theater.” As it is, It was more entertaining than watching TV, and I’ve just finished a wonderful book which I plan to review sometime today…

Leave a Reply (NB: I'm not responsible for any ad!)

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: