OFFICIAL NH RESULTS: Santorum Edges Gingrich for 4th

01/30/2012 For a few weeks now we have posted results and updates here indicating that in the 2012 New Hampshire Republican Primary, Rick Santorum finished in fourth place ahead of Newt Gingrich in the January 10, 2012 primary. As new results have emerged, we have updated the numbers.

The official summary results, which are posted here by the New Hampshire Secretary of State, were technically unofficial until very recently, as minor corrections were still being received from several precincts in the state.

However, per a confirmation email we have received from the New Hampshire Secretary of State's Office, the results are now final.

Rick Santorum finished that first primary with 23,432 votes in fourth place, while Newt Gingrich received 23,421 votes to finish in fifth.

Updates from major news outlets, including the last one (January 11, 2012) on the interactive post by CBS News, and the latest (January 19th) post update from CNN, however, each continue to report erroneous numbers, suggesting that the result put Gingrich ahead of Santorum in that state's contest.

Their numbers are both wrong, as are the numbers still posted at MSNBC, and at Fox News as well. AP also has incorrect numbers posted, which come up as the source when "Googling" the "2012 New Hampshire Republican primary results."

The victor in the "first in the nation" primary, of course, was Mitt Romney, who officially received 97,591, followed by Ron Paul with 56,872, and Jon Huntsman who got 41,964 votes.

This is the second instance this year of official results changing the order of outcome in a statewide contest. And each time, former US Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) has been the beneficiary of those ultimate corrections in the vote counts.

The result of recounted numbers from the Iowa caucuses showed that the official numbers would actually never be known because results from about eight precincts were lost or untabulated.

But Santorum has since been officially declared the victor in the contest in a squeaker, based on the available numbers -- by 34 votes. That Iowa change garnered national attention, and was widely reported in the last few days of the run-up to the South Carolina primary.

The change in the New Hampshire results, however, has received little or no attention, and, as noted, continues to be misreported by major news outlets.

The official percentage results were 9.430% for Santorum and 9.426% for Gingrich. Romney garnered 39.28% of the vote, Paul received 22.89% and Huntsman received 16.89% of the vote.

The remaining vote was split amongst several contestants, including Rich Perry (1,764), Buddy Roemer (950) and Michelle Bachmann (350), with each of the several candidates receiving less than 1% of the vote apiece.

Continuous Chest Compression CPR

Here is the latest method called -- Continuous Chest Compression CPR -- which is a hands-on technique that can double a person's capacity to survive a cardiac arrest. Anyone can use to save a life of a person who may be having a heart attack. It does not require any mouth-to-mouth contact.

It is both easier to perform and is also more effective than the more common CPR technique, and you do not need to be certified in order to administer it.

It was developed by two physicians at the University of Arizona School of Medicine.



Learn more here, but the video itself is very explicit in illustrating exactly what you should do.

Please pass the information onto your friends and acquaintances.

Gingrich Lost To Santorum In NH: CNN/CBS Wrong

UPDATE: -1/27/2012 Rick Santorum is still a few votes ahead of Newt Gingrich as of January 27, 2012. Newly corrected totals from local precincts reporting numbers to the NH Sec'y of State's Office have resulted in a photo finish with Santorum now up by 11 votes in the official tallies, with Santorum having obtained 23,432 votes, to 23,421 for Gingrich [end update].
* * * * *

Should you happen to be browsing through the placement numbers reported by the Sec'y of State of New Hampshire, you might well notice the final vote totals garnered by Rick Santorum (23,408) (23,432) and Newt Gingrich (23,293) (23,421).

Surprise!

In other words, Rick Santorum finished in fourth place, and Newt Gingrich finished behind him in fifth.

If you are surprised, you are likely not alone.

Because unless you looked at those actual results, you might well have been misled into believing the opposite -- such as has been reported consistently several major news-gathering organizations.

Let's take two of them, just as current examples -- CNN and CBS.

On election night, the two networks posted interactive "election returns" sites, and became widely relied upon sources of information on the election returns by the public at large. As the results trickled in from the 301 precincts around the Granite State, each of them posted updates, and they "automatically" updated the result tables. You didn't even have to refresh either url on most computers. It was done for you, as the returns came in and were posted. It really couldn't have been easier!

And yet, each of those major organizations ended up making the same exact mistake, and they have each failed to correct their error, fully four days later.

Interactive results that were reported by CNN and that are still linked there, and similar interactive results linked to and reported by CBS, both got the results and the order of finish wrong, and in the precisely the same way.

UPDATE: 01/27/2012 -- Between the two networks, only CNN updated once -- back on January 19th [Updated 9:31 a.m. EST, Jan 19, 2012] when Gingrich was slightly back on top on the partially corrected tally by a few votes. But the latest numbers from the New Hampshire Sec'y of State's Office, as of 01/27/2012, verified at 3:10 pm, clearly show Santorum defeating Gingrich by 11 votes, with Rick Santorum having received 23,432 votes, and Newt Gingrich having received 23,421 votes. [end update]

Both of those web-links set up to report the results remained live and active all throughout the next day, and as the "latest" numbers trickled in from the slower-reporting precincts, those latest numbers were posted at both of those sites. They were virtually identical, and they were both wrong.

In the "final" figures, which both CNN and CBS completed midday to early evening on Wednesday, January 11, 2012, when the last of the 301 precincts finally reported, they both had posted identical numerical and percentage results about the first several positions in the Republican Primary, each showing that Newt Gingrich, who they erroneously reported had received 23,411 votes, had beaten out Rick Santorum, who they erroneously reported had received the lesser total of 23,362 votes. The CNN site records this -- "Updated 1:59 p.m. EST, Jan 11, 2012" as their final correction. The CBS site records this -- "Last Updated at 5:05 PM ET" -- which was also posted on January 11, 2012 -- as their final update. UPDATE: 01/27/2012 -- Between the two networks, only CNN updated once -- back on January 19th when Gingrich was back up by a few votes. But the latest numbers from the Sec'y of State's Office clearly show Santorum defeating Gingrich by 11 votes. [end update]

Now, sometimes people and networks make mistakes. We posted placement results here in partial reliance on the belief that one of those two might have gotten incorrect numbers, but not both. We were wrong. We also had cautioned in our post that final results from the Sec'y of State would very likely alter the results. Therefore, we also posted a correction yesterday when we obtained better information.

The really egregious part of this is that it is now early evening on Saturday, January 14, 2012, and these two major newsgathering organizations each still have those erroneous numbers posted. I just checked, at 5:10 pm. Anyone going to either or both sites to gather reliable information, would be fooled into believing their bad numbers.

Are we to believe that the accurate order of finish is news that the networks simply do not believe is worth reporting, or even updating?

So what if Rick Santorum beat out Newt Gingrich for 4th place in New Hampshire, someone might ask? Would they ask the same question if the difference was between first and second place? Of course not!

But why does placement in fourth or fifth place matter?

Well, one reason is because both the results of early caucuses and primaries do get factored into the manner in which people evaluate the candidates further down the road. The earlier results are not dispositive in most peoples' minds, but they are certainly factors that can and I think should be taken into consideration, at least by informed voters.

Errors can also become the basis for faulty analysis by writers and other pundits, and, from the perspective of self interest on the part of the media outlet, an error might be compounded in a way that could inadvertently skew their reading of the process to their embarrassment.

For example, two out of the five "lessons" from the New Hampshire primary that CNN election analysts Paul Steinhauser and John Helton say voters should draw from their misreported results, related directly to that CNN placement error. Maybe they should rewrite the piece and call it "Five *THREE* things we learned from the New Hampshire primary" . . . "Uhh, Okay, so maybe FOUR things . . . the last one being, do not rely on your own network as a valid source of election results from which to draw lessons!"

Those are just a few of the reasons major newsgathering organizations should not misrepresent election results. And when they do, they should quickly correct those errors.

So there you have it . . . Newt Gingrich actually came in 5th place in New Hampshire, not in 4th as has been widely reported. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, and it certainly doesn't seem to matter a bit to either CNN or CBS.

But I'll bet it matters to Rick Santorum's supporters!

And, I'll bet it might even matter to at least some of the Newt Gingrich supporters, if they had known the truth about how the people of New Hampshire really took to his campaigning tactics in the aftermath of his big defeat in the Iowa caucuses.

Finally, it might even matter to the folks down in South Carolina, who some polls suggest may be flirting with a Gingrich mini-revival, the way the people of Iowa did for a short period of time back in December, before putting it all in perspective.

Who knows, maybe those two networks are each not inclined to make the correction on purpose!

Why?

I can think of a few possibilities, but here's one.

Maybe they like the way Newt is trying to wreak revenge on front-runner Mitt Romney with anti-capitalist rhetoric that plays right into Obama's hands, and they don't want to print anything that would suggest that the Republican Primary voters in New Hampshire had rejected Gingrich's sustained attacks.

2012 NH Republican Primary: All Precincts Now In

01/11/2012 Both CNN and CBS are showing complete numbers from the results of the 2012 New Hampshire Republican Primary, all 301 election precincts statewide having now reported.

UPDATE, 01/13/2012: The New Hampshire Sec'y of State has now posted new vote totals, prompting the need for us to include a few minor numerical and percentage adjustments here for most of the major candidates. As a result Newt Gingrich dropped to 5th place. The new totals also included results for those who were not on our major candidate list, including minor candidates, writes-in votes, "scattered" votes, and others. The overall result is minor numerical AND percentage adjustments from what we had previously written.

But the one big surprise was that with the recalculation of both the numerical and percentage adjustments, Newt Gingrich slipped down a notch to 5th place, below Rick Santorum.

The overall result is that Mitt Romney won with 97,532 97,600 votes, or 39.77% 39.3% of the total vote. In 2008, Romney got 75,675 votes. Thus, he increased his personal vote total this year, garnering 21,857 21,925 more votes in 2012 than he did four years ago.

Of the votes shown at CBS (which includes the votes for all the candidates (including the 349 votes cast for Michelle Bachmann) a total of 245,213 people cast ballots for the seven primary candidates on the ballot. (UPDATE: Because of the new Sec'y of State numbers, the CBS and CNN numbers previously linked are now slightly incorrect. See the table below for the accurate numbers.)

There were no doubt a small handful of votes cast for others, including write-ins, but we will not know with absolute precision how many there were until the Sec'y of State posts the official results in a few days. However, given the "final" numbers we do have now, it is clear that 4,174 more people voted in this year's Republican primary, than cast ballots back in 2008. UPDATE, 01/13/2012: In addition to the votes listed below (which now includes a posting of Buddy Roemer's 950 votes), and, in addition, after also counting all the votes for Herman Cain (161), Karger (485), Johnson (181), write-ins for Obama (285), and a host of other lesser votes, and those listed as "scatter," it is clear there was a significant increase in the number of votes cast in the Republican primarythis year. The overall total of 248,289 votes cast in this 2012 Republican primary in New Hampshire, exceeded the 2008 total of 241,039 by 7,250 votes.

The statewide totals were as follows: (See new totals under UPDATE: below). Taking into account the"final" numbers showing that 248,289 people voted in the NH Republican Primary this year, here were the individual results, numerical and percentage.

Mitt Romney _____ 97,532 _ 39.77% ★

Ron Paul ________ 56,848 _ 23.18%

Jon Huntsman ____ 41,945 _ 17.10%

Newt Gingrich ____ 23,411 __ 9.54%

Rick Santorum ____ 23,362 __ 9.53%

Rick Perry ________ 1,766 ___ .72%

Michelle Bachmann __ 349 ___ .14%

UPDATE, 11/13/2012: Latest numbers from the New Hampshire Sec'y of State's Office, can be found here, containing a few adjustments to several candidates' totals.

As we noted above, the bad news is for Newt Gingrich. Looks like he came in 5th place (not 4th as originally thought) -- behind Rick Santorum.

The adjusted statewide rankings were as follows -- with ALL 248,289 votes cast included:

Mitt Romney _____ 97,600 _ 39.3% ★

Ron Paul ________ 56,872 _ 22.9%

Jon Huntsman ____ 41,783 _ 16.82%

Rick Santorum ____ 23,408 __ 9.43%

Newt Gingrich ____ 23,293 __ 9.38%

Rick Perry ________ 1,764 ___ .71%

Buddy Roemer _______ 950 ___.38%

Michelle Bachmann ___ 350 ___ .14%

Other ____________ 2,269 ___ .91%

★ Designates the winner.

Romney Wins Big In New Hampshire; Paul Is 2nd

01/11/2012 Mitt Romney has scored a big win in the 2012 New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary yesterday evening, with the race having been called for him within minutes of the polls closing at 8:00 pm.

With 5% of precincts reportedly still unaccounted for, 95,669 votes were cast for the former Massachusetts Governor, representing 40% of the total ballots cast and reported. Four years ago in 2008, Mitt Romney only got 75,675 votes in New Hampshire in his second place finish. This year, therefore, he enjoyed a considerable percentage and numerical increase in the number of voters who cast ballots for him.

Well over 20,000 more voters turned out for Mitt this time around. Exact figures will be available as the last few precincts are reported.

As of 2:41 am CNN had posted numbers showing that, with 95% of precincts having reported, Romney had 95,669 votes for 40% of the total. Ron Paul was in second place with 55,455 votes (23%), and Jon Huntsman was in third place with 40,903 votes (17%). Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were in a close scramble for 4th place, each with about 10% of the vote. Governor Rick Perry of Texas, was only drawing around 1% of the vote.

In 2008, Romney came in second behind Senator John McCain, having garnered (per the Sec'y of State on 01/11) 75,675 votes out of the total of 241,039 votes cast.

With 5% still unreported, and 239,708 votes already having been reported last night, that suggests that there is a possibility of an additional twelve thousand votes that will be added to the total.

So clearly, posted claims that it looked like he would come "in at 37-38%, with about the same total number of votes as in 2008" were and are inaccurate.

It also looks like the Newt Gingrich effort to attack Romney over his work at Bain, was being perceived by New Hampshire voters as an effort aimed at revenge, and at least so far, it has backfired. Newt finished well back in the pack.

A more recent attention-getting gimmick by the former Fannie Mae adviser will apparently feature him making an appearance at a homeownership rally down in South Carolina along with House Democrat Leadership big, Congressman James Clyburn.

That event will be held this coming Thursday.

Tebow to Thomas In OT: Score!

Denver . . . 29

Pittsburgh . . . 23

By 6 -- the minimum OT score now.

Denver Post -- The first play of overtime.

Unbelievable. Here is the NFL post . . . WOW!

(Via HotAir, here.

Tony Blankley: 1949 - 2012

01/08/2012 Tony Blankley has died, just shy of sixty-three years old.* He had been battling of stomach cancer and passed away late Saturday, according to reports. Tony resided in Virginia and is survived by has wife and three children.

A naturalized American citizen, Tony was born in England and his parents moved to the United States (to California) in the years following World War II. Tony played a few roles as a child actor.

A conservative author and lawyer, he once was a prosecutor for ten years out in CA, served in a few distinguished stints in government in Washington, DC, including for the Reagan Administration, and later became the press secretary and an adviser to Speaker Gingrich.

Tony also served later as the editorial page editor for the Washington Times.

I always enjoyed reading Tony's take on events. He will be sorely missed.



*The initial year of birth we posted was incorrect. Tony was born January 21, 1949.

Didn't Amy Tell HIM?

01/04/2012 Fresh from the Department of ADLADS (A Day Late & A Dollar Short) comes this bit of hilarity, an AP story, via ABC News.

Oh, man . . . I promise it will make your day:

Carter's Advice to Obama: Don't Alienate Voters

By GREG BLUESTEIN Associated Press
ATLANTA January 4, 2012 (AP)

Former President Jimmy Carter has some advice for Barack Obama as he gears up for the 2012 election: Don't alienate voters with controversial positions.

The Georgia Democrat told The Associated Press on Tuesday that just about everything he did alienated voters, from sealing a treaty to hand over the Panama Canal to establishing diplomatic ties with China.

Carter said: "If your main goal is to get re-elected, avoid a controversial subject as much as you can in the first term."

. . . . (more yucks in the original)

Signing Statements Redux; AP Has Your Back, BHO

01/01/2012 While running for the Presidency four years ago, Barack Obama specifically pledged (when asked in early April of that year) that he would not employ the use of signing statements with legislation in order to get around Congressional mandates.

He strongly criticized then-President Bush for the use of signing statements, saying that the use of signing statements was extra-Constitutional on the part of the Bush Administration. And he pointed out that as a former professor of Constitutional Law, he knew better and would respect his proper constitutional role by refusing to employ the tactic to "do an end run around Congress."

Here was exactly how he put it on April 8, 2008, in response to being asked"

"When Congress offers you a bill do you promise not to use Presidential signing statements to get your way."

Said he, unequivocally, "Yes."

Following the applause and a few shouts of approval from the audience, he tapped the microphone to make sure it was on, and went in to full professorial mode, proceeding to give everyone a little civics lesson in the separation of powers, in the course of which he deeply criticized the Bush Administration for the use of signing statements, which he said had been done in violation of our Constitution.

"Let me just explain for those who are unfamiliar with this issue. Uhh, you know we got a, uhh, a government, uhh, designed by the founders so that they'red be checks and balances. You don't want a President who is too powerful, or a Congress that is too powerful, or Courts that's too powerful. Everybody's got their own role.

Congress's job is to pass legislation. The President can veto it or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the Presidency, is he's been saying, 'Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don't agree with this part, or I don't agree with that part. I'm going to choose to interpret it this way or that way.'

Uhh, That's not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he's going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.

All right?"

Setting aside for the moment his serious exaggeration about what President Bush had attempted to accomplish through the employment of signing statements, the fact remains that if Obama seriously believed that Bush-era signing statements were so fundamentally unconstitutional, there were remedies, including through the courts to challenge the Administration, remedial measures which the former "Con Law" professor never pursued, other than rhetorically.

Since becoming President, and in contravention of his views expressed before becoming President, Obama has continued to regularly employ the use of signing statements to attempt to stamp his administration's policy views on legislation passed by Congress.

Just yesterday, for example, he attached a lengthy and highly critical signing statement to the Defense authorization bill recently passed by both Houses of Congress, in which he voiced "serious reservations" over a few provisions, and in which he added that he would interpret and implement the new law as he saw fit.

Here are a few key provisions lifted from his statement:

. . .
"The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
. . . . (my emphasis added)

The Associated Press, per reporter Julie Pace, chose to cover the story with as positive a spin as she could possibly muster, including by completely misrepresenting Mr. Obama's campaign position from back in 2008.

From her story:

". . .
Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent. During his campaign for the White House, Obama criticized President George W. Bush's use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent.
. . . ."

That statement is completely disingenuous, and it would be downright laughable, if it were not for the fact that this bill dealt with matters so fundamentally affecting our national security.

As can be seen from the video clip, above (and the transcription) neither the views expressed in that "signing statement" above, nor the AP representation of that specific 2008 commitment regarding signing statements, in any way harmonize with, or can be coordinated with the views expressed his 2008 position.

The AP just made that up.

But the President has little to be concerned about in this regard. As usual, the AP has his political back.

As Mel Brooks once (actually thrice) put it in another "historical" context, "It's good to be the King!"