Political Hotsheet
By

Stephanie Condon /

CBS News/ January 4, 2012, 2:36 AM

Iowa caucus results: Mitt Romney beats Rick Santorum by 8 votes

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum

Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, at left, and Rick Santorum

/ Getty

UPDATED 3:07 a.m. ET

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney eked out a narrow victory over former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum in the Iowa caucuses Tuesday, winning the first contest for the Republican presidential nomination, the Hawkeye state's Republican party chairman Matt Strawn said early Wednesday morning after a long night with the two candidates in a dead heat.

Santorum pulled off a stunning come-from-behind performance in Tuesday's Iowa caucuses, garnering just eight fewer votes than a much better funded and better organized Romney in the closest Iowa contest since the modern caucuses were formed in 1976.

It's a tie, so Santorum wins

"Game on," Santorum told supporters gathered in Johnston, Iowa in what amounted to a victory speech before the results were announced.

The devout Catholic father of seven vowed to take his social conservative message to New Hampshire, which holds the first binding vote on January 10. The Iowa caucuses are non-binding.

"With your help and God's grace, we will have another fun night a week from now," Santorum said after offering congratulations to Romney, who now appears headed toward the nomination. Romney is widely expected to win in New Hampshire, where he owns a vacation home.

Analysis: Romney's race to lose

If Romney wins in the Granite state, he would be the first non-incumbent Republican to win both Iowa and New Hampshire since their 1976 establishment as critical early states in the nominating process.

Santorum won the support of 30,007 caucus-goers, giving him 25 percent support, while Romney won 30,015 votes -- also 25 percent, Strawn said.

Full Iowa results
Iowa entrance poll results
Full Republican primary results

Ron Paul finished in third place with 21 percent support. Just weeks ago, Santorum was at the bottom of opinion polls.

Romney offered his congratulations to Santorum, while focusing mostly on President Obama and the general election in his remarks, also made before the final tally was announced.

"This has been a great victory for him and for his effort. He's worked very hard in Iowa. We also feel it's been a great victory for us here," Romney said.

After finishing in a disappointing fifth place with 10 percent of the vote, Rick Perry told his supporters Tuesday night in Iowa he would return to his home state of Texas to "determine whether there is a path forward for me in this race."

Santorum's strong finish, pulled off on a shoe-string budget, validated the more than 100 days he spent engaged in retail campaigning across the state of Iowa. It also proved that conservative voters are still wary of Romney -- whose resources on the campaign trail far surpassed Santorum's -- in spite of perceptions that he would be the most viable Republican presidential candidate.

Santorum thanked Iowans for "standing up and being bold and leading."

He added, "What wins in American are bold ideas, sharp contrasts and a plan that includes everyone... A plan that says we will work together to get America to work."

CBS News entrance polling revealed that Santorum's supporters were looking for an authentic conservative, while Romney's supporters were looking for a candidate who can beat President Obama.

In his own remarks Tuesday night, Romney focused on targeting Mr. Obama and promised, "I will go to work to get America back to work."

Iowa caucuses: Why the race was so close
Iowa's bad track record for picking GOP winners
Full CBSNews.com coverage: Election 2012

Technically speaking, the caucuses are largely symbolic -- the results represent the viewpoints of just a fraction of the American population. Iowa will send just 25 dedicated delegates (awarded to the candidates proportionally) to the Republican National Convention in Florida, where a candidate will need the support of at least 1,143 to win the presidential nomination. On top of all that, the Iowa delegates aren't officially chosen on caucus night -- they're selected at a state convention in June. (There are also three undedicated delegates who will also attend the June convention.)

That said, the caucuses could alter the dynamics of the race. Perry could be the first casualty of the nominating process, after his poor finish, and Michele Bachmann may be reassessing her campaign as well. Their exit from the race could consolidate more support behind Santorum, or it could benefit Newt Gingrich -- in either case, Romney will have to work harder to prove he can get past Republican voters' suspicions that he is too moderate.

The next nominating contest will take place in New Hampshire, where Romney holds a commanding lead. The latest Suffolk University two-day tracking poll out of New Hampshire showed Romney with 43 percent support with Paul coming in second with 16 percent.

In remarks late Tuesday night, Paul argued that he won "one of three tickets out" of Iowa -- "and one of two that can actually run a national campaign and raise the money." Paul has attracted an ardent base of supporters with his libertarian views and has the organization to carry his campaign beyond Iowa.

While he couldn't pull off a victory in Iowa, Paul said his campaign has been successful in "reintroducing some ideas that Republicans have needed for a long time, and that is the conviction that freedom is popular."

Bachmann finished in sixth place with 5 percent support, finishing only ahead of Jon Huntsman, who chose not to campaign in Iowa. The congresswoman did not drop out immediately after the results of the caucuses became clear, but her campaign gave mixed signals as to whether she would stay in the race much longer.

Gingrich, who came in fourth with 13 percent support, blasted Romney on Tuesday night for running a negative campaign against the former speaker. Gingrich never mentioned Romney by name, but he thanked his supporters for enduring "the avalanche of negative ads."

Gingrich commended Santorum for running "a great, positive campaign." He added, "I wish I could say that for all the candidates." Gingrich earlier in the day called Romney a liar on CBS' "The Early Show."

© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
157 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
These fools from a completely failed and obsolete party of the elite are just vying for second place. People will realize what happened the last time an idiot Republicon was President. And these witless extremists make Bushoccio look like a moderate.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
technocoffee says:
Mr Mormon Plastic Ken Doll can get no love from corporate bootlicker, right-wing nutcase fundaMENTAList "christians" who obsess about abortion 24/7...Ron Paul worshippers already shouting "fixed" & "conspiracy" that he didn't win Iowa while Santorum is the Flavor-Of-The-Moment guy...until HE says something too outrageously stupid, even by Republican standards!! Rick Perry is scrambling to gather enough dignity to bow out of the race gracefully after making a first-class fool of himself...FUN TIMES :-)))))))
reply
technocoffee replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
...by supporting people who care about those of us who make less than $100,000--despite working 40-50 hrs a week--is the BEST witness & help to the forgotten...Jesus said those that were first on this earth will be the least in Heaven, and the least (poor,oppressed) will be FIRST in Heaven. Heaven is definitely a BLUE STATE!!!
MegaProcrastination replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
""""...Jesus said those that were first on this earth will be the least in Heaven, and the least (poor,oppressed) will be FIRST in Heaven. Heaven is definitely a BLUE STATE!!!""""

The Bible also says "all liars shall have a place in the lake of fire" so that might not be too good for politicians in general.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
pr_boxer says:
Ron Paul's sexual orientation (no longer a secret) hurt him in Iowa. It won't be a factor in New Hampshire, but it certainly will in South Carolina.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ProgressNow says:
Romney's sons look a lot like Michele Bachmann...
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
What happened to the Republicons? They have become completely corrupted puppets of the international American corporations who have declared War on the Earth.

There is no semblance of sanity, reasonableness, compassion or ethics on the part of Republicons. They are an international joke and international disgrace.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
TheSleeperHasAwakened says:
For those of you who are wondering what Ron Paul supporters are doing right about now, I will tell you. We are Watching The Vote. Read the article below, then go to the link in it. You will see that according to the eye-witnessed numbers tallied so far, Ron Paul DID win Iowa.

http://www.examiner.com/social-issues-in-tampa-bay/iowa-vote-count-at-secret-location-count-the-vote-ready-to-referee

But then you probably think it's us, the "lunatic fridge", that are cooking the numbers and the spinning the results. No way our dear loving government could ever do something like that.

WAKE UP from all the lies and propaganda you have been fed all your lives.

Educate yourselves about what is really happening all around you!

This is a very real battle for our very freedoms and this may be our last chance to get it right.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
JulianAlien says:
I can not decide which one scares me more,Mitt Romney or Santorum.Oh well,this Republican is not voting for either.
reply
noloyalisti replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Can you explain why you are even associated with the Republicon Party, representatives of only the top 1% of Americans?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
Even the worst Democrat is better than the best Republicon. That failed, obsolete party has not done anything good for America since before Reagan.

Even though Obama has governed as a moderate Republicon, I think a large majority remembers the 8 year reign of terror of the Bush Crime Family. They also so how much almost permanent damage can be done by Republicon-appointed Supreme Court justices.

So Obama in a landslide later this year. The Republicons will need to decide who will be shining his shoes for the next 4 years.
reply
retiredgustav replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Anyone who uses "Youtube" as a sourse is an idiot. As Harry Trumam onces said "there are lies, dam lies and then there is the internet". I read that on the internet somewhere so you know it is true.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
inbethlehem says:
If Romney actually did win in November, do you think John Roberts could keep a straight face when he says "I, Willard Mittens Romney do solemnly swear..."
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
wisconsindragon says:
I lived in South Korea, working as an ESL teacher. During my stay I spent much time talking with Korean college students and graduates. The majority want the US to remove troops and allow them to make policy with out US intervention. They explained as example that the North South conflict would already have been resolved without the US. It is the US that perpetuates the negative situation. They asked, Why don't you stay out of our business? Why don't you remove your troops? I explained that many in the US want them to have control of their country and policies, and want our troops home, but they MSM misleads our people into believing that it is for our own national security. They don't like it. I understand that. I then told them to get their government to push the US into leaving. They say many try, but with no change. Same there, as it is here it seems. The government reps do as they please and not what the people want. So, when people here look on our foreign policy and think there is no need for change I see it differently. We need to have a strong foreign policy, a strong military, but I do not think we need troops everywhere. Nor do we need to dictate how other countries make policy. If the people of our ally, South Korea, resent our presence, why are so many so sure that our policy is not causing us more trouble than good? Is it not reasonable that if our allies resent our presence that our adversaries would also resent our interference? Many say Ron Paul wanting to bring all troops home is too radical, but is it not fair to say the current policy is also too radical? Just because this is the way we have been doing it does not mean that it is the best course for the USA. It is time to reevaluate our foreign policy. Lets find a better balance of working with our foreign allies and foes alike.
reply
i_say_so replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Yeah the south north conflict would have already been resolved.The south would be living in a communist dictatorship under control of Kim Jong Un by now.
retiredgustav replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
i_say_so .... Did you ever think of being a comedian on the rush limbaugh show?
See all 157 Comments