(Mere) postscript to Iowa caucuses: Who won
2012 is here, and they did it again: After weeks and months of hysterical conjecture about who’s-going-to-win in Iowa, the public gets a staggering indifference as to who won. The Des Moines Register reports that, as far as is known, Rick Santorum came out ahead of Mitt Romney by a near-landslide 34 votes. However, with perceptible mistakes in 131 precincts, there are too many holes in the count, the paper reports, for the true winner ever to be known.
Kudos to Bradblog, for being all over this question from early on, following the caucuses.
A full report containing all the certified results is due to be released this morning.
The morning talking heads have taken note of this development only to discuss it in terms of the horse race. As of now, we have the following consensus: 1) the Iowa results were a statistical tie anyway; 2) this (the outcome) messes up the narrative about Romney as the first Republican to win both IA and NH; 3) old news; and 4) who cares.
There has been no discussion about the problems in getting an accurate vote tally in 2012, in what has historically been one of the most transparent and least manipulable voting processes in the nation.
There they go again. As previously written, all that focus on who will win, little corresponding emphasis on who did win.
There are signs of the times on related matters, however. For one thing, many of the talking heads are intensely touting the line that the election will be ‘close’. This is one way to avoid talking about policy, and talking in specific detail about policy would tend to make the election less close. Let the public get a gander at Romney’s tax plan, for example, discussed by five or six guests and hosts at length and with colorful anecdote the way they talk about being in Iowa or South Carolina.
That close-election firewall protects the GOP.
Notwithstanding the firewall provided by corporate media outlets, MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough seems to be bothered by the display being put on by the GOP field: He is boosting a ‘centrist’ third party candidate, yet to be named, who will blame both parties for the mess in Washington.
That anyone could buy this tactic does not speak well for reporting in our time.