Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

New Hampshire primary results

New Hampshire primary results

89% Reporting

Romney 39.1%

Paul 23

Huntsman 16.9

Gingrich 9.5

Santorum 9.4

—————————–
Interesting: Gingrich was the target of 96% of negative super PAC spending between Iowa and N.H.  But Newt’s the angry nasty one, rights?

Romney’s argument on electability was an important factor with voters.

Romney is on target to get about same number of votes as in 2008, but higher % because of lower turnout.

Turnout well below 2008 — another sign of what happens when there is no inspirational front runner.  (Maybe not, other report says just above 2008)

Well, I was right that Santorum had no staying power and would fade after Iowa, making an Iowa vote for Santorum a vote for Romney.

Romney victory speech took a dig, but not by name, at those criticizing his Bain years — a big mistake and very petty.  He essentially says that anyone who questions Bain wants to put free enterprise on trial and resents his success — and I resent him saying that (emphasis mine):

President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him. This is such a mistake for our Party and for our nation.  This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision.  I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success. In these difficult times, we cannot abandon the core values that define us as unique — We are One Nation, Under God.

Exit Poll Data here

51% of Huntsman voters are satisfied with Obama, presumably independents crossing over or an “Operation Chaos”

Only 48% of voters in primary consider themselves “Republican”

Fox called race at 8:00 p.m., projecting Paul 2, Huntsman 3, Newt/Santorum close for 4th

Having trouble finding an embeddable results form, so I may have to do it mostly manually.

So the polls have closed in many places and all will close by 8 p.m.   An early call of the race for Romney is expected.  The big questions are does he beat his 31.6% from 2008 and if so by how much, and how close are the others.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

31.6%? Those are Tim Tebow numbers!

[…] Insurrection is updating as news filters in. Share this:TwitterEmailFacebookMoreStumbleUponRedditDiggLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]

[…] to the Republicans they have a big primary election in New Hampshire today. The New Hampshire primary election results will be fully formed by 8:00 […]

Being a civilized man, on a civilized blog, hosted by a civilized man….

I shant, though inclined, curse.

Paul/Huntsman getting 50% of the vote.

Curse, I have…….in private.

Romney with the lead?   I thought NH was the ‘Live Free or Die’ State?

Results like this remind me how screwed we, as a Country, really are.   Ugh!
.

Note to all candidates, including Rick Perry… this thing is still fluid, please DO NOT drop out yet. Don’t let two small states make the decision for the rest of us.

    workingclass artist in reply to Rose. | January 10, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    I don’t see Perry dropping out till Texas – 155 delegates.

    I don’t see how Santorum can go on into the south…He’s Pro-Union, not much money and his Iowa bump is gone.

    At this point the only guys left with serious money and organization are Romney,Paul,Gingrich & Perry.

    punfundit in reply to Rose. | January 10, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    I don’t think he can justify dropping out before Texans have their say.

Ok, so Fox now declares Mitt Romney America’s chosen GOP candidate based on two states whose combined populations are less than the Houston Metro area in 3…….2…….

“Only 48% of voters in primary consider themselves “Republican””

So it’s not a Republican primary after all.

Don’t believe the hype, Romney will be in trouble down here in SC.

Until now, Romney has been running virtually unopposed here in SC because his campaign is the only one that had cash to burn. He might get a temporary bump from his NH victory, but Romney’s numbers will go down as other people start campaigning here.

I also expect Newt & company to dump some serious cash attacking Mitt, and being a liberal from Taxachusetts, it won’t take much persuading to bring Romney’s numbers down in SC.

The race is still very fluid and a long way from being over.

Romney? In New Hamster? Shocking…no, really.

The issue is not Mitt’s capitalism. It’s his unscrupulous business practices. Of course, he’s going to try to hide behind the old line, “that’s just capitalism” to hide any discussion of his business practices.

But, is it capitalism to make your money by

1. Defrauding Medicare?
2. Mislaeding Investors?
3. Cheating Creditors?
4. Cheating Taxpayers?
5. Leaving the government, workers and taxpayers holding an empty bag?
6. Using offshore tax shelters to gain additional investment funds thereby allowing you to increase your own wealth (Note: the issue is not the tax rate Mitt paid, but the fact that he benefited from helping foreign investors evade U.S. taxes and that money made Mitt money).

If Mitt Romney is the great businessman he and his supporters proclaim he is then why do they always try to shut down any discussion of his business record?

We already know that Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected. When you look at his business record, you find that Mitt Romney was willing to do whatever it took to make money.

Most Americans work hard and play by the rules.

Mitt Romney works hard at not playing by the rules.

What a vapid phony. He’s not even very slick, or slick enough. This is a mirror image of Obama — the same hauteur of entitlement, the sanctimonious declaration of criticism-proof sanctuary. In his case it’s shallower than Obama’s, and based more on insecurity than raw narcissism. Obama is slicker and nervier — and stronger — than this brittle and squirmy lightweight. This guy is an epic — EPIC – mistake, the worst possible candidate for this moment in America. GOP establishment — you are sick beyond hope.

Figure it out Republicans.

    workingclass artist in reply to raven. | January 10, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    That’s why Perry called Romney Obamalite

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to raven. | January 10, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    I’m with you. The big donors in the northeast want Willard, so their surrogates in the “conservative” media are pushing him.

    I can’t help but think they are leading us into an ambush.

    Hope Change in reply to raven. | January 10, 2012 at 10:19 pm

    ditto

      Hope Change in reply to Hope Change. | January 10, 2012 at 10:23 pm

      ditto to raven. so agree. this is why they call the republicans the party of stupid. but are they stupid, or is their bread buttered.

      that’s why I support Newt, the only candidate who’s been inside, knows how it works, and is an outsider (look who opposes New) who is going to dismantle politics as usual. I am in favor of Newt.

New Hampshire is a moderate state, the perfect state for Mitt Romney. It’s also his home state, or one of them. But yet, he can’t break over 40%? Amazing!

Sorry if the return fire hurts, Professor. Have a tissue.

Gingrich is apparently about to switch parties – at least, chumming with Jim Clyburn ensures the only votes he’ll get in South Carolina will be Democrats crossing over.

But I guess he knows his constituency. Philanderers, influence peddlers, and socialists are a better fit with the Democrats anyway, don’t you think?

You do realize there is a difference between arguing that the arguments being made by some Republicans are an indictment of capitalism and saying that any questioning of his business practices is an indictment of capitalism, right?

Because all day I’ve been reading comments saying the issue is the way in which Gingrich is going about his attacks, and all day you’ve been just ignoring that and arguing people are claiming any attack on Bain is an attack on capitalism, which simply isn’t the point at all. It’s a real shame you can’t (or more probably just wont) see the difference.

Cowboy Curtis | January 10, 2012 at 9:15 pm

After tonight in NH, and the (yet again) debacle that was Iowa, can we finally declare these to be unserious contests held by unserious people, and actually start to erect a primary system that isn’t led off by two states that clearly have no business deciding who the republican candidate should be?

Even if my guy had won tonight, I’d be saying this. Any contest where Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman are actually contenders is a contest that needs to be ended for good.

    My guy did win, and I’d have to agree. I understand the point, it less well financed candidates make their case to a smaller group, but with the internet and all, I just don’t think that’s all that important anymore.

      Cowboy Curtis in reply to Awing1. | January 10, 2012 at 9:28 pm

      I like Jim Gereghty’s idea: smallest states first, biggest states last. The early contests will be for small enough stakes that no one or two (or five) contests is going to knock reasonable out of contention. It also will allow for wider regional representation earlier in the process. Finally, the nomination won’t be decided until much further along in the process, whereby the candidates will have had much more time to be vetted and considered on a national scale. That way you don’t end up with Santorum in Iowa for no other reason than he’s simple the last not-Romney to yet be scrutinized.

      We’ve got to recognize that this current system is not conducive to picking the best nominees (even when the best nominee wins them). I say scrap it wholesale.

      retire05 in reply to Awing1. | January 10, 2012 at 9:33 pm

      Awing1, at least you admit you are for Romney. Now can you admit that you are no core conservative?

      And no, I don’t care that Romney was no more than a corporate raider (must like George Soros). What I object to his his record as governor (to the left) which he runs from, and his ability to lie about other candidates with such ease.

      retire05 in reply to Awing1. | January 10, 2012 at 9:51 pm

      In a 2007 interview, Ann Romney described her husband quite succinctly:

      “He [Mitt] never takes anything at face value; he can argue any side of a question. And sometimes you think he’s like really believing his argument, but he’s not.

      Some of us already understood that in 2008, Ann. Your husband’s an opportunistic chameleon, who will say anything that it takes to grasp that golden ring that was denied to his father.

      He’s not in this race for America, he’s in this race for his own glory.

        Awing1 in reply to retire05. | January 10, 2012 at 10:20 pm

        I’ve admitted pretty consistently that I am for Romney. And I happen to like a guy that can argue both sides of an argument, it means he knows both sides. I know in your world where you can pull numbers out of thin air to make arguments, intelligence and understanding issues is a negative, but some of us like our leaders to understand the choices they make.

        Hope Change in reply to retire05. | January 10, 2012 at 10:31 pm

        retire05
        Romney’s in this race to please his father. That’s the feeling I honestly have, no snark.
        The Establishment wants Romney because they can control him.

If Ron Paul can continue to make speeches like he did tonight Romney may be in trouble after all.

    Contrast the enthusiasm, confidence, clarity of message and humor against Romney’s plastic and trite acceptance speech. You can see why the establishment is afraid of Paul. He is a serious threat. He can’t win the nomination even if he got 100% of the votes from here on out (the establishment simply won’t let him win) but he can run 3rd party and maybe even win.

    I’m not a Ron Paul guy but that’s the way it is. He is running the campaign Palin, Bachmann and maybe other “conservatives” should have run. Instead they both embraced the establishment as their first move (Palin endorse McCain and Bachmann hired Ed Rollins) and pledged to support whatever candidate wins the nomination. They took themselves right out of the game right out of the box. Paul didn’t make that mistake and now has clout.

lived next to NH all my life (in Maine) and they (mostly) are idiots.
this was not a good test of any candidate, most of them worked in MA and went with the devil they knew.
SC I think will be a better reflection of everything and everyone.
we all knew romney would take it, we suspected RP would be second.
the 3/4 is what we were not sure about.
huntsmen winning one thing….fluke..

    raven in reply to dmacleo. | January 10, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    “lived next to NH all my life (in Maine) and they (mostly) are idiots.”

    Lived on the other side (Masachusetts) for years. Something odd and confused about the state, comprised as it of so many tax-sheltering exurbanites and second-homers. It lacks an identity. Its largest city is a dreary dump. Good to put it in the rear-view mirror.

    valleyforge in reply to dmacleo. | January 10, 2012 at 10:18 pm

    I went to college there 20 years ago. It’s a down to earth state. Like Maine from what I remember and parts of Massachusetts. Of course they have a lot more sense on average since they less frequently vote for Democrats.

DINORightMarie | January 10, 2012 at 9:26 pm

Why do I get the feeling that the Democrats are choosing our candidate? Both in the MSM and at the polls.

And why oh why do the so-called Repub talking heads go along?

And the elitist inside-the-Beltway types, why do they choose the worst possible candidates (Dole, McCain, and now Mittens)?

*sigh*

    workingclass artist in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 10, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    Gov. Perry said in an interview that this is not a typical Republican v Democrat race because of the severity of the issues…He said this is a Conservative v Liberal race.

    That is why it seems the liberals are choosing the R opponent…because even in the off chance Romney beats Obama (I don’t think that will happen) there is so little difference between them the agenda will continue and part of that agenda is to continue to grow and consolidate centralized power in Washington DC.

    Hope Change in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 10, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    hi rightmarie — I’ve moved past the sigh. No more losers.

So Romney wins IA and NH and suddenly, it doesn’t matter that they are essentially all-white states. I thought white racism was why Ron Paul was polling so well in IA?

    valleyforge in reply to Pasadena Phil. | January 10, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    You’re calling Iowans racist? Didn’t they vote for Barack Obama twice? Easily fooled, maybe, but not racist. They got fooled by Santorum too.

Following up on the low turnout, will Romney repeat IA where he won with the same number of votes that got him second in 2008? Romney won 75,546 votes in 2008. Let’s see if he beats that tonight.

Okay, I can see Gingrich not finishing in the top third given all that’s been happening. But Huntsman? Really? Huntsman beats Santorum? Which metric accounts for that?

workingclass artist | January 10, 2012 at 9:47 pm

This is weird…

Gingrich HQ Empty

This isn’t very reassuring for his campaign. Apparenlty Newt Gingrich’s headquarters is completely empty, aside from the press. Numerous journalists on Twitter, including Jonathan Alter and Benjy Sarlin reported this late Tuesday. “I’m at Gingrich NH HQ and there’s no one here! Just came from jammed Huntsman HQ. At least they like their also-ran,” tweeted Alter.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/01/10/gingrich-hq-empty.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed

workingclass artist | January 10, 2012 at 9:50 pm

Andy Roth from Club for Growth gave Romney’s plan & record the lowest grade D. He said “He will institutionalize a permanent deficit”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69_jTexx2Kk&feature=youtu.be

Occupied Territory | January 10, 2012 at 9:59 pm

People need to take a breath. Don’t believe all you hear about Romney. I live in MA and he was a decent gov. He straightened us out fiscally and threw some significant entrenched bums out. Yeah, he’s changed some positions. He changed them the right way. Would you rather he have not changed? I’ve enjoyed this blog for a while, but you guys are digging your heals in and it’s not good. I respect Newt, but c’mon, he doesn’t have presidential temperment. Look, only 3 years after he made history in ending a 40 yr walk in the wilderness, his own lieutenants tried to throw him out. They couldn’t work with him. He has a propensity to engage his mouth before his brain: arrest judges. Yeah, that’ll work…

    So you think taking the state budget from $23,011,620,000.00 in January, 2003 to $31,649,416,000.00, and increase of 37.5% in just four short years is straightening Massachusetts out fiscally? Are you Obama’s bookkeeper? Maybe you think a less than 1% drop in unemployment, during good fiscal times, is also an acheivement.

    Says a lot about the mindset of people from Massachusetts.

      Here is Massachusetts’ budgetary history encompassing the Romney administration. Here is the FY2003 budget request of Romney’s immediate predecessor: about $23.5B. Here is Romney’s first budget request (for FY2004): about $22.9B or $29.7 when outside revenues like federal funds are included. Here is Romney’s last budget request (for FY 2007); the corresponding numbers are $25.2B and $36.0B.

    OT, point taken about Romney.

    He forced Billy Bulger out of his high-paying UMass sinecure. When shoddy Big Dig construction led to a driver fatality, he forced fellow Republican Matt Amorello out of the Turnpike Authority.

    In effect, a Romney administration might be the Bush family’s fourth term–except probably, you know, competent this time. If he takes on Congress like he took on Massachusetts hackocrats, he might be a one-term President.

    Not cause for jubilation, but obviously better than what we have today.

      Hope Change in reply to gs. | January 10, 2012 at 10:39 pm

      Bugs Bunny would be better than we have today. Road Runner. Wile E. Coyote would do less harm. That’s not enough. And ruthless does not = competent.

Can’t help bit enjoy reading the tirades and jeremiads here (and on other blogs). Granted, it looks like Mitt will finish with a spread of less than 20 points, which is a little disappointing. However, he’s close to 40%; if he goes over the top there, it’ll be plenty sweet of a victory.

It’s not over, of course. South Carolina will be the showdown. But expect Mitt to hit 40-45% there in polls in the next few days. The not Mitts have a little more time (10 days) and the benefit of Gingrich’s kamikaze attacks (which will grown 100fold in the next few days). Mitt is going to have to come out strongly in defending his record at Bain. But, I think he will.

If Mitt wins South Carolina (even by one vote), what will the not-Romneys say then? It’s only three states!?!? I’ve said this, ad nauseam, before: If you want to stop him, unite behind one candidate. The not-Romneys have had months and months to do so and have gone through a half dozen prospects. But they are unable to come to any agreement. I don’t see that changing after tonight. Huntsman *may* drop out. But Gingrich and Santorum are going to take this to South Carolina for sure. And, Perry is waiting there. Sooner or later the not-Romneys will realize that “not-Romney” is not a candidate and they cannot win with five not-Romneys running. But by then, four of the not-Romneys will have dropped out, Mitt will have won 11 states, and we’ll be looking at Super Tuesday with only Ron Paul left to oppose him.

There’s another story here that’s not being told:

Perry’s #’s in NH are abysmal. Almost non-existent. Gingrich/Santorum fighting for 3rd/4th each have nearly 10x the votes Perry does (about the same margin Perry has over Cain). Everyone expected Perry to lose, but he’s losing so badly that you could say he’s not even running – which he might not be soon.

I wouldn’t expect any decisions from Perry until at least after SC. Losing this badly will definitely have an effect on that decision.

The winner here is, oddly, Gingrich (possibly Santorum). Gingrich & Perry are the leading contenders for the Not-Romney 75% of the Party (I still don’t think Santorum has the money or organization, but he may well prove me wrong). The sooner the Not-Romney vote coalesces around a single candidate the greater the chance that candidate has of beating Romney. So, NH is another nail in the Perry campaign’s coffin. The Not-Romneys should all be happy.

Ron Paul, of course, is in a category by himself. He’ll neither drop out soon nor have any chance of eventual victory. His main effect will be to draw a large % of the non-Republican vote in open primaries. He’ll also reduce the % that each of the other candidates get in every primary, thus prolonging the process. This should be good for the Not-Romneys.

    retire05 in reply to Aarradin. | January 10, 2012 at 10:37 pm

    Why all the importance place on just two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) that went for Obama in 2008 anyway?

    Or is it that the establishment wants Romney so badly they are going to try to convince all of us that it is all now over and we might as well just forget voting because two insequential states have had a say?

According to the exit polls, Romney’s victory was a broad, sweeping one. He won every group. First and foremost, in a six-way race, he won 49 percent of actual Republicans. He won men and women; he won every age group over 40; he won every level of education; he won he won every income level above $30,000; he won among people who describe themselves as very conservative as well as those who say they are moderate or somewhat conservatives; he won voters who support the Tea Party; he won born again Christians, all Protestants and Catholics; he won voters who think leaders should compromise and voters who think leaders should stick by their principles; he won in urban, suburban, and rural areas.

And that 37 percent is as high a proportion as was won by the last five New Hampshire winners (even though some of those had fewer candidates).

All in all, a hellava good show.

    retire05 in reply to JEBurke. | January 10, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    In other words, he won in what is basically a liberal state that will go to Obama in the general election.

    Nuf’ said.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to JEBurke. | January 10, 2012 at 10:39 pm

    Yeah, John McCain won NH in 2008, so the future looks bright. Yawn.

    NH is Romney’s home and it was an open primary. More than half who voted do not identify themselves as Republicans, and most of those who do are decidedly moderate. IA and NH are virtually all white. Gingrich, et al, did every bit as well in Romney’s home state as you’d expect Romney to do in Georgia, Gingrich’s home state, or Texas, Perry’s home state. In 2008 Romney won 11 primaries, but none of them were in the south. His support is all above the Mason Dixon line. The conservative base is strongest below the Mason Dixon line.

    SC will change things. Just how remains to be seen.+

      South Carolina is a open primary also.

      In any case, in a six-candidate field, Romney won 49 percent of actual Republicans. Most of the crossover Democrats were Paul or Huntsman votes.

    Windy City Commentary in reply to JEBurke. | January 10, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    What’s Rich Lowry think about you cutting and pasting his Corner post?

9thDistrictNeighbor | January 10, 2012 at 10:29 pm

So the numbers seem to shake out this way…42 percent of New Hampshire primary voters are certifiably insane, 19 percent are conservative, and the remaining 38 percent are giddy they have made my decision for me. Lovely.

Understandable that Gingrich supporters want to write off NH, but SC is not immune to momentum and there are only 10 days to bend the curve of poll declines Gingrich has seen since Iowa.

What is Gingrich’s justification for continuing? Paul and Romney poll much better against Obama. Gingrich can’t raise money (aside from a heaven-sent windfall from Sheldon Adelson) and has little organization. He hasn’t distinguished himself from Romney on most issues. He’s no more reliable a conservative than Romney based on history. I was fascinated with him for a week along with the rest of the Republican primary followers but I fail to see why anyone who likes his brand of big government conservatism is clinging to him rather than getting behind Romney. And if you don’t like big government conservatism than why would you support Newt?

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to valleyforge. | January 11, 2012 at 12:17 am

    It doesn’t sound like you’ve read Newt’s 21st Century Contract With America. You should.

    He has got the best economic agenda of all the candidates which is why he’s been endorsed by both Thomas Sowell and Art Laffer. It includes a 15% individual flat tax, 12.5% corporate tax, 0% capital gains tax, and 100% expensing of capital equipment.

    The incentives for growth in that sort of tax regime ought to create a boom that made the economy of the 1980s and 1990s look weak in comparison. And that’s not even considering the regulations he wants to repeal.

    He also wants to give young workers the option to take half their payroll tax withholdings and invest them in a 401-K like private account. The account will be in each employees name and will create an estate that can be passed on to heirs or whoever they designate as beneficiaries if they die before retirement.

    Newt is talking about major reforms that happen about once every 50 yeras. And if he gets a Republican House and Senate, I don’t see why it won’t pass. Willard wants to tinker around the edges.

    http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/contract/21st_Century_Contract_Legislative_Proposals.pdf

A win for Obama. The country was on a wave of hopey-changey last election. But just wait until the crony capitalism stories start coming out, from the S&L failures forward. This country is so screwed that we can’t shake these people out of the Republican party.

That’s right, folks. Keep pissing on Romney so Obama gets a second term.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Towson Lawyer. | January 11, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    Oh, please. The belief that Romney is capable of losing to Obama is entirely defensible, in fact, I predict it. I’ll choose my candidate as I see fit and even urinate on them if I so choose. Earned urine will not affect the election. Failure to vote for Romney will. Romney is not the guy you want against an Obama.

    Obama 52% Romney 48%. Bet on it.

      Aitch748 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 11, 2012 at 1:13 pm

      That’s been my humble amateur’s prediction for a while: that Romney wins the nomination and then loses to Obama.

      And I wonder where Towson Lawyer stood when the candidate being pissed on was (to take an example) Christine O’Donnell, when she’d won the primary in Delaware and Karl Rove was on television for several nights straight yelling about how horrible O’Donnell was as a candidate (while saying nothing about her Marxist opponent Chris Coons). This kind of high-level treachery is one reason why I am now less reluctant to vote GOP than I’ve been since I was a teenager.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Aitch748. | January 11, 2012 at 4:47 pm

        It’s just really bush league for someone like Towson Lawyer to consider it ‘pissing’ on someone when the opposition is heartfelt and arrived at by entirely logical and reasonable means. Two thirds of GOP primary voters so far refused to vote for Romney. This constitutes urinating on Romney? This sort of language is exactly what comes out of the mouths of the Robinsons, Colmes, Clintons, Matthews, etc., of the world.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend