Did Romney Cheat in Maine?

      That seems a fair question after reading this link Krugman provided. The name of Krugman's post was fittingly enough "Hanging Chads in Maine."

       http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/facing-a-feisty-ron-paul-mitt-romney-looks-to-end-losing-streak-in-maine/2012/02/11/gIQA8uGq5Q_story.html

       What stands out  is the Washington Post headline: "Republican Chairman Says Romney Wins Maine's Caucuses, Reviving Presidential Prospects."

       Shouldn't it say, "Romney Wins" not "Republican Chairman Says Romney Wins?"

       This race was very close.  Actually two things about this race stand out-the margin was so close, and the number of total votes was so low. Nothing about this seems to indicate a bunch of people comping at the bit with enthusiasm to beat President Obama. Will this change once a nominee is selected? Maybe.

      But the low turnout can't harbinger anything good anyway. Nor can the slim victory for Romney or the fact that he failed to get even 40% of the vote-considerably less than 2008.

      As Krugman puts it:

      "Oh, wow. It turns out that caucuses in some parts of Maine were postponed — and then told that their votes wouldn’t count. And yes, it does seem that the disenfranchised caucuses were the least pro-Romney.

       So maybe Romney didn’t actually win Maine, after all.

       This kind of intervention by a friendly official is, of course, not something he can count on in the general election. I mean, it’s not as if, say, the governor of Florida could find a way to avoid counting enough votes to decide the presidency. Oh, wait."

       Now the Washington Post article:

        "At a gathering in Portland, state Republican Chairman Charlie Webster announced Romney had won with 2,190 votes, or 39 percent, compared to 1,996 — about 36 percent — for Ron Paul, the only other candidate to aggressively compete in the state. Rick Santorum received 989 votes and Newt Gingrich won 349, but neither actively campaigned there. Other candidates drew 61 votes."

        "The totals reflected about 84 percent of the state’s precincts. Webster insisted that any caucus results that come in after Saturday wouldn’t be counted no matter how close the vote."

        "Some caucuses decided not to participate in this poll and will caucus after this announcement,” Webster said. “Their results will not be factored in. The absent votes will not be factored into this announcement after the fact.”

        Hmm. Some "decided not to participate." Would have been nice had they told the voters whose votes were meaningless.

         "Caucuses in Washington County that had been scheduled for Saturday were postponed until Feb. 18 because of a major snowstorm that blanketed the region. Earlier, party Executive Director Michael Quatrano said county officials had been told the results of that caucus would not count toward the total."

       "But Washington County GOP Chairman Chris Gardner objected, saying he had known his county’s tally wouldn’t be included in Saturday’s announcement but didn’t realize it wouldn’t be counted at all. He said he had called state party leaders and “expressed my complete and utter dismay.”

       Again: Hmmm Expressing your "complete and utter dismay" sounds a little different than "deciding not to participate."