Santorum--delegate math--It's impossible for him to win the nomination.

[Mac1958]

Romney is Obama light.

Since there's really no way of knowing what this guy is actually thinking, it should be fascinating to watch him run in the general. Does he continue to act like a "severe conservative" and continue to lose independents, or does he try to moderate somewhat and risk the Rush fans screaming "See?! I told you so"?

Nasty. The GOP had better hope the economy goes south.

.

 

[Amelia]

To the OP.

So what?

Santorum doesn't have to win. All he has to do is keep Romnuts from getting a majority. Then we have to get a brokered convention where MAYBE the GOP has an attack of good sense and realizes Romney is a terrible idea.

I mean, more than likely Romney is going to be the nominee, and Obama will win by a bigger margin than he did in 2008.

So if you're Santorum, and you have your eyes on 2016, why not keep at it as long as possible?

You think that at a convention the GOP will pick someone that women can't stand?

Santorum can't even get the Catholic vote. Even Tea Party members are starting to find their way to Romney's camp. All Santorum can give is evangelicals and southerners. And the GOP has the south no matter who the nominee is.

No way will the convention give Santorum the nod. The GOP would be in ruins. Not just the shambles they're in now. Ruins.


Romney got out in 2008 and gracefully stood behind McCain when he saw the writing on the wall even though it was still theoretically possible for him to get the numbers. Wish Santorum and Gingrich had that kind of grace.

 

[Amelia]

Again I have to be the one to say it - Frothy is a ******* joke!

Did anyone ever seriously think he was going to be the nom? He'dve been blown out by Goldwaterian proportions.

It doesn't speak well for the Republic party that he's gotten as far as he has.

Out of curiosity, do we have any Santorum fans here? I don't recall hearing a whole lot of positive sentiment about him from anywhere along the USMB spectrum.

There's too much offensive language on this board to attract Santorum fans.

Interesting observation.

 

[Amelia]

.

Is Newt's ego-driven refusal to leave the race handing it over to Romney?

.

I don't think so.

I think the miracle is that either one of them has gone the distance. Keep in mind, they were both in single digits last November.

I don't think it translates that Gingrich's votes would be Santorums, necessarily.

The real story here is Romney's weakness as a frontrunner and annointed candidate. Bush-43 had the nomination wrapped up by now. So did McCain.

They operated under a different system for distributing delegates.

 

[elvis]

To the OP.

So what?

Santorum doesn't have to win. All he has to do is keep Romnuts from getting a majority. Then we have to get a brokered convention where MAYBE the GOP has an attack of good sense and realizes Romney is a terrible idea.

I mean, more than likely Romney is going to be the nominee, and Obama will win by a bigger margin than he did in 2008.

So if you're Santorum, and you have your eyes on 2016, why not keep at it as long as possible?

You think that at a convention the GOP will pick someone that women can't stand?

Santorum can't even get the Catholic vote. Even Tea Party members are starting to find their way to Romney's camp. All Santorum can give is evangelicals and southerners. And the GOP has the south no matter who the nominee is.

No way will the convention give Santorum the nod. The GOP would be in ruins. Not just the shambles they're in now. Ruins.


Romney got out in 2008 and gracefully stood behind McCain when he saw the writing on the wall even though it was still theoretically possible for him to get the numbers. Wish Santorum and Gingrich had that kind of grace.

If Gingrich drops out, many of his delegates will go to Santorum.

 

[saveliberty]

Paul might get to broker an interesting deal.

 

[boilermaker55]

Please do not take any of the republican candidates in a light-hearted manner. Push to get out and vote in your communities so that we have voters who really know and care about the real issues.
Let me remind you of what happened in year 2000 and how some feel he won the election.
Governor George W. Bush of Texas was certified the 43rd President of the United States by Florida officials yesterday in one of the closest elections in U.S. history, and gay voters helped elect him by clear margins.

 

[elvis]

Again I have to be the one to say it - Frothy is a ******* joke!

Did anyone ever seriously think he was going to be the nom? He'dve been blown out by Goldwaterian proportions.

It doesn't speak well for the Republic party that he's gotten as far as he has.

Out of curiosity, do we have any Santorum fans here? I don't recall hearing a whole lot of positive sentiment about him from anywhere along the USMB spectrum.

There's too much offensive language on this board to attract Santorum fans.

Interesting observation.

My point is most Santorum supporters couldn't handle it.

 

[JoeB131]

Again I have to be the one to say it - Frothy is a ******* joke!

Did anyone ever seriously think he was going to be the nom? He'dve been blown out by Goldwaterian proportions.

It doesn't speak well for the Republic party that he's gotten as far as he has.

Out of curiosity, do we have any Santorum fans here? I don't recall hearing a whole lot of positive sentiment about him from anywhere along the USMB spectrum.

I've had more than a few kind things to say about Santorum.

But anyone who uses the word "Frothy" isn't capable of a rational evaluation.

Here's the thing, 45% of the electorate describes itself as "conservative" while only 21% of them describe themselves as liberal. So this canard that someone can't win unless he's a "moderate" is just sort of laughable.

I think Santorum would be a stronger candidate for the same reasons Huckabee might have been. They look like the guys you work with, not the guys who lay you off. The GOP needs to get back in touch with working folks if it's going to have a future, and not just hope, "Hey, maybe we can distract them by talking about the gays". Santorum would be the right direction, Romney is the wrong direction.

I don't think either one has much of a chance of beating Obama, because Obama is just too well entrenched.

Yes, Goldwater lost by a big margin, but four years later, Nixon won by echoing a lot of the same themes. Four years after that, he won 49 states. Eight years after that, Reagan won two landslides.

 

[JoeB131]

[You think that at a convention the GOP will pick someone that women can't stand?

which women? I've never heard women say anything bad about Santorum who weren't already inclined to vote for someone else.

Santorum can't even get the Catholic vote. Even Tea Party members are starting to find their way to Romney's camp. All Santorum can give is evangelicals and southerners. And the GOP has the south no matter who the nominee is.

But Romney can't win in the Midwest. He lost Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, and only won razor thin margins in Ohio and Michigan after outspending Santorum something like 10-1.

Sorry, Mr. "I like to be able to fire people" ain't gonna play in the Rust Belt with the beating we've taken here in the last decade.

Romney got out in 2008 and gracefully stood behind McCain when he saw the writing on the wall even though it was still theoretically possible for him to get the numbers. Wish Santorum and Gingrich had that kind of grace.

Again, there's no good reason for them to. They know the only reason why Romney is getting support is because 1) He can outspend them and 2) the Establishment is playing every trick they can to get this slug across the finish line.

I think this is probably Newt's last hurrah, but Santorum can position himself well for 2016.

Here's more to the point. If you had told me in September that Romney was going to be in a death struggle with Rick Santorum in March, I'd have looked at you like you were a Ron Paul Supporter or a Flat Earther. The fact that Santorum is putting up such a fight just shows how weak Romney is.

And if he can't really put down Santorum without huge monetary advantages and negative campaigning, what the hell is he going to do against Obama? Obama will have more money, incumbancy and a media that will scream Racism if Romney says the wrong thing.

(And hey, it's not like Romney isn't a gaffe machine, is it?)

 

[Amelia]

Again I have to be the one to say it - Frothy is a ******* joke!

Did anyone ever seriously think he was going to be the nom? He'dve been blown out by Goldwaterian proportions.

It doesn't speak well for the Republic party that he's gotten as far as he has.

Out of curiosity, do we have any Santorum fans here? I don't recall hearing a whole lot of positive sentiment about him from anywhere along the USMB spectrum.

I've had more than a few kind things to say about Santorum.

But anyone who uses the word "Frothy" isn't capable of a rational evaluation.

Here's the thing, 45% of the electorate describes itself as "conservative" while only 21% of them describe themselves as liberal. So this canard that someone can't win unless he's a "moderate" is just sort of laughable.

I think Santorum would be a stronger candidate for the same reasons Huckabee might have been. They look like the guys you work with, not the guys who lay you off. The GOP needs to get back in touch with working folks if it's going to have a future, and not just hope, "Hey, maybe we can distract them by talking about the gays". Santorum would be the right direction, Romney is the wrong direction.

I don't think either one has much of a chance of beating Obama, because Obama is just too well entrenched.

Yes, Goldwater lost by a big margin, but four years later, Nixon won by echoing a lot of the same themes. Four years after that, he won 49 states. Eight years after that, Reagan won two landslides.

People like me are among the 45 percent who describe ourselves as conservative.


People like Santorum are among the what?, 15 percent?, who call people like me RINO's.


I doubt that Santorum's vision of conservatism is shared by most of the rest of us. I bet that most share my discomfort at someone who wears his religion on his sleeve to the extent that he speaks of amending the constitution to fit God's standards. (thinking of Huckabee now -- thanks so much for putting that image back into my head )

 

[JoeB131]

[
People like me are among the 45 percent who describe ourselves as conservative.


People like Santorum are among the what?, 15 percent?, who call people like me RINO's.


I doubt that Santorum's vision of conservatism is shared by most of the rest of us. I bet that most share my discomfort at someone who wears his religion on his sleeve to the extent that he speaks of amending the constitution to fit God's standards. (thinking of Huckabee now -- thanks so much for putting that image back into my head )

As a rather outspoken Atheist, I'd take a devout Catholic or an Evangelical Protestant who is honest about what he is over a Mormon who is hiding how crazy his beliefs are any day of the week.

As far as the religion thing goes, here's the thing. The day we are all in trouble is when some clever politician figures out that the central message of Christianity is not "Tax Cuts for Rich Douchebags" and is a Christian Populist.

Then you combine democratic Christians and Republican Christians on a common thread of morality.

Huckabee almost did that. Which is why the GOP Establishment went into pant-shitting terror and got behind McCain so solidly.

 

[Amelia]

[
People like me are among the 45 percent who describe ourselves as conservative.


People like Santorum are among the what?, 15 percent?, who call people like me RINO's.


I doubt that Santorum's vision of conservatism is shared by most of the rest of us. I bet that most share my discomfort at someone who wears his religion on his sleeve to the extent that he speaks of amending the constitution to fit God's standards. (thinking of Huckabee now -- thanks so much for putting that image back into my head )

As a rather outspoken Atheist, I'd take a devout Catholic or an Evangelical Protestant who is honest about what he is over a Mormon who is hiding how crazy his beliefs are any day of the week.

As far as the religion thing goes, here's the thing. The day we are all in trouble is when some clever politician figures out that the central message of Christianity is not "Tax Cuts for Rich Douchebags" and is a Christian Populist.

Then you combine democratic Christians and Republican Christians on a common thread of morality.

Huckabee almost did that. Which is why the GOP Establishment went into pant-shitting terror and got behind McCain so solidly.

abalone.

Huckabee never got any momentum because he wasn't a conservative in any way except for the social issues.

If he had actually governed as a conservative in Arkansas maybe there would be a way to measure how much religion factored into the "establishment" not supporting him. But it just wasn't an issue. His base was the anti-Mormon wing. And that was pretty much it.

 

[JoeB131]

abalone.

Huckabee never got any momentum because he wasn't a conservative in any way except for the social issues.

If he had actually governed as a conservative in Arkansas maybe there would be a way to measure how much religion factored into the "establishment" not supporting him. But it just wasn't an issue. His base was the anti-Mormon wing. And that was pretty much it.

Huckabee never got any momentum because after he won Iowa, the entire GOP establishmetn threw everything they had at him. And this was a guy who ran on a shoestring budget and was carrying his own luggage, and got more votes than Romney who spent 100 million dollars.

And in the end, the only reason he didn't run this year was because Fox paid him a huge bribe not to run.

He was outpolling ROmney last May, but hey, who hasn't outpolled Romney at some point? Ebola Virus would outpoll Romney if it were on the ballot.

More to the point, if there is an "anti-Mormon" wing of the GOP, isn't nominating a Mormon kind of, um, well, stupid?

"Wow. We showed those Anti-Mormons! We shoved Romney down their throats and they had to suck it, bitches!"

"Um... yeah. But Obama won by a bigger margin than he did in 2008, retook the house and retained the Senate."

"but we sure showed them, didn't we?"

 

[Amelia]

abalone.

Huckabee never got any momentum because he wasn't a conservative in any way except for the social issues.

If he had actually governed as a conservative in Arkansas maybe there would be a way to measure how much religion factored into the "establishment" not supporting him. But it just wasn't an issue. His base was the anti-Mormon wing. And that was pretty much it.

Huckabee never got any momentum because after he won Iowa, the entire GOP establishmetn threw everything they had at him. And this was a guy who ran on a shoestring budget and was carrying his own luggage, and got more votes than Romney who spent 100 million dollars.

And in the end, the only reason he didn't run this year was because Fox paid him a huge bribe not to run.

He was outpolling ROmney last May, but hey, who hasn't outpolled Romney at some point? Ebola Virus would outpoll Romney if it were on the ballot.

More to the point, if there is an "anti-Mormon" wing of the GOP, isn't nominating a Mormon kind of, um, well, stupid?

"Wow. We showed those Anti-Mormons! We shoved Romney down their throats and they had to suck it, bitches!"

"Um... yeah. But Obama won by a bigger margin than he did in 2008, retook the house and retained the Senate."

"but we sure showed them, didn't we?"

What? We should bow to the anti-Mormon wing?


Huckabee was not a conservative. Not even by the standards of 2008. Forget about today's standards.


This is independent of Romney who is of course unpopular for many reasons apart from his religion. Suggesting that the right direction to go is toward people who can't figure out the difference between religion and politics just makes no sense.

 

[JoeB131]

What? We should bow to the anti-Mormon wing?

because - 1) Maybe we have a point about cults started by child molestors and 2) You really can't win without us.

Case in point. The GOP has for decades ridden on pandering to the religious right. It just has. Hasn't really delivered on many of their issues, but they've pandered to them. BUsh-43 played the anti-gay card and thought he had a mandate to privatize social security.

Huckabee was not a conservative. Not even by the standards of 2008. Forget about today's standards.

I think it depends on how you define Conservative, doesn't it? Conservative has come to mean, "Let Multi-National Corporations rape the country, as long as out buddies on Wall Street make out like bandits, all is right in the world". So yeah, thankfully, Huck wasn't THAT kind of Conservative, and thank the God I don't beleive in for that.

That kind of "Conservative" will make us all socialists, because when you get done destroying the middle class, we'll all be on welfare and food stamps, and just keep voting for more government. No one watches his children starve on a principle.

This is independent of Romney who is of course unpopular for many reasons apart from his religion. Suggesting that the right direction to go is toward people who can't figure out the difference between religion and politics just makes no sense.

Yes, Romney is unpopular for a bunch of reasons. And you'll nominate him anyway. Um, why again?

To many people, their religion is what they do every day. Politics is what they do once every four years.

Now, as I said, I'm an atheist. Rejected religion as a very young man. I dislike Mormonism for completely different reasons than the Evangelicals do.

Mormonism holds that all other Churches are an "abomination" and "of the Devil". Sorry, if I did take one of those things seriously, I would take great offense to that.

So Romney can invoke the spirit of JFK and talk about tolerance and understanding, but the lines are drawn, and he's on the wrong side of them.

 

[Amelia]

I'll nominate him for competence in the areas I care most about and for not being an extremist in the areas I don't want government to mess around in.

Romney may not be the answer, but Santorum sure isn't. Santorum and Rush have shredded what was left of the dignity of the Republican party. We are in trouble. It's going to take something like the Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare to give us the issues back, and then the Republicans will probably find some way to blow that advantage again.









Can I put in a wake-up call for 2016?

 

[JoeB131]

I'll nominate him for competence in the areas I care most about and for not being an extremist in the areas I don't want government to mess around in.

Romney may not be the answer, but Santorum sure isn't. Santorum and Rush have shredded what was left of the dignity of the Republican party. We are in trouble. It's going to take something like the Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare to give us the issues back, and then the Republicans will probably find some way to blow that advantage again.

Can I put in a wake-up call for 2016?

If the GOP doesn't work it out, they'll have the same problem in 2016.

A couple of points.

1) If what you care about is the economy, I don't see Romney as the answer. Romney and people like him are part of the problem. The dismantling of the middle class and the de-industrialization of America (which I think BOTH parties have culpability in) are not something he is able to address or even fully understands. He's benefited from the state of affairs, the rest of us haven't.

2) ObamaCare (and RomneyCare) are a bad idea, because they don't address the problem. The problem is health costs are spiralling out of control. Instead of addressing that issue, OC/RC just spread out the pain by getting more contributors. I don't see it as a "freedom" issue, which is how some people have preceived it. I see it as a resources issue. Do you let the terminally ill rich person die while saving the life of the poor person suffering from a treatable ailment?

3) I'm an atheist, but even as an atheist, I can see how the disintegration of the family and traditional values has weakened us as a country. 40% of children are born out of wedlock. the Divorce rate is at 50%. Again, I blame both sides for these problems. The left for denigrating the notion of traditional familes and trying to make government a surrogate. The right for dismantling the middle class.


Now, practically, I think the GOP will probably retake the presidency in 2016. The Democrats will have a thin bench and Jeb Bush is out there with the first Hispanic First Lady in waiting. What happens beyond his two terms? Well, by then I'll be 62 and maybe won't care that much.

 

[saveliberty]

Been kicking this around today. Paul is the power broker here. No one wants to give Gingrich anything. So, Santorum and Romney have to get votes somewhere. Romney isn't going to want Santorum as VP. Paul could get the nod.

 

[Avatar4321]

Romney is Obama light. In fact, he is worse, because Congress would support him. Even Democrats, due to the liberal tax and spend views Romney holds. Better to have gridlock for four more years.

I understand thats what you think, but Ive really seen no evidence that Romney is a tax and spend liberal. Quite the opposite. He has a record of opposing tax increases and balancing budgets. Romneycare is obviously the one exception which I see as an outlier with the evidence I have before me.