• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would Santorum Have Beaten Obama?

Would Santorum have Beaten Obama?

  • Total voters
    86
Is Santorum that likable? It may very well be my libertarian biases thinking for me, but he always has struck me as being an incredibly smug guy. And he reminds me of Norman Bates in his sweater-vest.
 
Einzige said:
Is Santorum that likable? It may very well be my libertarian biases thinking for me, but he always has struck me as being an incredibly smug guy. And he reminds me of Norman Bates in his sweater-vest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he was likable I think. I could not agree with him on probably any political issue, but I still think he was a pretty decent, likable guy. Certainly moreso than Romney/
 
Redress said:
A couple things to think about:

1) One of Romney's problems is that people just did not much like him. Santorum was very likable.

2) Another problem of Romney's is that he was seen as a flip flopper on issues. Santorum would not have had that problem.

3) It would have been much harder to paint Santorum as an out of touch rich guy.
Click to expand...

He may be able to be painted as an out of touch rich guy but far easier to paint as an out of control lunatic.
 
Redress said:
Santorum was very likable.
Click to expand...
'

That's debatable because for me, his comment of "babies from rape are a gift from God" made him absolutely repulsive to me along with his views of sodomy which he stated "the right to privacy doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution", and "sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts which undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family."

2) Another problem of Romney's is that he was seen as a flip flopper on issues. Santorum would not have had that problem.
Click to expand...

While Santorum wasn't a flip-flopper, extremist views (even when you don't flip flop) are still extremist views.

3) It would have been much harder to paint Santorum as an out of touch rich guy.
Click to expand...

His extremist views made him an "out of touch" guy with the rest of the country. The only people he really resonated with were other social conservatives.

I wanted him to win the GOP nomination so the right could no longer say they lose elections because they aren't conservative enough. If Santorum had gotten the nomination, the election would have been a landslide vicytory for Obama IMO.
 
Ummmm...it was Richard Mourdock who made the rape baby comment.
 
TheNextEra said:
"the right to privacy doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution", and "sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts which undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family."
Click to expand...

"There is no room for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau in regards to the 1968-1969 criminal code amendment. America seems a bit late to the party.
 
No he would not. His views are too extremist, and he would have lost by a larger margin than Romney.
 
Redress said:
A couple things to think about:

1) One of Romney's problems is that people just did not much like him. Santorum was very likable.

2) Another problem of Romney's is that he was seen as a flip flopper on issues. Santorum would not have had that problem.

3) It would have been much harder to paint Santorum as an out of touch rich guy.
Click to expand...

He is not likable. If you are an ignorant and hate filled ass, maybe you find him so.

He did flop flop, pretending to support fiscal conservatism.

Santorum is further out of touch than Romney.

Romney lost due in part to conservatives like Santorum. His edge was on economics and he may have ridden that to victory if he hadn't stepped in it on Benghazi, Jeep or had to run with the "rape Republicans.

Santorum's candidacy would have been all about his narrow minded social conservative views. Obama's edge on foreign policy would have been even bigger. Santorum would have lost by a significantly larger margin. He could not even hold on to his Senate seat.
 
Not a chance in hell. He's a man with extreme social views and no filter. The map would've been painted blue except for those areas where being a Democrat means you might as well be a serial killer when it comes to winning elections.
 
If you are on crack: Yes.
 
Redress said:
A couple things to think about:

1) One of Romney's problems is that people just did not much like him. Santorum was very likable.

2) Another problem of Romney's is that he was seen as a flip flopper on issues. Santorum would not have had that problem.

3) It would have been much harder to paint Santorum as an out of touch rich guy.
Click to expand...

Those are all true. Santorum does have some advantages over Mitt Romney. But considering what happened in Missouri and Indiana, I think a statement like this,

I believe and I think that the right approach is to accept this horribly created, in the sense of rape, but nevertheless, in a very broken way, a gift of human life, and accept what God is giving to you.
Click to expand...

could easily cause him the same troubles Akin and Mourdock had. I don't see much upside in a Rick Santorum nomination compared to Mitt Romney.
 
No, I got tired of his rants in the Debates''''' I would only have voted for Him........ if he was the top candidate .. against the Dem' candidate,,,,,,,,,, but , then I would have voted for almost anyone running against BHO............. I did say Almost..Anyone
 
No one on the Right would have beaten Obama.
 
Santorum would have been laughably destroyed against Obama.

Ans as far as him being "likeable".......

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!

He's a freak of nature whacko evangelical bible thumping extremist that would strike so much fear into most reasonable voters he'd have lost the election long before most of the western states polls even opened.

Who asks these kinds of questions?
 
I believe that Gingrich would have had the best chance had Gingrich really wanted to win. I think he was just dangling his foot for the 2016 nomination.
 
Dragonfly said:
Santorum would have been laughably destroyed against Obama.

Ans as far as him being "likeable".......

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!

He's a freak of nature whacko evangelical bible thumping extremist that would strike so much fear into most reasonable voters he'd have lost the election long before most of the western states polls even opened.

Who asks these kinds of questions?
Click to expand...

Just for accuracy, I'm the first to jump on evangelicals, but old Ricky is just a regular run of the mill bible thumping Catholic extremist.
 
Fisher said:
I believe that Gingrich would have had the best chance had Gingrich really wanted to win. I think he was just dangling his foot for the 2016 nomination.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Newt had some baggage as he had an extramarital affair, but so did Bill Clinton.
 
Santorum would have lost on the social issues primarily, as they went against Romney and he is a moderate. Economically, they would have attracted the same people. I see him as likely doing worse for those reasons.
 
Newt also has a problem of thinking he's smarter than he actually is.
 
Einzige said:
Newt also has a problem of thinking he's smarter than he actually is.
Click to expand...

....as do most politicians and the people who support them :doh
 
Fisher said:
....as do most politicians and the people who support them :doh
Click to expand...

Newt's entire selling point, since he doesn't want to remind anyone of his Speakership, is "I'm a tenured professor who wrote some alternate history books".
 
Einzige said:
Newt's entire selling point, since he doesn't want to remind anyone of his Speakership, is "I'm a tenured professor who wrote some alternate history books".
Click to expand...

I think you underestimate his cunning. He dangles his foot to find out exactly how they are going to attack him from within and without when he makes his serious run, buys himself a couple more years as a politics commentator, and then runs prepared for what is coming driving home the issues people will be concerned with--the same issues that were the basis for the Contract with America. Deficits, immigration, taxes, welfare reform, etc.--while dismissing those long ago stories about affairs and necklaces at Tiffany's.
 
Fisher said:
I think you underestimate his cunning. He dangles his foot to find out exactly how they are going to attack him from within and without when he makes his serious run, buys himself a couple more years as a politics commentator, and then runs prepared for what is coming driving home the issues people will be concerned with--the same issues that were the basis for the Contract with America. Deficits, immigration, taxes, welfare reform, etc.--while dismissing those long ago stories about affairs and necklaces at Tiffany's.
Click to expand...

I understand he thinks he's cunning. The problem is that he overrates himself as a strategist. He thinks that politics is more complicated than it actually is.
 
People overestimate the appeal of extremists. They don't have a lot of supporters, they just have very noisy ones. (because extremists, by nature, will be more fanatical about such things)

In this election we saw a pretty clear rejection of the far-right. All that stuff about rape and rape babies? Would have hung around Santorum's neck like a freaking anchor, because he's in the same place on the social issues.

Then you have that blatant play to anti-intellectualism. "Obama thinks everyone should be able to go to college... what a snob." (despite the fact that what Obama actually said was damn near word for word what Santorum himself had previously expressed) That stuff only appeals to... well, anti-intellectuals. Most of the public rolls their eyes at that kind of thing.

Dude would have gotten crushed even harder than Romney. Herman Cain? Even harder than Santorum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom