Would Santorum Have Beaten Obama?

Einzige said:

Right, but you're not very smart, so it comes off more like you're simply rambling into the æther.

Click to expand...

You might want to save your evaluation of my intelligence until you get to know me a bit better ~

you caught me stoned, drunk, a pint low of blood (health thang) and on a new 'scrip for something else.

I came to have some fun,
play with others,
learn about the world, around me,
and the folks that inhabit it.

What can I say?

Life is surprising!

mak2 said:

I think the far right wing is dying, and the tea party brought this death about even more quickly. Santorum would have lost even by even more. Romney was an attempt to swing a bit left. Fail.

Click to expand...

JUst 2 years ago it was liberals and democrats dying. I would not be so quick to write that obituary.

Einzige said:

I don't give a good Goddamn about your concept of "Constitutionalism"; I don't want nutjobs holding the reigns of power.

Click to expand...

Can't blame you for ^THAT,^ pal!

And that was some fancy footwork, I MUST say,
getting us on the same page,
in the middle of our Big, Fat argument!

NOICE!

I did not hear about that. I think the Republicans are dying due to the country and the world changing at a rapid rate, and by definition, conservatives refuse to.

Redress said:

JUst 2 years ago it was liberals and democrats dying. I would not be so quick to write that obituary.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

Saw this question asked on TV today, and it got me thinking. There are a number of ways that a Santorum campaign would have significantly differed from a Romney campaign, and would have been the "true conservative" the far right was clammoring for. How likely do you think a Santorum win would have been if he had gotten the nomination?

Click to expand...

First off, santorum is far from the "true conservative" definition. He was a fraud, like most of the other "conservatives" who were presented there.

Second. No, he had no chance because he has:

a) the face of a pedophile
b) the charisma and stage prestige of a child who repeated 3rd grade 4times.
c) no plan what so ever.

Rainman05 said:

First off, santorum is far from the "true conservative" definition. He was a fraud, like most of the other "conservatives" who were presented there.

Second. No, he had no chance because he has:

a) the face of a pedophile
b) the charisma and stage prestige of a child who repeated 3rd grade 4times.
c) no plan what so ever.

Click to expand...

You forgot that he was the American christian equivalent of the taliban.

Rainman05 said:

First off, santorum is far from the "true conservative" definition. He was a fraud, like most of the other "conservatives" who were presented there.

Second. No, he had no chance because he has:

a) the face of a pedophile
b) the charisma and stage prestige of a child who repeated 3rd grade 4times.
c) no plan what so ever.

Click to expand...

How do you define "true conservative" and who do you think is a true conservative alternative?

Redress said:

How do you define "true conservative" and who do you think is a true conservative alternative?

Click to expand...

Huntsman seemed to be the closest to a true conservative in modern times. Ron Paul is a libertarian, and although libertarianism has the conservative side of economics, it is the liberal social policies that stretch his definition. But he is a conservative too.

I just want to point out that you are the one who used in the OP the term "true conservative". I was just pointing out that said term is incorrect here. Why? Because republican =/= conservative. These are not interchangeable terms.

I voted for Santorum in the primary but he would have lost to Obama in the general.

What Republicans don't seem to realize is their biggest problem is making enemies out of large voting blocks by vilifying them both during the campaigns and thanks to the pundits,talk radio hosts and bloggers; all the time campaign or not. Its going to be impossible for any candidate to gain the support of voters if the political culture of the side they represent is making them out to be horrible people who are the problem with the country. In the case of Santorum, he essentially drove younger female voters, their male companions and relatives and some older female votes away from the GOP. I personally think his impassioned position on contraceptive coverage along with Rush Limbaugh's slut designation and the rape positions by GOP candidates for other offices painted a picture of the GOP in a broader sense that hurt Mitt Romney by party association, let alone if Santorum himself had won the nomination. Sorry but you cannot win the Whitehouse with just middle-ages and older white males who own their own businesses.

Smeagol said:

I voted for Santorum in the primary but he would have lost to Obama in the general.

What Republicans don't seem to realize is their biggest problem is making enemies out of large voting blocks by vilifying them both during the campaigns and thanks to the pundits,talk radio hosts and bloggers; all the time campaign or not. Its going to be impossible for any candidate to gain the support of voters if the political culture of the side they represent is making them out to be horrible people who are the problem with the country. In the case of Santorum, he essentially drove younger, their male companions and relatives and some older female votes away from the GOP. I personally think his impassioned position contraceptive coverage along with Rush Limbaugh's slut designation and the rape positions by GOP candidates for other offices painted a picture of the GOP in a broader sense that hurt Mitt Romney by party association, let alone if Santorum himself had won the nomination. Sorry but you cannot win the Whitehouse with just middle-ages and older white males who own their own businesses.

Click to expand...

Nobody can run against Santa Claus and win. The MSM will always portray the republicant candidate as the Grinch, and the demorat as Santa. As long as the myth of debt is OK, taxes are bad (except on "the rich") and all federal gov't spending is needed we will continue to become Greece. However, unlike Greece, we are way too big to bail. USA, USA, USA...

Rainman05 said:

Huntsman seemed to be the closest to a true conservative in modern times. Ron Paul is a libertarian, and although libertarianism has the conservative side of economics, it is the liberal social policies that stretch his definition. But he is a conservative too.

I just want to point out that you are the one who used in the OP the term "true conservative". I was just pointing out that said term is incorrect here. Why? Because republican =/= conservative. These are not interchangeable terms.

Click to expand...

You have not defined what a true conservative is to you. In using the term in the OP, I am referring to what several on this board have referred to. As a liberal it is probably best if I do not try and define the term for conservatives.

Redress said:

Saw this question asked on TV today, and it got me thinking. There are a number of ways that a Santorum campaign would have significantly differed from a Romney campaign, and would have been the "true conservative" the far right was clammoring for. How likely do you think a Santorum win would have been if he had gotten the nomination?

Click to expand...

Santorum would have gone for the jugular... and Obama's was sitting there like a pulsating elephant trunk.

Redress said:

You have not defined what a true conservative is to you. In using the term in the OP, I am referring to what several on this board have referred to. As a liberal it is probably best if I do not try and define the term for conservatives.

Click to expand...

I don't think such a tight definition in this day and age can be made for anyone but your most partisan hacks on either side. I mean most of us just like progressives are shades ranging from fiscal/social to just fiscal and everything in between. I mean you go from fascist to bat**** insane, lol.

Blackdog said:

I don't think such a tight definition in this day and age can be made for anyone but your most partisan hacks on either side. I mean most of us just like progressives are shades ranging from fiscal/social to just fiscal and everything in between. I mean you go from fascist to bat**** insane, lol.

Click to expand...

I understand this, but the recurring theme among some of(far from all) conservative posters was that Romney was not a conservative and if a "true conservative" had run things would have been different.

Redress said:

I understand this, but the recurring theme among some of(far from all) conservative posters was that Romney was not a conservative and if a "true conservative" had run things would have been different.

Click to expand...

Romney was not a conservative by my standards either. Mainly because he was whatever he needed to be to get elected. He was not true to anything he said he stood for judging by his record vs lip service. He seemed closer to progressive ideology if you go strictly by his laws/bills passed as governor etc.

PS For clarity I don't think many conservatives here are real conservatives. Any conservative who would sacrifice freedom and equality under the law, something they are supposed to stand for as in gay marriage, abortion and gays serving openly are pretenders. They support freedom only when they agree with it. Losers the whole lot of em.

DashingAmerican said:

Not a chance, the gap would have been even larger. The only republican that was in the primaries that could've beaten Obama was Herman Cain.

Click to expand...

Cain was among the weakest candidates in the GOP field. His private-sector experience was far narrower than Governor Romney's. He had no relevant governance experience. His tax plan proved largely superficial when exposed to scrutiny. Even putting aside the personal issues that led to his departure from the GOP field, he lacked the gravitas to be competitive.

ttwtt78640 said:

Nobody can run against Santa Claus and win. The MSM will always portray the republicant candidate as the Grinch, and the demorat as Santa. As long as the myth of debt is OK, taxes are bad (except on "the rich") and all federal gov't spending is needed we will continue to become Greece. However, unlike Greece, we are way too big to bail. USA, USA, USA...

Click to expand...

I don't know if your characterization of the democrats as "Santa Claus" is the REASON people voted for Obama, especially if voters realize its their money that's being used to buy the gifts. I think you're close but not spot on. What I think won the election is Obama, not just during the campaign but throughout his Presidency was better at conveying the message that he was on their side, fighting for them, doing what he could to make their lives better, etc. It just so happened that a lot of that did in fact take the form of entitlement assistance but IMHO it not the entitlement assistance that the people gravitated to, it was having someone deeply committed to their betterment. Meanwhile, the message conveyed by Republicans even before Nov. 2008 was stop Obama by any means, carry out a vote for Hillary campaign after the GOP nomination had been secured, apply double standards in explaining why he's destroying the country, proclaim that he has a deep seeded hatred for white people, use McCarthy tactics, slam his wife for encouraging kids to develop healthy eating habits, oppose any and every legislative initiative he wants to get passed whether it was originally a republican idea or not then declare he refuses to lead and is a failure. As far as reaching out to gain greater voter support, demonize Hispanics and pass state laws making it okay to stop and interrogate anybody who looks Latino with promises of spreading similar laws to other states where the GOP is in power. Disparage the character of women who under a system where one's a employer has all the power over their employee's healthcare if they have healthcare coverage at all, if they advocate for comprehensive women's health treatment to be included.

DashingAmerican said:

Not a chance, the gap would have been even larger. The only republican that was in the primaries that could've beaten Obama was Herman Cain.

Click to expand...

Herman Cain might have had a better chance than Santorum but he would not have stood a chance against Obama.

The only one who might have remotely been able to defeat Obama and his machine would have been John Huntsman, but he would never have gotten past the radical right wackos in the GOP to get the nomination.

I think this fracture in the Republican side is the immediate problem. To run someone sane, presumedly like Romney, you anger the tea party and the fundamentalist, then the party is too fractured to run an effective campaign. I really beleive Aiken and Mordouch (tea party conservatives) cost Romney the election along with the 47% comment. I think that woke a lot of people up to what the right wing currently stands for.

PeteEU said:

Herman Cain might have had a better chance than Santorum but he would not have stood a chance against Obama.

The only one who might have remotely been able to defeat Obama and his machine would have been John Huntsman, but he would never have gotten past the radical right wackos in the GOP to get the nomination.

Click to expand...

Blackdog said:

Romney was not a conservative by my standards either. Mainly because he was whatever he needed to be to get elected. He was not true to anything he said he stood for judging by his record vs lip service. He seemed closer to progressive ideology if you go strictly by his laws/bills passed as governor etc.

PS For clarity I don't think many conservatives here are real conservatives. Any conservative who would sacrifice freedom and equality under the law, something they are supposed to stand for as in gay marriage, abortion and gays serving openly are pretenders. They support freedom only when they agree with it. Losers the whole lot of em.

Click to expand...

Thank God, only 3% or so are of this philosophy...Its is something we will have to live with. Hopefully, the 3% will shrink in the future.
I may well be wrong about the 3%, in reality, its much higher...And as our nation grows and slowly becomes civilized, that percentage will continue to shrink.
2012
Santorum - 40%
Obama - 60%
1912
Santorum - 60%
Obama - 40%
JMO

mak2 said:

I think this fracture in the Republican side is the immediate problem. To run someone sane, presumedly like Romney, you anger the tea party and the fundamentalist, then the party is too fractured to run an effective campaign. I really beleive Aiken and Mordouch (tea party conservatives) cost Romney the election along with the 47% comment. I think that woke a lot of people up to what the right wing currently stands for.

Click to expand...

IMO, the GOP is allowing 40% to run things, unless I am totally wrong about the quantity of tea bagging conservatives.

Redress said:

You have not defined what a true conservative is to you. In using the term in the OP, I am referring to what several on this board have referred to. As a liberal it is probably best if I do not try and define the term for conservatives.

Click to expand...

A true conservative is something like Bismark was for instance. I guess that goes to the closest I can explain.

I think the establishment Republicans (1 or 2%) are actually running the party with Fox, Rush and others at the helm, and the Far Right (about 10-15%) are dragging the party to the right. The remaining are listening and belive everything in the far right blogoshpere. I was once a really really right wing conservative, and still am about a lot of issues, but the party has long since jumped the shark.

earthworm said:

IMO, the GOP is allowing 40% to run things, unless I am totally wrong about the quantity of tea bagging conservatives.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think he would have beaten Obama. Like most others I think he would have been slaughtered. He is way too far to the right socially at least. He couldn't avoid having his not-so-distant stances on so many social issues brought up that it would have killed him.

Examples: "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." —Rick Santorum, interview with CaffeinatedThoughts.com (October 2011)

The vast majority of the country thinks contraception is a good thing and he said this just over a year ago. Only a person who is very ignorant does not know that sex serves more purposes in human life than just procreation.

“Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up.” –Rick Santorum, on JFK's 1960 speech about the importance of separation of church and state (October 2011)

Just to fill people in on this speech, here is the transcript.

Transcript: JFK's Speech on His Religion : NPR

JFK wasn't even saying anything about God in school or anything of the sort. He was merely assuring other religions that his being Catholic would not lead him to basically follow the Pope or any other person/mandate from his religion in running the government, as most people feel it should be. And Santorum said he basically found this sickening.

"The reason Social Security is in big trouble is we don't have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion.” –Rick Santorum, during a Republican presidential debate (May 2011)

He just made one of the biggest and stupidest links I have ever seen that wasn't associated with a conspiracy theory.

Rick Santorum Quotes - Top 10 Crazy Rick Santorum Quotes

Most of what the guy said was about social issues. He might have gotten more, even many more social conservative voters out, but he wouldn't have gotten very many moderates or independents at all, and could have even kept some of the fiscally conservatives at home because he didn't seem to have a plan at all and seemed fiscally weak. He would have put off many women voters due to his stance, even in his own book, that women were basically better to stay in the home, raising children. He flipflopped on at least one issue, college for all (for it in 2006, but made the comment about it being snobbish this last Feb), although granted it was a very small issue. Stances on education would turn at least some away (against sex ed, wants creationism taught in public school).

And I know this isn't really important to many but he dissed comic books and studying them for cultural influences, on them and from them. He doesn't seem to understand that some of the "great" comic book writers/worlds have addressed cultural issues on a level that many children/teens are better able to relate to than huge novels that many find boring.