Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That Rick Santorum?

Also, Herman Cain fell behind Jon Huntsman, "no preference", and "other".

Good job handling those sexual assault allegations, Herman.

That said, I'm a bit depressed that Bachmann carried 5%, she, or at least the persona she assumes, is a moron.

Not that Rick "you should be imprisoned for having the wrong kind of consensual sex with your spouse" Santorum is much better than Bachmann.

I'm not sure whether I'm more pleased or despressed by this. Pleased that the GOP might seriously put forward someone totally unelectable, or depressed that such a bigoted jackanapes is supported by so many other bigots.

I don't remember if I posted this, or deleted on consideration but Santorum and Bachmann are the only two people that I could not tolerate being in office.

Which is to say, I would devote myself to having them tarred and feathered.

I am worried and not, along the same lines as Mannahnin. I'm not too worried because crazy people can't hide their craziness for long among reasonable folks -- but I am worried because these crazies haven't hidden much; at least not the things that I would want to hide if I was a crazy person running for office.

Honestly, based on my knowledge of political history, which I will delve into after I've slept off the "Primary Party" fun, tells me that Romney has it.

He's held strong where challengers have fluctuated, and really only Paul is left if the numbers are to be believed.

The idea that Ron Paul is less crazy than Santorum or Bachman is, in my eyes, an illusion.

Did you hear Ron Pauls sound bite today.
"do you see yourself as President"
"no"
Even he doesn't see himself as a legitimate candidate.

I have to admit that when I saw the news about Santorum I was a little surprised. Anomaly? I agree that Romney has it so I suppose the question is whether this is going to have to make him hitch his VP wagon to Santorum or not. Little early to say, but I really couldn't predicted his placing as he did.

I know the media places great faith in Iowa as a king maker. But the Iowa caucus controls 7 of the 1100 delegates needed to win nomination and represents a 95% white state that defintly doesn't represent the electablility of a candidate in the Presidential election.

Didn't Cain kind of like drop out?

halonachos wrote:Didn't Cain kind of like drop out?

Yes, but it's fun to mock him for stupidly placing himself on the national scene.

While I am no the biggest fan of Romney, I do think that he has the best chance out of the pack in a general election.

So while people are saying Ron Paul may be the crazier of the candidates. Have you considered that crazy is perhaps what the people want or the country feels it needs?

The pendulum swung hard to the whacky left with Obama, chances are it will swing hard to the whacky right with Paul.

Just an idea. Odds are stacked against him though, but his numbers for support this year are much much higher than they were 4 years ago. So who knows.

The Republican party has for quite awhile had a precident of saying "oh it's so and so's turn." and then there is the nomination. Sad but true, this is how McCain was picked, and why Romney looks like the likely choice. Because it would be Romneys "turn."

I don't think that Romney is the likely choice because it's "his turn." If the Republicans had a more electable candidate it wouldn't matter two gaks whose "turn" it was. The trouble is that they don't have a more electable candidate -- certainly not Ron Paul. For another thing, Obama is a long way from "wacky left;" it takes a radically right-polarized rhetoric to paint him as anything but an establishment centrist. But a radically right-polarized rhetoric is exactly what characterizes the tenor of public life in America today, I won't deny it.

I think that with luck and money, any of the republican candidates could theoretically under perfect conditions pull off a win.

Romney is the republicans' best choice because he can do it under normal conditions.

Manchu wrote:I don't think that Romney is the likely choice because it's "his turn." If the Republicans had a more electable candidate it wouldn't matter two gaks whose "turn" it was. The trouble is that they don't have a more electable candidate -- certainly not Ron Paul. For another thing, Obama is a long way from "wacky left;" it takes a radically right-polarized rhetoric to paint him as anything but an establishment centrist. But a radically right-polarized rhetoric is exactly what characterizes the tenor of public life in America today, I won't deny it.

Thats your opinion. Many do in fact view Obama as "wacky left." Many more view him as "incompetent."

Remember, an incumbent election is not about the new candidate. Its always a referendum about the incumbent.

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:I don't think that Romney is the likely choice because it's "his turn." If the Republicans had a more electable candidate it wouldn't matter two gaks whose "turn" it was. The trouble is that they don't have a more electable candidate -- certainly not Ron Paul. For another thing, Obama is a long way from "wacky left;" it takes a radically right-polarized rhetoric to paint him as anything but an establishment centrist. But a radically right-polarized rhetoric is exactly what characterizes the tenor of public life in America today, I won't deny it.

Thats your opinion. Many do in fact view Obama as "wacky left." Many more view him as "incompetent."

Remember, an incumbent election is not about the new candidate. Its always a referendum about the incumbent.

Right, but since the predominant belief about obama is actually not that he's wacky left. The bulk of regular people who aren't in the fringe fall more into the "obama is meh" category, in which case the correct play is to bring in someone with a safer more fatherly vibe, not someone who is going to look insane next to him and help him seem like the safe choice.

Running against the incumbent with a radical position always makes the incumbent look safe by comparison. The whole "obama is evil" narrative is not reliable enough to win an entire election.

Santorum's success is both novel and depressing, but it bears mentioning that he basically hit up every single door in Iowa, personally campaigning in something like 90 counties.

That sort of pace, in my opinion, is simply not one that can be sustained. And as the caucuses progress to less religiously-right states, his second-coming-of-christ act is going to have less impact.

I think he's peaked, and Huntsman might finally get a chance to shine a bit brighter.

sourclams wrote:Santorum's success is both novel and depressing, but it bears mentioning that he basically hit up every single door in Iowa, personally campaigning in something like 90 counties.

That sort of pace, in my opinion, is simply not one that can be sustained. And as the caucuses progress to less religiously-right states, his second-coming-of-christ act is going to have less impact.

I think he's peaked, and Huntsman might finally get a chance to shine a bit brighter.

I agree, but in theory, this could net him a lot of money and people that he could use to develop a real national campaign.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:I don't think that Romney is the likely choice because it's "his turn." If the Republicans had a more electable candidate it wouldn't matter two gaks whose "turn" it was. The trouble is that they don't have a more electable candidate -- certainly not Ron Paul. For another thing, Obama is a long way from "wacky left;" it takes a radically right-polarized rhetoric to paint him as anything but an establishment centrist. But a radically right-polarized rhetoric is exactly what characterizes the tenor of public life in America today, I won't deny it.

Thats your opinion. Many do in fact view Obama as "wacky left." Many more view him as "incompetent."

Remember, an incumbent election is not about the new candidate. Its always a referendum about the incumbent.

Right, but since the predominant belief about obama is actually not that he's wacky left. .

Predominant belief by who? You?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Running against the incumbent with a radical position always makes the incumbent look safe by comparison. The whole "obama is evil" narrative is not reliable enough to win an entire election.

No, they just run on the "Obama is incompetent and can't get you a job," platform and win.

Rented Tritium wrote:I agree, but in theory, this could net him a lot of money and people that he could use to develop a real national campaign.

Yeah, very true, but he still "didn't win" Iowa and he's got so little organization in place that New Hampshire is likely too soon to allow him to really capitalize on cash inflows. I think he loses momentum.

I have a feeling Obama will become our generations Carter. The WTF were we thinking one term president. Not nearly as wacky but hey you can't win them all.
I'm waiting for the religious right to trot out some gem like a black president signals the coming of the apocalypse, it's in the bible. And watching some of the candidates try to twist that into something that's not racist while thy pander to their favorite demographic.

sourclams wrote:Santorum's success is both novel and depressing, but it bears mentioning that he basically hit up every single door in Iowa, personally campaigning in something like 90 counties.

That sort of pace, in my opinion, is simply not one that can be sustained. And as the caucuses progress to less religiously-right states, his second-coming-of-christ act is going to have less impact.

I think he actually hit all 99, which helped a bunch given the relatively low turnout in the caucuses.

sourclams wrote:I think he's peaked, and Huntsman might finally get a chance to shine a bit brighter.

He is, admittedly, the next candidate to peak as the "not Romney" candidate. Time will tell if Santorum can retain that momentum.

I don't think Huntsman will ever really get a chance to shine. His support has always been low and he didn't participate in a some debates because of it. Now that we're past Iowa, it's unlikely that we'll see the large shifts of support from one candidate to another.

AustonT wrote:I have a feeling Obama will become our generations Carter.

I don't think that's likely simply because Obama doesn't have Carter's abject failures in the Middle East.

sourclams wrote:

AustonT wrote:I have a feeling Obama will become our generations Carter.

I don't think that's likely simply because Obama doesn't have Carter's abject failures in the Middle East.

(Looks at Egypt and Iran. )
"we'll see....we'll see..."

Frazzled wrote:Many do in fact view Obama as "wacky left."

Yeah, there's a lot of nuts out there.

But Obama's still more popular than the republican candidates.

Rick Santorum was my local Representative when I lived in Pittsburgh. The thing Santorum has done well in his political career is pandering to the ultra right wing. Which not coincidentally don't like Romney. Everyone remember Howard Dean? Same thing on the other side of the spectrum, and we see how that ended for him.

Note that I say "pander" because I was told by someone who was in position to know that Rick's personal politics have...evolved since he was a younger man. Which was obviously a fairly astute career move. Figure he rose from being the junior Senator from PA to what, the #3 man in the Senate at his career peak? Obviously the miscalculation was that he grew far too conservative for a purple state like PA, and got his butt booted outta office.

Also note that I'm not saying this phenomenon is exactly exclusive to Santorum, LOL.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Many do in fact view Obama as "wacky left."

Yeah, there's a lot of nuts out there.

But Obama's still more popular than the republican candidates.

We'll see won't we.

No need to worry. Just replace Santorum with "Not Mitt" and you have a better feel for who voted for him.

I would be surprised if Santorum even comes close in New Hampshire, and probably doesn't do great anywhere else.

Rented Tritium wrote:The whole "obama is evil" narrative is not reliable enough to win an entire election.

That depends on where his approval ratings ends up, but you're probably right.

Frazzled wrote:
(Looks at Egypt and Iran. )
"we'll see....we'll see..."

How many American citizens did Egypt and Iran take hostage?