It’s called cynicism. In the meantime, Santorum is racking up the favorables. He’s not a guy who remade his political persona for a presidential run. Santorum from his Senate races is the Santorum running today. He’s had some of the best debates and debate moments.
The why and how of rights and Government
Iowa victory speech
In potential Election 2012 matchups, it?s President Obama 46% and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 45%. However, if former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the Republican nominee, the president holds an eight point lead, 49% to 41% (see tracking history). These matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Rick Santorum trails the president by two points, 46% to 44%. Ron Paul trails by three, 45% to 42%.
Moving on up.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One other interesting issue being discussed a little bit: Romney doesn’t attack Paul, and Paul doesn’t attack Romney. It’s more understandable why Romney doesn’t go after Paul (as a frontrunner, he doesn’t want to alienate potential voters), but Romney of all people - the ultimate moderate “squish” if you listen to his detractors - is completely left along by the most rigid ideologue of them all, Ron Paul.
What explains this? Surely Paul’s most natural enemy in the GOP primaries should be the quaffed, East Coast RINO who is responsible for Romneycare, but Paul has left him alone and word is they are quite friendly towards one another.
Explanation?[/quote]
I picked up on this a while ago but don’t know what to make of it. Could it be that Paul wants a cabinet post? I don’t see any other possible explanation.[/quote]
Hold on to your sweater vests…Santorumania?
In a potential Election 2012 matchup, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is at 45% while President Obama earns 44%…
…The latest daily numbers show President Obama at 47% and Romney at 43% (see tracking history).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hold on to your sweater vests…Santorumania?
In a potential Election 2012 matchup, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is at 45% while President Obama earns 44%…
…The latest daily numbers show President Obama at 47% and Romney at 43% (see tracking history).
[/quote]
Oh man this is all very bad news. Historically if you are going to defeat a sitting President you have to be up far more than any of these guys at this point in the game. Kerry was ahead of Bush (if memory serves) by over 5 pts. and we know there was never a President Kerry. I had a list somewhere with all of the recent Presidents and who the eventual nominee was and the point spread before convention time I’ll try to dig it up.
Dang why are people so eager to vote for Obama? I really don’t understand that, other than to say that the media has given him a free ride. It’s mind boggling how they hang with him though.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hold on to your sweater vests…Santorumania?
In a potential Election 2012 matchup, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is at 45% while President Obama earns 44%…
…The latest daily numbers show President Obama at 47% and Romney at 43% (see tracking history).
[/quote]
I’m curious;
Who exactly is being polled?
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hold on to your sweater vests…Santorumania?
In a potential Election 2012 matchup, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is at 45% while President Obama earns 44%…
…The latest daily numbers show President Obama at 47% and Romney at 43% (see tracking history).
[/quote]
I’m curious;
Who exactly is being polled?
Mufasa[/quote]
“The nation’s voters.” It then mentions a breakdown of said voters. For example, “Santorum gets 78% of the Republican vote and leads by ten among those not affiliated with either major party [He leads Obama in independents, in other words].”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[He leads Obama in independents, in other words]."
[/quote]
Until the media paints him as a right wing religious fanatic. All quite unfairly but that’s what they do.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[He leads Obama in independents, in other words]."
[/quote]
Until the media paints him as a right wing religious fanatic. All quite unfairly but that’s what they do.[/quote]
Well, Romney adopted Santorum social conservatism. You’re the one who has been saying it was an authentic change of heart, too. So, he’s just as susceptible.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[He leads Obama in independents, in other words]."
[/quote]
Until the media paints him as a right wing religious fanatic. All quite unfairly but that’s what they do.[/quote]
Well, Romney adopted Santorum social conservatism. You’re the one who has been saying it was an authentic change of heart, too. So, he’s just as susceptible.[/quote]
Romney is not nearly as susceptible of being attacked as a right wing religious fanatic as Santorum. As a Christian and one who has been outspoken on social conservative ideas Santorum is wide open for a broadside from the MSLM. Romney is no where near his level and we both know that. Romney will get attacked for being a Mormon and a flip-flopper and of course he is wealthy and that is pure evil. But no he’s not going to be attacked for being right wing religious fanatic.
But quite honestly I don’t think it will matter who the nominee is. I grow increasingly pessimistic about the possibility of replacing Obama. I think there will be enough number fudging, and “surprise” foreign affairs victory’s to get Obama reelected. Not to mention the slobbering over him that the MSLM will do.
Short of the US slipping into another (provable) recession this is an uphill fight for any of the top three candidates. I just hate the numbers that I’m seeing in this election so far. I will stick to my original prediction that Romney is the only man who can beat him (based on independents, women and the electoral numbers he can pull from states that usually go dem). But I don’t see it happening whomever the candidate is.
It’s an “eternity” until the election, Zeb.
A LOT can happen.
Also…my understanding is the TeaRepubs are working HARD to get a clear majority in the Senate.
Mufasa
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Romney is not nearly as susceptible of being attacked as a right wing religious fanatic as Santorum. As a Christian and one who has been outspoken on social conservative ideas Santorum is wide open for a broadside from the MSLM.[/quote]
Are you saying the media will treat a Mormon as a non-Christian? You emphasized Santorum’s Christianity (As a Christian…), as if Romney doesn’t suffer the same…‘disadvantage.’ Either way, it doesn’t insulate him from the conservative morality of his Mormon faith, specifically abortion and homosexuality.
We do? Romney has the same stance on the two above issues, remember? You’ve pointed out as much. What gives?
To heck he won’t. You just said his mormonism will be a factor. Add that to his promise to define marriage between a man and woman (as it happens to be defined in Mormonism), and bam…Religious fanatic.
Oh, I agree. Unemployment numbers keep dropping and there’s no way Obama loses on the economy. Positive news, no matter how recent, becomes a positive vibe. People get giddy, and forget the prior years. And, just how bad those years got (above the promised unemployment ceiling of 8%). Without the economy, it has to be a battle of vision. What is the role of government. What can it actually do without going bankrupt in the not so distant future. What is the cultural/social life conducive to a vision. What about economic mobility and growing income inequality?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What is the cultural/social life conducive to a vision. What about economic mobility and growing income inequality?
[/quote]
There is a great debate brewing over economic mobility and inequality, regardless of improving employment. The questions stemming from this topic produce two answers, two solutions. A further expansion of the nanny state and wealth re distribution. Or a re-evaluation and reinforcement of the intact traditional family and other social norms, morals, and institutions. If social conservatism is the answer, it had best be unashamedly argued for and defended. And quickly. If not, well, no need to replace Obama.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s an “eternity” until the election, Zeb.
A LOT can happen.
Also…my understanding is the TeaRepubs are working HARD to get a clear majority in the Senate.
Mufasa[/quote]
I’m not claiming that the republicans can’t win the Senate and keep the House. I’m just not convinced that Obama can be defeated for a multitude of reasons.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Romney is not nearly as susceptible of being attacked as a right wing religious fanatic as Santorum. As a Christian and one who has been outspoken on social conservative ideas Santorum is wide open for a broadside from the MSLM.
Are you saying the media will treat a Mormon as a non-Christian? You emphasized Santorum’s Christianity (As a Christian…), as if Romney doesn’t suffer the same…‘disadvantage.’ Either way, it doesn’t insulate him from the conservative morality of his Mormon faith, specifically abortion and homosexuality.[/quote]
I agree in fact I said he’d be attacked for being a Mormon. I can’t make it any more clear than that. But it takes a real true to the bone Christian to bring out the deep seated hate in the media and Hollywood.
[quote] Romney will get attacked for being a Mormon [and their conservative moral view on the two hot-button issues] and a flip-flopper [no doubt, there] and of course he is wealthy and that is pure evil. But no he’s not going to be attacked for being right wing religious fanatic
To heck he won’t. You just said his mormonism will be a factor. Add that to his promise to define marriage between a man and woman (as it happens to be defined in Mormonism), and bam…Religious fanatic.[/quote]
I can only tell you what I see, hear, read and and know from experience. If Rick Santorum gets the nod he’s going down for the count. He has some very weird stories that circle around him. You have heard of the fetus incident. Now don’t get me wrong I have no problem with that but by the time the media is done with him independents will be looking at him like he’s Pat Robertson’s long lost son. Step back my friend and be objective.
[quote]But quite honestly I don’t think it will matter who the nominee is. I grow increasingly pessimistic about the possibility of replacing Obama. I think there will be enough number fudging, and “surprise” foreign affairs victory’s to get Obama reelected. Not to mention the slobbering over him that the MSLM will do.
Oh, I agree. Unemployment numbers keep dropping and there’s no way Obama loses on the economy. Positive news, no matter how recent, becomes a positive vibe. People get giddy, and forget the prior years. And, just how bad those years got (above the promised unemployment ceiling of 8%). Without the economy, it has to be a battle of vision. What is the role of government. What can it actually do without going bankrupt in the not so distant future. What is the cultural/social life conducive to a vision. What about economic mobility and growing income inequality?[/quote]
I wish the average voter, and half the country that doesn’t bother to vote, realized the kind of shape this country is in. But alas they do not. And nothing will convince them that we’re in trouble. And even a mediocre economy will keep a sitting President in office especially one that the press loves.
But like I’ve said on prior occasions should Santorum be the nominee I’ll work as hard for him as I would have for Romney. I would even hold my nose and work for Gingrich who would also lose by even greater numbers to Obama than Santorum.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I can only tell you what I see, hear, read and and know from experience. If Rick Santorum gets the nod he’s going down for the count. He has some very weird stories that circle around him. You have heard of the fetus incident. Now don’t get me wrong I have no problem with that but by the time the media is done with him independents will be looking at him like he’s Pat Robertson’s long lost son. Step back my friend and be objective.
[/quote]
Oh, I would love, and I mean LOVE, for the media to try and make an issue of how they handled a premature baby’s death. THAT is one of the reasons I support him. I WANT it talked about. I WANT the Colmes and the Maddows making their little comments. I want the MSM to bring it up. They’ll ruin themselves on the issue. Their vileness would be exposed, disarming the MSM for the remainder of the election. Media careers will be ruined over the massive backlash. And Santorum? Favorables through the roof. Principled, compassionate, family man. Bring it on!
The MSM actually can overplay their hand. Up to a certain level they can make anybody look like a lunatic, but above that level comes the scale of diminishing returns as at least some people begin to tune it out as anti hype and hysteria. The mushy “middle” in other words who have no idea what is really going on and never do. I have more respect for the frothing leftists among us than I do for these politically “undecided” lobotomites that we always see in these rooms with approve/disapprove joysticks (or whatever they are) during the debates. Nauseating.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I can only tell you what I see, hear, read and and know from experience. If Rick Santorum gets the nod he’s going down for the count. He has some very weird stories that circle around him. You have heard of the fetus incident. Now don’t get me wrong I have no problem with that but by the time the media is done with him independents will be looking at him like he’s Pat Robertson’s long lost son. Step back my friend and be objective.
[/quote]
Oh, I would love, and I mean LOVE, for the media to try and make an issue of how they handled a premature baby’s death. THAT is one of the reasons I support him. I WANT it talked about. I WANT the Colmes and the Maddows making their little comments. I want the MSM to bring it up. They’ll ruin themselves on the issue. Their vileness would be exposed, disarming the MSM for the remainder of the election. Media careers will be ruined over the massive backlash. And Santorum? Favorables through the roof. Principled, compassionate, family man. Bring it on!
[/quote]
As my dear departed grandma used to say “from your lips to the good Lord’s ear.”
This season has got off to a very dirty start. But I don’t think Newt would bring up things like, oh I don’t know - the fact that as a Mormon Romney believes that anyone(including Romney) can become a god and rule over an entire planet in the afterlife. Nor will they bring up the fact that Romney’s family had his father in-law “converted” to Mormonism 14 months after he died. Yes, Romney is untouchable on his faith. The liberal media won’t touch him either. He’s socially liberal and they would apply a different standard criticising a liberal on his LDS faith. He might get a few questions about whether he believes homosexuality is a sin but there won’t be any serious scrutiny of his faith. Interesting that half those who identified as evangelical in Nevada voted Romney.