January 24, 201214 yr He's not losing his Republican votes is my point. It's fine though, because Santorum wont be winning the ticket anyways. He's easily the least practical candidate to stand up to Obama. Read your own post. It's only Republicans in most primaries, so the first sentence sounds like it'd be referring to a general election. And the second paragraphs talks about the general election. Not losing any votes and not losing significant votes changes things; I might agree with the latter, but not the former. I have no idea whether it's a great damage or not. What you meant and what your post said/implied can be different things, and it's not "bulls***" if I didn't figure out what you really meant if you don't state it clearly. But whatever.
January 24, 201214 yr He's not losing his Republican votes is my point. It's fine though, because Santorum wont be winning the ticket anyways. He's easily the least practical candidate to stand up to Obama. Read your own post. It's only Republicans in most primaries, so the first sentence sounds like it'd be referring to a general election. And the second paragraphs talks about the general election. Not losing any votes and not losing significant votes changes things; I might agree with the latter, but not the former. I have no idea whether it's a great damage or not. What you meant and what your post said/implied can be different things, and it's not "bulls***" if I didn't figure out what you really meant if you don't state it clearly. But whatever. You think I haven't? He's not losing his votes. As in, the ones that are currently voting for him. How does that imply anything to do with the General Election? I even followed such a statement up by saying 'it's fine though, because Santorum wont be winning the ticket anyways'. So... regardless of whether or not he's losing votes from his words, it doesn't matter because he wont get enough votes to win the bid. Your interpretation of my words are your own. Do not tell me what my implications are. If you've got a problem interpreting something, ask.
January 24, 201214 yr you guys are cute. I must have missed Chris Christie ripping Gingrich the other day, that is pretty strong stuff right there - from the guy who a lot of republicans were hoping would run.
January 24, 201214 yr None of that Santorum stuff is really new. I think most GOP voters already know where he stands on those issues, so I expect their impact on his fate to be negligible. He will be more impacted by the "electability" argument; a lot of voters like to back the frontrunners. My point exactly.
January 25, 201214 yr He's not losing his Republican votes is my point. It's fine though, because Santorum wont be winning the ticket anyways. He's easily the least practical candidate to stand up to Obama. Read your own post. It's only Republicans in most primaries, so the first sentence sounds like it'd be referring to a general election. And the second paragraphs talks about the general election. Not losing any votes and not losing significant votes changes things; I might agree with the latter, but not the former. I have no idea whether it's a great damage or not. What you meant and what your post said/implied can be different things, and it's not "bulls***" if I didn't figure out what you really meant if you don't state it clearly. But whatever. You think I haven't? He's not losing his votes. As in, the ones that are currently voting for him. How does that imply anything to do with the General Election? I even followed such a statement up by saying 'it's fine though, because Santorum wont be winning the ticket anyways'. So... regardless of whether or not he's losing votes from his words, it doesn't matter because he wont get enough votes to win the bid. Your interpretation of my words are your own. Do not tell me what my implications are. If you've got a problem interpreting something, ask. What your POST implies. You weren't clear, but you'll never admit it. Either way, I will speak of it no further. I said good day!
January 26, 201214 yr He only wants to police the world! I'm so conservative, I want to police the moon.
January 27, 201214 yr Neither Newt nor Mitt can really make a legitimate case against the Affordable Care Act without leaving themselves open to accusations of flip-floppery. Obama couldn't be luckier that these two are the front runners.
January 27, 201214 yr Neither Newt nor Mitt can really make a legitimate case against the Affordable Care Act without leaving themselves open to accusations of flip-floppery. Obama couldn't be luckier that these two are the front runners. So true.. the fact that the issue will be completely off the table, for the most part, is very disappointing.
January 27, 201214 yr Santorum's actually done a fair job at trying to distinguish himself from Newt & Romney, I'm still sort of confused as to why he doesn't get more support from the rank & file republicans. But then I'm probably not the best judge of GOP voters.
January 27, 201214 yr Santorum never had anything running for him. If he's preaching what they're preaching he's going to lose because he's the least charismatic of all four of them (he's very... Ray Romano awkward). Only shot he's got is the same sense of Ron Paul, preaching extreme points and getting extreme voters on board. Except his extreme points are way out right, so he also would stand up poorest in the general election (that he'd never win). Just my take.
January 27, 201214 yr Mitt beat Newt tonight and Santorum's good showing will take some of Newt's votes, which means Mitt won even more. I think Mitt wins comfortably in Florida which will pretty much seal the nomination for him. You look at the upcoming primaries/caucuses (Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Arizona, Michigan), and theres a good chance he wins all of those no matter if he wins Florida or not... so if he gets Florida, I think the momentum will be hard to overcome. Atleast I hope so. The in-party fighting needs to come to an end ASAP.
January 27, 201214 yr The in fight only supports Ron Paul and Barack Obama. Keep it going, if you ask me.
January 27, 201214 yr well that's true... charismatic Rick is not. eh nevermind, I'm reaching. Guy's a loon.
January 27, 201214 yr Paul is capable of taking enough caucuses and Sanctorum enough bible belt states to perhaps prevent a majority - but I doubt it. I was pretty confident this sh*t was over after New Hampshire. Newt lives by the debate, if he is going to lose them then he is done.
January 27, 201214 yr No, he's not. But I'd rather have my viewpoints or more of the same. Plus, I value social ideals more than I value economic ideals.
January 27, 201214 yr I'm starting to get the feeling we could be headed for a very interesting GOP Convention later this year. The battle lines are being drawn between the establishment people who support Romney, and the crazier people who are voting for Gingrich because I guess they had selective amnesia and forgot the entire 1990s? Not to say that Romney is better, but Gingrich? Seriously?
January 28, 201214 yr No, he's not. But I'd rather have my viewpoints or more of the same. Plus, I value social ideals more than I value economic ideals. I value the idea that social ideals are immediately discarded once the economic clusterf*** calls survival into question.
February 8, 201214 yr Rick Santorum takes Missouri and Minnesota, he & Romney are neck & neck early in Colorado.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.