Santorum is currently ahead of Newt in Iowa polls. - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Santorum is currently ahead of Newt in Iowa polls. (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 1/1/2012 4:38:56 PM EDT

[#1]

I don't care who wins the nomination. I'll support him against Obama.

Posted: 1/1/2012 4:39:46 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Santorum will not win. It is kind of funny watching some of the people on this site jump from bandwagon to bandwagon though. First Perry, then Cain, Newt and now Santorum the theocrat.

Some people seem to think big govt is ok as long as its their kind of big govt

I've been a quiet backer of santorum since the spring of 2011 (which was the same time I joined his campaigns email list). I've looked at others since then (especially cain) but my support of them never did equal my support of santorum. This remains true to this day.

Posted: 1/1/2012 4:40:13 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
He's a good Man. However he doesn't stand a chance.

Well, I agree with the second part.

Posted: 1/1/2012 4:43:52 PM EDT

[#4]

I actually predicted the demise of Gingrich and suggested weeks ago that I wouldn't be surprised to see him finish 4th behind a "surprise" candidate.

If it's Romney/Paul/Santorum, here is the spin:

"Romney strong in Iowa; well on way to nomination. Santorum surprises"

If it's Santorum/Romney/Paul,

"Santorum shocks in Iowa; poised to challenge Romney. Paul disappoints in 3rd"

Santorum/Paul/Romney:

"Santorum shocks in Iowa; on to New Hampshire, Paul support diminishing"

If it's Paul/Romney/Santorum:

Santorum surprises in Iowa. Romney strong second.

What would really be cool is it is Paul/Santorum/Romney.

Posted: 1/1/2012 4:45:28 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
I actually predicted the demise of Gingrich and suggested weeks ago that I wouldn't be surprised to see him finish 4th behind a "surprise" candidate.

If it's Romney/Paul/Santorum, here is the spin:

"Romney strong in Iowa; well on way to nomination. Santorum surprises"

If it's Santorum/Romney/Paul,

"Santorum shocks in Iowa; poised to challenge Romney. Paul disappoints in 3rd"

Santorum/Paul/Romney:

"Santorum shocks in Iowa; on to New Hampshire, Paul support diminishing"

If it's Paul/Romney/Santorum:

Santorum surprises in Iowa. Romney strong second.

What would really be cool is it is Paul/Santorum/Romney.

It's a conspiracy!

Posted: 1/1/2012 4:45:51 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.

Um, Santorum is the Democrat/Media dream candidate, the one person besides Gingrich or Paul they would be sure Obama could beat. They already have hard-drives full of attack ads ready to go.

He wouldn't break more than 43% of the vote if nominated.

As far as dirt goes, santorum has relatively little. In regards to various attack ads....well, welcome to the big leagues. Those ads would be coming no matter who won the nomination. However, how many would actually stick to a guy like santorum verses somebody like romney or (especially) gingrich?

In short, santorum is probably our best bet (and that ain't bad). He's got more political experience than obama, he's more polished than obama, he's more intelligent (tell me....who of the two needs a teleprompter more often just to make a simple speech...obama or santorum) and, at the end of the day, more "main stream/fly-over country" americans will flock to santorum than they would to either romney or gingrich.

Posted: 1/1/2012 4:46:04 PM EDT

[#7]

A good question is why Santorum, who was resoundingly defeated as an incumbent Senator, is even on the stage when people like Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer were excluded.

Posted: 1/1/2012 4:49:59 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
A good question is why Santorum, who was resoundingly defeated as an incumbent Senator, is even on the stage when people like Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer were excluded.

Because nobody knows who the hell those two are and they never bothered to campaign.

"Libertarians" sure are good at doing the mental gymnastics that allow them to put the blame for their own failings on facist corporatism or conspiracies. Personal responsibility for everyone but themselves!

Posted: 1/1/2012 4:51:55 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

We all know it will be Romney.

I've long since accepted this truth. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

I haven't excepted it and I will refuse to except it. When Georgia has it's primary in March, I will vote for either bachmann or santorum. By then, one of them will have most likely dropped out so I'll just support the one who remains in the campaign the longest. If they are both out by then then I'll have to re-evaluate everything before I make my final decision. One thing I won't do however is allow the media (or arfcom) pundits to pick my candidate for me. In the primaries, I will support the candidate I like the most. Period. I can get pragmatic next fall but, now, I will only support those who I like and agree with the most on most issues (and I can guarantee you that WILL NOT be romney or gingrich).

Posted: 1/1/2012 4:54:41 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%20face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.

__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Sorry, man. A guy like that guarantees an Obama victory.

No it doesn't.

Posted: 1/1/2012 4:59:28 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Why do you say this?

because iowa winners don't win.

6 of the last 9 Iowa GOP winners got the eventual nomination.

6 of the last 8 Iowa Dem winners got the eventual nomination.

It has been 19 years (1992) since the eventual POTUS didn't win the Iowa Caucus (Clinton finished 3rd behind Harkin and Tsongas).

I was going by something I read here on GD!!!! I didn't bother fact checking!!!

Damn, fooled by GD again!!!

Posted: 1/1/2012 5:10:38 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%20face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Sorry, man. A guy like that guarantees an Obama victory.

No it doesn't.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

Posted: 1/1/2012 5:24:37 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
I had a feeling that Santorum would make a good showing in Iowa.

And Paul is ahead of both of them

Posted: 1/1/2012 5:33:42 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%20face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Sorry, man. A guy like that guarantees an Obama victory.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Most Americans do not want a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou theocrat to preach to them about how they should live.

The priggish "social conservatism" that worked 50 years ago is what's handing victories to Democrats. People just want to... be... left... alone. Nobody cares about the gays any more.

Santorum would get beaten like a red-headed stepchild. Too many Americans would hold their nose and vote for Obama before voting for Christian Sharia law.

Posted: 1/1/2012 5:55:18 PM EDT

[#15]

Can anyone here deny that they would get a chuckle from hearing/seeing Figgs (NRA 'A+ rated) in a presidential debate splainin' to Pres. Obama exactly what the 2nd Amendment RKBA entails beyond his (Obama's) iterations about "hunting and sporting" purposes ?

(I assume everyone here loves AR-15s and their sovereign RKBA, otherwise you wouldn't be here on ARF.com ....... right ?)

Posted: 1/1/2012 5:59:46 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I'd vote for Huckabee over Santorum, any day and twice on Sunday.

As would I, and I have no love for either one.

I really hate Santorum. The fact that an Atheist would willingly vote for an honest to God preacher over Santorum, should say something.

I've never understood the downright hatred there is for Santorum. I don't really care for him much, but it has to do with other issues; I could still hold my nose and vote for him in the gneral, though. He may be the only one left for who I could do so, actually.

Posted: 1/1/2012 6:04:46 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

A good question is why Santorum, who was resoundingly defeated as an incumbent Senator, is even on the stage when people like Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer were excluded.

Because nobody knows who the hell those two are and they never bothered to campaign.

"Libertarians" sure are good at doing the mental gymnastics that allow them to put the blame for their own failings on facist corporatism or conspiracies. Personal responsibility for everyone but themselves!

Kind of hard to participate in debates (which seem to have been one of the most significant factors so far this campaign season) and get recognition when no one invites you even when you meet the criteria for participation.

Posted: 1/1/2012 6:05:41 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'd vote for Huckabee over Santorum, any day and twice on Sunday.

As would I, and I have no love for either one.

I really hate Santorum. The fact that an Atheist would willingly vote for an honest to God preacher over Santorum, should say something.

I've never understood the downright hatred there is for Santorum. I don't really care for him much, but it has to do with other issues; I could still hold my nose and vote for him in the gneral, though. He may be the only one left for who I could do so, actually.

People hate Santorum because he is perceived as a person who would attempt to force his religious ideology on the country through federal law. Less government control should be the goal here, not more.

Posted: 1/1/2012 6:07:40 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%20face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.

__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Sorry, man. A guy like that guarantees an Obama victory.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Most Americans do not want a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou theocrat to preach to them about how they should live.

The priggish "social conservatism" that worked 50 years ago is what's handing victories to Democrats. People just want to... be... left... alone. Nobody cares about the gays any more.

Santorum would get beaten like a red-headed stepchild. Too many Americans would hold their nose and vote for Obama before voting for Christian Sharia law.

You people are something else. "Christian sharia law?" "Theocrats?" Where do you guys get this garbage? It is nothing but pure nonsense. There is no such thing as Christian "sharia" and Santorum, nor anyone else I've heard accused of being a "theocrat," supports the church being the state. It is telling that Christianity seems to inspire more fear and disgust than progressivism.

Posted: 1/1/2012 6:09:12 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I'd vote for Huckabee over Santorum, any day and twice on Sunday.

As would I, and I have no love for either one.

I really hate Santorum. The fact that an Atheist would willingly vote for an honest to God preacher over Santorum, should say something.

I've never understood the downright hatred there is for Santorum. I don't really care for him much, but it has to do with other issues; I could still hold my nose and vote for him in the gneral, though. He may be the only one left for who I could do so, actually.

People hate Santorum because he is perceived as a person who would attempt to force his religious ideology on the country through federal law. Less government control should be the goal here, not more.

And yet I rather doubt that would be the case. While Santorum is not great when it comes to big government (and for reasons not related to his religious views), he is still way better than Gingrich or Romney, who are totally in favour of big government according to their vision.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:07:40 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I had a feeling that Santorum would make a good showing in Iowa.

Our local news says Santorum is in third place.

Newt and Ron are tied for first.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:11:55 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%20face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.

__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Sorry, man. A guy like that guarantees an Obama victory.

No it doesn't.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

Thank you because you just helped me prove my point. Your own link shows a steady decline in obamas lead over santorum that has been occurring since the middle of last summer. According to your own link, obama has a mere 10 point lead (as of december 2011) and the election is still 11 months away. That's plenty of time to sink obamas ship o' fail.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:14:00 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%20face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.

__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Sorry, man. A guy like that guarantees an Obama victory.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Most Americans do not want a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou theocrat to preach to them about how they should live.

The priggish "social conservatism" that worked 50 years ago is what's handing victories to Democrats. People just want to... be... left... alone. Nobody cares about the gays any more.

Santorum would get beaten like a red-headed stepchild. Too many Americans would hold their nose and vote for Obama before voting for Christian Sharia law.

I must have missed a memo or something because I had no idea santorum wanted to establish a christian version of sharia law. Likewise, I also had no idea he was a theocrat.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:18:26 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.

Um, Santorum is the Democrat/Media dream candidate, the one person besides Gingrich or Paul they would be sure Obama could beat. They already have hard-drives full of attack ads ready to go.

He wouldn't break more than 43% of the vote if nominated.

As far as dirt goes, santorum has relatively little. In regards to various attack ads....well, welcome to the big leagues. Those ads would be coming no matter who won the nomination. However, how many would actually stick to a guy like santorum verses somebody like romney or (especially) gingrich?

In short, santorum is probably our best bet (and that ain't bad). He's got more political experience than obama, he's more polished than obama, he's more intelligent (tell me....who of the two needs a teleprompter more often just to make a simple speech...obama or santorum) and, at the end of the day, more "main stream/fly-over country" americans will flock to santorum than they would to either romney or gingrich.

Santorum is a decent man and a solid conservative. But he does not in any way, shape, or form appeal to most "mainstream" voters.

The guy got clocked 59%-41% in his 2006 re-election campaign. In Pennsylvania.

Current polling data don't give much hope that he would do any better against Obama in 2012.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:21:01 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.

Um, Santorum is the Democrat/Media dream candidate, the one person besides Gingrich or Paul they would be sure Obama could beat. They already have hard-drives full of attack ads ready to go.

He wouldn't break more than 43% of the vote if nominated.

As far as dirt goes, santorum has relatively little. In regards to various attack ads....well, welcome to the big leagues. Those ads would be coming no matter who won the nomination. However, how many would actually stick to a guy like santorum verses somebody like romney or (especially) gingrich?

In short, santorum is probably our best bet (and that ain't bad). He's got more political experience than obama, he's more polished than obama, he's more intelligent (tell me....who of the two needs a teleprompter more often just to make a simple speech...obama or santorum) and, at the end of the day, more "main stream/fly-over country" americans will flock to santorum than they would to either romney or gingrich.

Santorum is a decent man and a solid conservative. But he does not in any way, shape, or form appeal to most "mainstream" voters.

The guy got clocked 59%-41% in his 2006 re-election campaign. In Pennsylvania.

Current polling data don't give much hope that he would do any better against Obama in 2012.

To be fair, 2006 was a wave election and most people still haven't heard of Santorum. That will change if he has a strong showing in Iowa. How he will do in the polls if that happens is unknown.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:22:30 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%20face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Sorry, man. A guy like that guarantees an Obama victory.

No it doesn't.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

Thank you because you just helped me prove my point. Your own link shows a steady decline in obamas lead over santorum that has been occurring since the middle of last summer. According to your own link, obama has a mere 10 point lead (as of december 2011) and the election is still 11 months away. That's plenty of time to sink obamas ship o' fail.

1. You don't have enough data to support your conclusion.
2. Obama does not have serious infighting in his party. We do.
3. The current volatile nature of the republican party primary tends to make frontrunners into "flavor of the week" candidates rather quickly.
4. The attack ads haven't even started yet on Santorum, and the skeletons haven't been dragged out of his closet.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:23:59 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

snip

Santorum is a decent man and a solid conservative. But he does not in any way, shape, or form appeal to most "mainstream" voters.

The guy got clocked 59%-41% in his 2006 re-election campaign. In Pennsylvania.

Current polling data don't give much hope that he would do any better against Obama in 2012.

To be fair, 2006 was a wave election and most people still haven't heard of Santorum. That will change if he has a strong showing in Iowa. How he will do in the polls if that happens is unknown.

Which brings up Santorum's other problem: He has no real organization. From what I understand he didn't even try to get on the ballot in Virginia, and chose instead to focus on other states for Super Tuesday.

Even if he wins in Iowa I don't see him going much farther than that.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:25:21 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Anybody but obama

Please Lord let obama go away next year

Agreed.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:28:10 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'd vote for Huckabee over Santorum, any day and twice on Sunday.

As would I, and I have no love for either one.

I really hate Santorum. The fact that an Atheist would willingly vote for an honest to God preacher over Santorum, should say something.

I've never understood the downright hatred there is for Santorum. I don't really care for him much, but it has to do with other issues; I could still hold my nose and vote for him in the gneral, though. He may be the only one left for who I could do so, actually.

People hate Santorum because he is perceived as a person who would attempt to force his religious ideology on the country through federal law. Less government control should be the goal here, not more.

And yet I rather doubt that would be the case. While Santorum is not great when it comes to big government (and for reasons not related to his religious views), he is still way better than Gingrich or Romney, who are totally in favour of big government according to their vision.

Bullshit. Fucking, total bullshit. (Pardon my french, not directed at you personally.)

Santorum has extraordinarly strong socially conservative views. Arguably the most socially conservative of the field, moreso than Bachmann.

He'd veto a federal bill that he agreed with but wasn't an issue for the federal government to deal with? Laughable. Absolutely laughable.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:29:03 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

snip

Santorum is a decent man and a solid conservative. But he does not in any way, shape, or form appeal to most "mainstream" voters.

The guy got clocked 59%-41% in his 2006 re-election campaign. In Pennsylvania.

Current polling data don't give much hope that he would do any better against Obama in 2012.

To be fair, 2006 was a wave election and most people still haven't heard of Santorum. That will change if he has a strong showing in Iowa. How he will do in the polls if that happens is unknown.

Which brings up Santorum's other problem: He has no real organization. From what I understand he didn't even try to get on the ballot in Virginia, and chose instead to focus on other states for Super Tuesday.

Even if he wins in Iowa I don't see him going much farther than that.

Very possible.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:43:23 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I'd vote for Huckabee over Santorum, any day and twice on Sunday.

As would I, and I have no love for either one.

I really hate Santorum. The fact that an Atheist would willingly vote for an honest to God preacher over Santorum, should say something.

I'm with you 100%.

Huckabee is what I label a "positive" Christian. He has always appeared to be constructive with his beliefs as a foundation.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:46:07 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%20face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.

__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Sorry, man. A guy like that guarantees an Obama victory.

No it doesn't.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

Thank you because you just helped me prove my point. Your own link shows a steady decline in obamas lead over santorum that has been occurring since the middle of last summer. According to your own link, obama has a mere 10 point lead (as of december 2011) and the election is still 11 months away. That's plenty of time to sink obamas ship o' fail.

1. You don't have enough data to support your conclusion.

2. Obama does not have serious infighting in his party. We do.

3. The current volatile nature of the republican party primary tends to make frontrunners into "flavor of the week" candidates rather quickly.

4. The attack ads haven't even started yet on Santorum, and the skeletons haven't been dragged out of his closet.

1) The only data I had to go off of was the link that you yourself provided and, according to that link, obama has had a steady decline against santorum since last summer.

2) I will concede that you are correct on point #2.

3) There have been no genuine "front runners of the week" because everybody and their mother-in-law on arfcom has tried to convince everyone else that romney is the only likely gop candidate and that any vote for anyone other than romney is a wasted vote. I'm not buying into that BS. That's exactly how the GOP has ended up with candidates like mccain and dole in the past. In the primaries I will vote with my conscious and for the person whom I most agree with, arfcom popularity contest be damned.

4) As candidates go, santorum is pretty clean. The biggest issue people seem to have against him here is that (a) he's not romney (or paul, for that matter) and (b) many are afraid he'll turn the GOP into some sort of christian taliban. Both of those fears are stupid and neither is based on any sort of reality. Yes, he's a devout catholic but, no, he's not going to turn the U.S. government into a theocracy. Any assertion to the contrary is––––at best––––naive.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:53:35 PM EDT

[#33]

I'm voting for who ever is facing Obama in the general election, Romney, Paul, Santorum, etc. I just want the history books to show Obama as a one term failure.

Posted: 1/1/2012 7:56:30 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

1. So before it even happens, it's lost all predictive capability? I'm curious how you gained the power to see into the future.
2. So a historically important state is no longer important at all, even though ^. I'm curious how you came to this conclusion.

Posted: 1/1/2012 8:01:22 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

It apparently matters to Sanatorum as he is spending all his money on Iowa and there are some rumors that he has little left for any other state primaries. I wish there wasn't this hysteria over the early primaries but even if Iowa doesn't always pick the eventual winner, candidates can't build momentum unless they win or place well in the beginning.

First Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Gingrich and now Sanatorum...I guess he is the next "not Romney, but not Paul either" candidate that all the quasi-liberals in the Republican party are rallying on now?

Posted: 1/1/2012 8:04:59 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%20face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Sorry, man. A guy like that guarantees an Obama victory.

No it doesn't.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

Thank you because you just helped me prove my point. Your own link shows a steady decline in obamas lead over santorum that has been occurring since the middle of last summer. According to your own link, obama has a mere 10 point lead (as of december 2011) and the election is still 11 months away. That's plenty of time to sink obamas ship o' fail.

1. You don't have enough data to support your conclusion.
2. Obama does not have serious infighting in his party. We do.
3. The current volatile nature of the republican party primary tends to make frontrunners into "flavor of the week" candidates rather quickly.
4. The attack ads haven't even started yet on Santorum, and the skeletons haven't been dragged out of his closet.

1) The only data I had to go off of was the link that you yourself provided and, according to that link, obama has had a steady decline against santorum since last summer.

2) I will concede that you are correct on point #2.

3) There have been no genuine "front runners of the week" because everybody and their mother-in-law on arfcom has tried to convince everyone else that romney is the only likely gop candidate and that any vote for anyone other than romney is a wasted vote. I'm not buying into that BS. That's exactly how the GOP has ended up with candidates like mccain and dole in the past. In the primaries I will vote with my conscious and for the person whom I most agree with, arfcom popularity contest be damned.

4) As candidates go, santorum is pretty clean. The biggest issue people seem to have against him here is that (a) he's not romney (or paul, for that matter) and (b) many are afraid he'll turn the GOP into some sort of christian taliban. Both of those fears are stupid and neither is based on any sort of reality. Yes, he's a devout catholic but, no, he's not going to turn the U.S. government into a theocracy. Any assertion to the contrary is––––at best––––naive.

1. The plural of anecdote is not data. Those cannot be used to make an assumption of a trend, all they do is show us how santorum has done at 4 times during the past months. With more statistics from more polling centers, we might be able to confirm or refute a trend, but at this point, we cannot due either. Public opinion, as you can see in the link below, is quite fickle.
3. As you can see here, so far the candidates' levels of support have either remained constant, or had a spike, followed by fairly rapid deflation in support. The exception is Romney, who fluctuates quite often, probably due to the level of discontent with the field, and his campaign's effectiveness (note that I am not supporting him)
4. He is pretty clean so far. Cain was pretty clean too, until he was lambasted (probably unfairly, at least to an extent).

Posted: 1/1/2012 8:05:33 PM EDT

[#37]

I guess as long as no one worries about whether or not Santorum is being factual, he sounds kind of OK... as long as you want war with Iran as soon as possible.

Check this out for a blatant falsehood uttered by Santorum during recent campaigning...

Number one, he didn’t support the pro-democracy movement in Iran in 2009 during the Green Revolution. Almost immediately after the election, I mean, excuse me, like with hours after the, the polls closed, Ahmadinejad announced that he won with 62 percent of the vote. Within a few days, President Obama basically said that that was–election was a legitimate one.

The first part of his statement illustrates how little Santorum understands about the limitations of our influence in Iran. The second, enlarged part is either a lie or an error. Looks like Santorum is about as uninformed as Perry but is less incoherent.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/01/01/santorum-and-obamas-response-to-the-green-movement-protests/

Posted: 1/1/2012 8:18:14 PM EDT

[#38]

In the primary I'm going to vote for whoever has the best chance of defeating Romney. In the General, I'm voting against Obama. I really wish I could get behind someone that I truly believed in, but once again, it feels like I'm going to have to pick which gun to shoot myself with. Playing further on that analogy, Romney is a 1911 and Obama is a 155mm Howitzer. I just hope Gingrich is a BB gun.

Posted: 1/1/2012 8:22:12 PM EDT

[#39]

Good, Santorum deserves more showing

Posted: 1/1/2012 11:44:22 PM EDT

[#40]

The only positive thing about Santorum is he keeps the dispensationalist crowd from actually picking somebody viable in the early primaries, rendering them irrelevent.

He's invested his entire campaign into Iowa, there's no place for him to go from there.

It's fortunate he's so weak, I'd be concerned if he actually had even the slightest chance at the nomination, he's the weakest candidate in the entire field in the general.

Obama would win by 15 points, probably more with Johnson in the race. I'm starting to think we'll see a substantial third-party vote this cycle no matter who gets nominated, not Nader/Badnarik numbers, more liket Perot or Roosevelt.

Posted: 1/1/2012 11:47:54 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Iowa means NOTHING! absolutely nothing in the scheme of things, Huckabee won it last go around, and where is that turd now??

He is the turd that never fully flushed. His shitty TV show is still on.

Posted: 1/2/2012 4:17:16 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted: I'm starting to think we'll see a substantial third-party vote this cycle no matter who gets nominated, not Nader/Badnarik numbers, more liket Perot or Roosevelt.

I think so too unless Paul gets the nomination (unlikely).

Posted: 1/2/2012 4:23:23 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%20face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.

__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Sorry, man. A guy like that guarantees an Obama victory.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Most Americans do not want a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou theocrat to preach to them about how they should live.

The priggish "social conservatism" that worked 50 years ago is what's handing victories to Democrats. People just want to... be... left... alone. Nobody cares about the gays any more.

Santorum would get beaten like a red-headed stepchild. Too many Americans would hold their nose and vote for Obama before voting for Christian Sharia law.

I agree.

Posted: 1/2/2012 4:31:51 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
You are about to be molested by Paulistanians....

Posted: 1/2/2012 4:32:19 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I had a feeling that Santorum would make a good showing in Iowa.

Clearly the "vote for the most electable candidate" types will all get behind Santorum now. Right guys...

And that retarded, spineless train of thought will get us Romney and hand the election to Obungo via the loss of the Republican conservative base.

Posted: 1/2/2012 4:36:00 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.

Um, Santorum is the Democrat/Media dream candidate, the one person besides Gingrich or Paul they would be sure Obama could beat. They already have hard-drives full of attack ads ready to go.

He wouldn't break more than 43% of the vote if nominated.

And your boy Romney? Heir apparent? I think not. Enough of us despise him that your little "electability" charade will bite you in the ass. Don't do it. Fair warning.

Posted: 1/2/2012 4:36:49 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

We all know it will be Romney.

I've long since accepted this truth. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Or vote for it either.

Posted: 1/2/2012 4:40:05 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%20face.jpg
__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.

__________________________________________________________________

Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).

«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Sorry, man. A guy like that guarantees an Obama victory.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.
Most Americans do not want a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou theocrat to preach to them about how they should live.
The priggish "social conservatism" that worked 50 years ago is what's handing victories to Democrats. People just want to... be... left... alone. Nobody cares about the gays any more.
Santorum would get beaten like a red-headed stepchild. Too many Americans would hold their nose and vote for Obama before voting for Christian Sharia law.

You people are something else. "Christian sharia law?" "Theocrats?" Where do you guys get this garbage? It is nothing but pure nonsense. There is no such thing as Christian "sharia" and Santorum, nor anyone else I've heard accused of being a "theocrat," supports the church being the state. It is telling that Christianity seems to inspire more fear and disgust than progressivism.

I don't want religious social conservatives running the Fed. I fear that they will pass stupid shit like the defense of marriage act. Overly religious people have a hard time understanding FEDERALISM and FREEDOM just like their life-partners in the liberal party.

Two sides, same coin. ETA: Opposition to secularism is just as authoritarian as opposition to religion.

Posted: 1/2/2012 4:45:59 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.

Um, Santorum is the Democrat/Media dream candidate, the one person besides Gingrich or Paul they would be sure Obama could beat. They already have hard-drives full of attack ads ready to go.

He wouldn't break more than 43% of the vote if nominated.

As far as dirt goes, santorum has relatively little. In regards to various attack ads....well, welcome to the big leagues. Those ads would be coming no matter who won the nomination. However, how many would actually stick to a guy like santorum verses somebody like romney or (especially) gingrich?

In short, santorum is probably our best bet (and that ain't bad). He's got more political experience than obama, he's more polished than obama, he's more intelligent (tell me....who of the two needs a teleprompter more often just to make a simple speech...obama or santorum) and, at the end of the day, more "main stream/fly-over country" americans will flock to santorum than they would to either romney or gingrich.

Santorum is a decent man and a solid conservative. But he does not in any way, shape, or form appeal to most "mainstream" voters.

The guy got clocked 59%-41% in his 2006 re-election campaign. In Pennsylvania.

Current polling data don't give much hope that he would do any better against Obama in 2012.

Worrying about "mainstream voters" is what gets us a McCain or a Romney. Fuck that. Better worry about your base. Pick up those worthless "mainstream voters" and lose your base, guess what happens? You LOSE the election. And don't be so confident your base will follow along blindly this time; it's a gamble you we can't afford to lose.

Posted: 1/2/2012 5:14:40 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Why do you say this?

because iowa winners don't win.

6 of the last 9 Iowa GOP winners got the eventual nomination.
6 of the last 8 Iowa Dem winners got the eventual nomination.
It has been 19 years (1992) since the eventual POTUS didn't win the Iowa Caucus (Clinton finished 3rd behind Harkin and Tsongas).

Pffft. You are only saying this because you think St. Paul is going to win Iowa.

I don't know where you are getting your stats from but they are wrong.

Iowa is at 40% for choosing the eventual nominee IN A CONTESTED OPEN FIELD.

Iowa GOP voters picking Ronald Reagan in 1984 because there is no one else running does not count.

That's like guessing a number someone is thinking of and its "between the numbers 1 and 1"

They are 2 out of 5 for picking the eventual nominees in an open Republican field. (that's 40% accuracy.)

Being the GOP nominee also does not mean they get to be president! They still have to beat the Dems.

So here is another little factoid ––-

Since 1976, only two candidates (both GOP and DNC) who won the Iowa Caucus in an 'open field' for their parties ever became the President of the United States.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Santorum is currently ahead of Newt in Iowa polls. (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us