What the heck is a Santorum?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by friendorfoe, Jan 4, 2012.

Loading...
Page 2 of 2
  1. truckie270

    truckie270 New Member

    Romney has been running for President for five years and his numbers in Iowa in 2012 are the exact same as they were in 2008 - 25%. At this point he has the best chance to beat BHO, but he is less-than-inspiring to 75% of Republicans which is a bad sign. The longer other candidates hang around the worse it looks for Mittens.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2012
    truckie270, Jan 5, 2012
    #21
  2. JWC

    JWC New Member

    How dumb are these ongoing statements that 75% of Iowa voters didn't want Romney! So, 75% didn't want Santorum; 78% didn't want Paul; 86% didn't want Gingrich; 89% didn't want Perry; 95% didn't want Bachmann; and so forth. Hey, in 2008, 87% didn't want McCain who ended up being the nominee! And, in 1976, 72% didn't want Carter who also ended up being the nominee.
     
    JWC, Jan 5, 2012
    #22
  3. truckie270

    truckie270 New Member

    Not dumb at all, but you are missing the point entirely so I will cut you some slack. Iowa does not decide anything in terms of who is the nominee, it only serves to winnow the field. With the exception of Paul who is on the lunatic fringe, none of the other candidates in 2012 ran against Romney in 2008. Romney has failed to convince anyone else in that state that he is a better candidate in 2012 than he was in 2008. He has been the annointed front-runner since the race has started, yet he has remained a steady 25% since the process started. Every time someone drops out of the race their supporters go to another candidate, not Romney. At this point in the race he should be increasing his lead, not in a tie with someone who was in single digits last week in Iowa.

    It is Romney's nomination to lose. If I were to bet I would say that he will get the nomination, but that does not mean GOP voters are enthusiastic about it. When that happens you can come on here and tell everyone how you told us so, although that is not much of a revalation.
     
    truckie270, Jan 5, 2012
    #23
  4. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    When I was referring to the long term, I was referring to the 21st century, not to the 19th. My point was that if you look solely at one election, your behavior may be different than if you consider how your actions in this election may affect the viability of independent and other party candidates in future elections.

    For example, Ross Perot ran for president. Did he win? No. Did his win pave the way for Jesse Ventura to win for Minnesota governor in the next cycle? Yes. There's also the matter that minor parties need to do better attracting name brand candidates. The LP has finally done this with Gary Johnson.

    But none of this matters if people who don't actually like them shrug and vote for someone like Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2012
    SteveFoerster, Jan 5, 2012
    #24
  5. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    A candidate doesn't have to win an election in order to change the agenda. Paul can lose every state primary, but his inclusion and voter support has already made it clear that to win an election for any candidate will likely require pandering more to that segment. That's a powerful change in itself, even if it is not everything that people want.

    Ones and all.
     
    Maniac Craniac, Jan 5, 2012
    #25
  6. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    Actually, the Whig Party was a major party in that time but collapsed soon after Fillmore's election. The Republicans came about in the 1850s and took the "slot" of the old Whigs.
     
    StefanM, Jan 5, 2012
    #26
  7. major56

    major56 Active Member

    I believe the Whig Party was assembled by Henry Clay of the National Republicans (conservative factions of the Democratic-Republican Party and some former members of the Anti-Masonic Party).
     
    major56, Jan 5, 2012
    #27
  8. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Actually, Fillmore was never elected president. He was elected vice-president in 1848 and became president upon the death of Zachary Taylor.
     
    Ted Heiks, Jan 6, 2012
    #28
  9. major56

    major56 Active Member

    Then it’s been an even longer term since a third party candidate has been [elected] to the presidency; though as you have pointed out Ted, I should have initially written (my error) that Fillmore was the last Whig (third) Party member to hold the office of presidency. Fillmore did later attempt an unsuccessfully third party run (carrying only Maryland) as the American Party (the Know-Nothing movement) presidential candidate in 1856.
     
    major56, Jan 6, 2012
    #29
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page