Anyone but Romney (2 Viewers)

[Jutz]

I know what you're saying, I just think you're out of your mind if you think Santorum would have won the election. It sounds crazy because it is crazy- there are many, many people who would vote for Romney but not Santorum.

So then the question becomes... how many people would vote for Santorum but not Romney (or just not vote). I think there are more out there then people realize.

How many family members does he have?Seriously though, not nearly as many. Look at yourself- you're a Santorum fanatic, yet you're still voting for Romney. There have been a few people in this thread (who I presume voted for Romney) who said they wouldn't vote for Santorum. I don't think the numbers are close at all- Santorum would turn off so many people, it would be a landslide IMO.

In this thread, and on this board, sure. But I am thinking there are a lot of evangelicals and hard core tea party members that are not excited enough about Romney to show... but we'll see. How many evangelicals out there do you think won't vote Romney because he is a Mormon? Not that they are correct in their assesment... but I think a lot are out there.

It's not worth wasting much more time on because there's no way to know the answer for sure. I'm not denying that Santorum has a loyal group of followers who would be very enthusiastic to vote for him, and there are certainly people who won't vote for Romney because of his religion and other reasons who probably would vote for Santorum. Santorum does have some positives attributes as well. However, if you can't see that many things about him are seen as extreme and turn-offs to the majority of people, then you'll never see that he had no chance. It's about getting the largest number of voters out to vote for you, it doesn't matter how rabid they are when doing so. He would scare away far more people than he would attract IMO, and I don't think it's close.

You are absolutely correct on the bolded... we will never know, and it's not really worth debating. I just get all fired up when the topic comes up. And you could be right, I just wish we would have found out.

 

[pantherclub]

Its really hard to take anyone serious that has a JoePa avatar

 

[Jutz]

Its really hard to take anyone serious that has a JoePa avatar

No one ever did anyway. At least now I occasionally get noticed.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.

Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

The bold would be great, but Santorum would get slaughtered in that situation.Generally speaking, the larger the voter turnout is, the better chance the more centrist candidate has and the worse chance the more extreme candidate has. If every person votes, for example, the winner is whoever attracts the median citizen along the political spectrum.

The only way for a candidate like Santorum to win is to get a large number of Democrats and independents to stay home.

 

[Jutz]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake.

I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

OK. Then honestly you need a third party, because the GOP will never nominate someone that hard right.And I happen to know several conservatives personally (and on this board) who would welcome the religious right getting out of the GOP.

Call it the Family Party.

I think there are just as many conservatives that would like to see the moderate RINO's take a back seat to the party. And I don't think that demo does much posting on message boards, so of course you won't find them here. Hell, I doubt many of them have computers. You can clammor for the religious right to get out of the GOP all you want, but it's not going to happen. I would suggest the moderates form their own party, but to each their own. I think it is a much better winning strategy to have a strong strong hold on your base, and try to draw the moderates in as opposed to taking the opposite approach. I'm not a religious person at all, I don't go to church, but I have great respect for those that do and consider them a valuable part of the party. To shun them is to throw away a HUGE part of the voting base.

I will start with a quote."We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to to speak of and act on their belief.

At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral." - RR

Which is a larger part of the GOP voting base? RR followers or the Pat Robertson crowd?

The way I see it is Santorum is the only one in the election willing to stick his neck out to fight for religious freedom and keep the government from infringing upon it as it relates to your quotes. The Catholic church was absolutely not happy that Obama care is forcing health care providers to do things that go against their religion. I agree with separation of church and state, but I think you have it backwards.In fact, I think separation of church and state is the most commonly misunderstood concepts when it comes to politics. I think anyone from any religious (or non religous) background should have the ablility to propose any law based on any background they come from. Democracy allows that proposal to be accepted or declined based on a vote, but that has nothing do do with separation of church and state. I do not think the government has any right to infringe on what religion you choose to follow, and that's exaclty what Santorum was fighting for.

The best example I can give of this is during the nomination process everyone said Santorum wanted to ban contraception. I gave example after example after example of Santorum explaining his position that he doesn't want to ammend any laws to ban contraception but guys like NCCommish just absolutely woulnd't believe it. They felt like they knew what was inside Santorum's head, and that they knew better what he believed then what he himself did. But it just wasn't true. Santorum said he does not practice the use of contraception, but didn't want to force it on anyone, nor did he want to change the law... but everyone just ASSUMED that he did.

You and I both know the bolded is not true. The "Religious Exemption" in the Health Care Bill was specifically designed for these situations. Santorum knew that also but kept hitting that drum because his followers were so eager to believe that Obama was raging a war on Christianity.

Given the Hobby Lobby outcome... looks like there was actually a problem with the exemption... and Rick was right.

 

[NCCommish]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake.

I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

OK. Then honestly you need a third party, because the GOP will never nominate someone that hard right.And I happen to know several conservatives personally (and on this board) who would welcome the religious right getting out of the GOP.

Call it the Family Party.

I think there are just as many conservatives that would like to see the moderate RINO's take a back seat to the party. And I don't think that demo does much posting on message boards, so of course you won't find them here. Hell, I doubt many of them have computers. You can clammor for the religious right to get out of the GOP all you want, but it's not going to happen. I would suggest the moderates form their own party, but to each their own. I think it is a much better winning strategy to have a strong strong hold on your base, and try to draw the moderates in as opposed to taking the opposite approach. I'm not a religious person at all, I don't go to church, but I have great respect for those that do and consider them a valuable part of the party. To shun them is to throw away a HUGE part of the voting base.

I will start with a quote."We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to to speak of and act on their belief.

At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral." - RR

Which is a larger part of the GOP voting base? RR followers or the Pat Robertson crowd?

The way I see it is Santorum is the only one in the election willing to stick his neck out to fight for religious freedom and keep the government from infringing upon it as it relates to your quotes. The Catholic church was absolutely not happy that Obama care is forcing health care providers to do things that go against their religion. I agree with separation of church and state, but I think you have it backwards.In fact, I think separation of church and state is the most commonly misunderstood concepts when it comes to politics. I think anyone from any religious (or non religous) background should have the ablility to propose any law based on any background they come from. Democracy allows that proposal to be accepted or declined based on a vote, but that has nothing do do with separation of church and state. I do not think the government has any right to infringe on what religion you choose to follow, and that's exaclty what Santorum was fighting for.

The best example I can give of this is during the nomination process everyone said Santorum wanted to ban contraception. I gave example after example after example of Santorum explaining his position that he doesn't want to ammend any laws to ban contraception but guys like NCCommish just absolutely woulnd't believe it. They felt like they knew what was inside Santorum's head, and that they knew better what he believed then what he himself did. But it just wasn't true. Santorum said he does not practice the use of contraception, but didn't want to force it on anyone, nor did he want to change the law... but everyone just ASSUMED that he did.

You and I both know the bolded is not true. The "Religious Exemption" in the Health Care Bill was specifically designed for these situations. Santorum knew that also but kept hitting that drum because his followers were so eager to believe that Obama was raging a war on Christianity.

Given the Hobby Lobby outcome... looks like there was actually a problem with the exemption... and Rick was right.

Actually no. They threw out a lot of precedence to make that decision.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Actually no. They threw out a lot of precedence to make that decision.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

They did not throw out any precedent. There had never been a case holding that the RFRA doesn't apply to for-profit corporations. (Cases that didn't involve the RFRA are not precedent.)

 

[QuizGuy66]

Supreme deciding on a case a certain case doesn't make it 'right' necessarily.

-QG

 

[Koya]

No idea the reason for this bump, and I can't stand Obama, but THANK GOD WE DIDN'T ELECT ROMNEY.

OMFG. That would have been a freakin' disaster.

 

[MaxThreshold]

No idea the reason for this bump, and I can't stand Obama, but THANK GOD WE DIDN'T ELECT ROMNEY.

OMFG. That would have been a freakin' disaster.

How so? Knowing what we know now of Obama I think Romney looks pretty damn good.

 

[Koya]

No idea the reason for this bump, and I can't stand Obama, but THANK GOD WE DIDN'T ELECT ROMNEY.

OMFG. That would have been a freakin' disaster.

How so? Knowing what we know now of Obama I think Romney looks pretty damn good.

(1) I'll take what civil liberties we have left.

(2) God forbid Romney had a chance to grab at the Supreme Court.

Still voted G. Johnson, but Romney would have been a big step backward with the stupid and, honestly, dangerous rhetoric and vitriol on his side of the aisle. Scary ####.

 

[HellToupee]

No idea the reason for this bump, and I can't stand Obama, but THANK GOD WE DIDN'T ELECT ROMNEY.

OMFG. That would have been a freakin' disaster.

OMFG this post tells me you really don't dig deep into politics and only regurgitate memes

freakin' disaster

 

[Koya]

No idea the reason for this bump, and I can't stand Obama, but THANK GOD WE DIDN'T ELECT ROMNEY.

OMFG. That would have been a freakin' disaster.

OMFG this post tells me you really don't dig deep into politics and only regurgitate memes

freakin' disaster

Yeah, you got me. Totally on point.



Mind giving me even one example of how I am merely propagating memes? Or just going to talk ####, throw out a smiley, and figure that's enough.

 

[MaxThreshold]

No idea the reason for this bump, and I can't stand Obama, but THANK GOD WE DIDN'T ELECT ROMNEY.

OMFG. That would have been a freakin' disaster.

How so? Knowing what we know now of Obama I think Romney looks pretty damn good.

(1) I'll take what civil liberties we have left.

(2) God forbid Romney had a chance to grab at the Supreme Court.

Still voted G. Johnson, but Romney would have been a big step backward with the stupid and, honestly, dangerous rhetoric and vitriol on his side of the aisle. Scary ####.

Yeah, I'm thinking you're a bit of a drama queen. With all the corrupt #### that's been going on with Obama and the abuses of power, you think Romney is the bad choice here?

PUH-LEAZE.

 

[Koya]

No idea the reason for this bump, and I can't stand Obama, but THANK GOD WE DIDN'T ELECT ROMNEY.

OMFG. That would have been a freakin' disaster.

How so? Knowing what we know now of Obama I think Romney looks pretty damn good.

(1) I'll take what civil liberties we have left.

(2) God forbid Romney had a chance to grab at the Supreme Court.

Still voted G. Johnson, but Romney would have been a big step backward with the stupid and, honestly, dangerous rhetoric and vitriol on his side of the aisle. Scary ####.

Yeah, I'm thinking you're a bit of a drama queen. With all the corrupt #### that's been going on with Obama and the abuses of power, you think Romney is the bad choice here?

PUH-LEAZE.

So, just because I feel Romney's faults would do more harm to our present and long term freedom than Obama's, I'm a drama queen?

Interesting.

 

[MaxThreshold]

No idea the reason for this bump, and I can't stand Obama, but THANK GOD WE DIDN'T ELECT ROMNEY.

OMFG. That would have been a freakin' disaster.

How so? Knowing what we know now of Obama I think Romney looks pretty damn good.

(1) I'll take what civil liberties we have left.

(2) God forbid Romney had a chance to grab at the Supreme Court.

Still voted G. Johnson, but Romney would have been a big step backward with the stupid and, honestly, dangerous rhetoric and vitriol on his side of the aisle. Scary ####.

Yeah, I'm thinking you're a bit of a drama queen. With all the corrupt #### that's been going on with Obama and the abuses of power, you think Romney is the bad choice here?

PUH-LEAZE.

So, just because I feel Romney's faults would do more harm to our present and long term freedom than Obama's, I'm a drama queen?

Interesting.

Yeah, you are. Look at your posts describing a Romney presidency:

"Scary ####"

"OMFG"

"I'll take what civil liberties we have left."

All Drama-queen like responses. Romney, at worst, would have been light-years better than the current chump.

 

[sublimeone]

Romney would win in a landslide in an election held today. I wouldn't mind if he ran again. If he could win he'd be a great president but I'm to sure if he could ever get the cool kids vote.

 

[Widbil83]

Don't blame me I voted for Rommey.

 

[Koya]

No idea the reason for this bump, and I can't stand Obama, but THANK GOD WE DIDN'T ELECT ROMNEY.

OMFG. That would have been a freakin' disaster.

How so? Knowing what we know now of Obama I think Romney looks pretty damn good.

(1) I'll take what civil liberties we have left.

(2) God forbid Romney had a chance to grab at the Supreme Court.

Still voted G. Johnson, but Romney would have been a big step backward with the stupid and, honestly, dangerous rhetoric and vitriol on his side of the aisle. Scary ####.

Yeah, I'm thinking you're a bit of a drama queen. With all the corrupt #### that's been going on with Obama and the abuses of power, you think Romney is the bad choice here?

PUH-LEAZE.

So, just because I feel Romney's faults would do more harm to our present and long term freedom than Obama's, I'm a drama queen?

Interesting.

Yeah, you are. Look at your posts describing a Romney presidency:

"Scary ####"

"OMFG"

"I'll take what civil liberties we have left."

All Drama-queen like responses. Romney, at worst, would have been light-years better than the current chump.

Considering the state of the supreme court, if Romney had the choice it would, legitimately, have me concerned about freedoms and equality in our nation for a generation. That's no hyperbole. Now, you may feel such a Court would be great, or think that I overstate the effect of having a Romney nominee, or two. I, truly believe, it would set our nation back in terms of freedom which is my personal biggest issue.

 

[Koya]

Don't blame me I voted for Rommey.

I voted for Kodos. (aka Gary Johnson)

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I will say this; after Romney stated Russia was our biggest threat, I laughed at his old Cold War style thinking. After all this Ukraine mess and the other moves they've been doing, he may have been right.

 

[skol asylum]

Romney would have repealed 72% of all regulations and the result would be utopia.

 

[skol asylum]

I will say this; after Romney stated Russia was our biggest threat, I laughed at his old Cold War style thinking. After all this Ukraine mess and the other moves they've been doing, he may have been right.

Meh

 

[jamny]

Don't blame me I voted for Rommey.

 

[dickey moe]

No idea the reason for this bump, and I can't stand Obama, but THANK GOD WE DIDN'T ELECT ROMNEY.

OMFG. That would have been a freakin' disaster.

How so? Knowing what we know now of Obama I think Romney looks pretty damn good.

(1) I'll take what civil liberties we have left.

(2) God forbid Romney had a chance to grab at the Supreme Court.

Still voted G. Johnson, but Romney would have been a big step backward with the stupid and, honestly, dangerous rhetoric and vitriol on his side of the aisle. Scary ####.

Yeah, I'm thinking you're a bit of a drama queen. With all the corrupt #### that's been going on with Obama and the abuses of power, you think Romney is the bad choice here?

PUH-LEAZE.

So, just because I feel Romney's faults would do more harm to our present and long term freedom than Obama's, I'm a drama queen?

Interesting.

Yeah, you are. Look at your posts describing a Romney presidency:

"Scary ####"

"OMFG"

"I'll take what civil liberties we have left."

All Drama-queen like responses. Romney, at worst, would have been light-years better than the current chump.

Considering the state of the supreme court, if Romney had the choice it would, legitimately, have me concerned about freedoms and equality in our nation for a generation. That's no hyperbole. Now, you may feel such a Court would be great, or think that I overstate the effect of having a Romney nominee, or two. I, truly believe, it would set our nation back in terms of freedom which is my personal biggest issue.

How about offering some specifics. I often marvel at so-called libertarians who claim that the alternative to Obama would have been worse in terms of affronts to liberty.

 

[Koya]

No idea the reason for this bump, and I can't stand Obama, but THANK GOD WE DIDN'T ELECT ROMNEY.

OMFG. That would have been a freakin' disaster.

How so? Knowing what we know now of Obama I think Romney looks pretty damn good.

(1) I'll take what civil liberties we have left.

(2) God forbid Romney had a chance to grab at the Supreme Court.

Still voted G. Johnson, but Romney would have been a big step backward with the stupid and, honestly, dangerous rhetoric and vitriol on his side of the aisle. Scary ####.

Yeah, I'm thinking you're a bit of a drama queen. With all the corrupt #### that's been going on with Obama and the abuses of power, you think Romney is the bad choice here?

PUH-LEAZE.

So, just because I feel Romney's faults would do more harm to our present and long term freedom than Obama's, I'm a drama queen?

Interesting.

Yeah, you are. Look at your posts describing a Romney presidency:

"Scary ####"

"OMFG"

"I'll take what civil liberties we have left."

All Drama-queen like responses. Romney, at worst, would have been light-years better than the current chump.

Considering the state of the supreme court, if Romney had the choice it would, legitimately, have me concerned about freedoms and equality in our nation for a generation. That's no hyperbole. Now, you may feel such a Court would be great, or think that I overstate the effect of having a Romney nominee, or two. I, truly believe, it would set our nation back in terms of freedom which is my personal biggest issue.

How about offering some specifics. I often marvel at so-called libertarians who claim that the alternative to Obama would have been worse in terms of affronts to liberty.

Gay marriage and women's rights to start. Growing strength of corporations vs personal liberty. Decisions regarding privacy, internet etc.

Off the top of my head. FWIW, I'm no Courtly scholar as are others on this board, just do my best and come to a conclusion. But that's where my stands, as of now.

 

[Todd Andrews]

No idea the reason for this bump, and I can't stand Obama, but THANK GOD WE DIDN'T ELECT ROMNEY.

OMFG. That would have been a freakin' disaster.

How so? Knowing what we know now of Obama I think Romney looks pretty damn good.

(1) I'll take what civil liberties we have left.

(2) God forbid Romney had a chance to grab at the Supreme Court.

Still voted G. Johnson, but Romney would have been a big step backward with the stupid and, honestly, dangerous rhetoric and vitriol on his side of the aisle. Scary ####.

Yeah, I'm thinking you're a bit of a drama queen. With all the corrupt #### that's been going on with Obama and the abuses of power, you think Romney is the bad choice here?

PUH-LEAZE.

So, just because I feel Romney's faults would do more harm to our present and long term freedom than Obama's, I'm a drama queen?

Interesting.

Yeah, you are. Look at your posts describing a Romney presidency:

"Scary ####"

"OMFG"

"I'll take what civil liberties we have left."

All Drama-queen like responses. Romney, at worst, would have been light-years better than the current chump.

Considering the state of the supreme court, if Romney had the choice it would, legitimately, have me concerned about freedoms and equality in our nation for a generation. That's no hyperbole. Now, you may feel such a Court would be great, or think that I overstate the effect of having a Romney nominee, or two. I, truly believe, it would set our nation back in terms of freedom which is my personal biggest issue.

How about offering some specifics. I often marvel at so-called libertarians who claim that the alternative to Obama would have been worse in terms of affronts to liberty.

Gay marriage and women's rights to start. Growing strength of corporations vs personal liberty. Decisions regarding privacy, internet etc.

Off the top of my head. FWIW, I'm no Courtly scholar as are others on this board, just do my best and come to a conclusion. But that's where my stands, as of now.

Corporations are people too.

It is tough to explain your fears about an authoritarian in power to authoritarian authority slobberers. They will never get it, just like they will never understand my sigline quote from Romney.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Quinnipiac poll also reports that 45% believe the nation would be better off had Mitt Romney defeated Obama in the 2012 presidential election; 38% say the country would be worse off with a Romney presidency.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/07/02/obama-george-w-bush-quinnipiac-poll-reagan-clinton/11985837/

 

[avoiding injuries]

It's kind of a weird time to be defending Obama. Just think back to when Bush was in free fall and how extreme the people who still defended him at all costs seemed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's kind of a weird time to be defending Obama. Just think back to when Bush was in free fall and how extreme the people who still defended him at all costs seemed.

"Dead enders" was one term that was used.