Santorum and Obama - Who's Next 2005
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:26:36 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Santorum and Obama - Who's Next 2005
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Santorum and Obama - Who's Next 2005  (Read 13368 times)
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: January 02, 2005, 11:48:23 PM »

If Hoeffel can do as well as Kerry, he can win. Seeing as his politics are similar, he could win. Klink lost because he couldn't rally up support. Hoeffel has the potential to do very well in the Philly suburbs. The Dems need the Philly suburbs more than the Pittsburgh area.

The Dems can have the Philly suburbs. If Santorum can pick up his numbers just a bit in the Pittsburgh area, Santorum wins. Hoeffel win NOT have the turnout that Kerry had. Hoeffel's liberal record will be known. Joe Hoeffel vs. Rick Santorum means six more years of Santorum.

The only candidate that can beat Santorum is Casey. It looks like he's considering a run. If he does run, that's when I'll admit that the Dems will pick up the seat. Under any other circumstance, Santorum wins.

Why won't Hoeffel have the turnout Kerry did? Kerry did not run a good campaign, as you often say, but with Rendell at the top of the ticket, turnout will be good.

Hoeffel is a liberal, Santorum is a conservative, PA is basically split. It's neither liberal nor conservative. That means close election.

It was a Presidential election. If you think you'll have the same turnout or higher in 2006, you're crazy.

The way you just analyzed this election made no sense at all and demonstrates that you know nothing about PA politics. Sorry, Akno. It's not as easy as saying "One's liberal, one's conservative. The state is neither. There will be a close election." I won't comment any further because I am in disbelief that that's the way you think in regards to this race.

Turnout will be slightly down, on both sides, and I don't think we can anaylze turnout 22 months in advance.

Does Santorum have the upper hand? Of course he does. It depends on how well each side campaigns and gets their bases excited. It depends on how the next 2 years play out. But Kerry won PA, in spite of a crummy campaign. If the Dems produce a challenger who is similar to Kerry, and we all know Santorum is similar to Bush, then the Dems stand a fighting chance, and bring the race into "can swing either way" territory.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: January 03, 2005, 07:57:36 PM »

If Hoeffel can do as well as Kerry, he can win. Seeing as his politics are similar, he could win. Klink lost because he couldn't rally up support. Hoeffel has the potential to do very well in the Philly suburbs. The Dems need the Philly suburbs more than the Pittsburgh area.

The Dems can have the Philly suburbs. If Santorum can pick up his numbers just a bit in the Pittsburgh area, Santorum wins. Hoeffel win NOT have the turnout that Kerry had. Hoeffel's liberal record will be known. Joe Hoeffel vs. Rick Santorum means six more years of Santorum.

The only candidate that can beat Santorum is Casey. It looks like he's considering a run. If he does run, that's when I'll admit that the Dems will pick up the seat. Under any other circumstance, Santorum wins.

Why won't Hoeffel have the turnout Kerry did? Kerry did not run a good campaign, as you often say, but with Rendell at the top of the ticket, turnout will be good.

Hoeffel is a liberal, Santorum is a conservative, PA is basically split. It's neither liberal nor conservative. That means close election.

It was a Presidential election. If you think you'll have the same turnout or higher in 2006, you're crazy.

The way you just analyzed this election made no sense at all and demonstrates that you know nothing about PA politics. Sorry, Akno. It's not as easy as saying "One's liberal, one's conservative. The state is neither. There will be a close election." I won't comment any further because I am in disbelief that that's the way you think in regards to this race.

 But Kerry won PA, in spite of a crummy campaign. If the Dems produce a challenger who is similar to Kerry, and we all know Santorum is similar to Bush, then the Dems stand a fighting chance, and bring the race into "can swing either way" territory.

You make things so simple. It is not that way at all. Using your logic, Ron Klink should have won in 2000.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: January 03, 2005, 08:09:58 PM »

There are going to be a lot of factors, such as geography and how devisive the primary will be.
Logged
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: January 03, 2005, 09:07:49 PM »

One advantage Santorum will have is that he'll have a united party. The Democrats will have to go through the primaries, while Santorum can just raise money during that period. BTW, is Hoeffel the frontrunner for the Dem nomination?
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: January 03, 2005, 09:25:45 PM »

One advantage Santorum will have is that he'll have a united party. The Democrats will have to go through the primaries, while Santorum can just raise money during that period. BTW, is Hoeffel the frontrunner for the Dem nomination?

The PA GOP won't be that united. RINOs in suburban areas outside of Philly will not vote for him. However, I think he will pick up his numbers with conservative Dems, allowing him to win this race.

Right now, there is no frontrunner for the Dem nomination. Outgoing State Treasurer Barbara Hafer (Dem turned Republican turned Dem again) and Joe Hoeffel are the major likely candidates and in a Hafer-Hoeffel race, I'd bet Hafer wins it. However, word is that extremely popular conservative Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. (incoming State Treasurer) is considering a run. If he runs, he'd probably win the nomination and would beat Santorum.

In my opinion, Casey won't run. There will be a Hafer-Hoeffel primary with some minor candidates (State EPA administrator Kathleen McGinty, Charlie Crystle are possible candidates. If they run, they would probably have the "minor candidates" status.)
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: January 04, 2005, 03:14:09 PM »

One advantage Santorum will have is that he'll have a united party. The Democrats will have to go through the primaries, while Santorum can just raise money during that period. BTW, is Hoeffel the frontrunner for the Dem nomination?

The PA GOP won't be that united. RINOs in suburban areas outside of Philly will not vote for him. However, I think he will pick up his numbers with conservative Dems, allowing him to win this race.

Right now, there is no frontrunner for the Dem nomination. Outgoing State Treasurer Barbara Hafer (Dem turned Republican turned Dem again) and Joe Hoeffel are the major likely candidates and in a Hafer-Hoeffel race, I'd bet Hafer wins it. However, word is that extremely popular conservative Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. (incoming State Treasurer) is considering a run. If he runs, he'd probably win the nomination and would beat Santorum.

In my opinion, Casey won't run. There will be a Hafer-Hoeffel primary with some minor candidates (State EPA administrator Kathleen McGinty, Charlie Crystle are possible candidates. If they run, they would probably have the "minor candidates" status.)

This is part of the reason why I don't think Santorum will win.  The Conservative Dems in PA are not very Conservative they are somewhat Conservative.  Santorum has taken a sharp right turn since 2000 and many of those Conservative Dems who voted for Santorum in 2000 aren't going to vote for him in 06 because of how far right he has gotten
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: January 04, 2005, 03:28:38 PM »

One advantage Santorum will have is that he'll have a united party. The Democrats will have to go through the primaries, while Santorum can just raise money during that period. BTW, is Hoeffel the frontrunner for the Dem nomination?

The PA GOP won't be that united. RINOs in suburban areas outside of Philly will not vote for him. However, I think he will pick up his numbers with conservative Dems, allowing him to win this race.

Right now, there is no frontrunner for the Dem nomination. Outgoing State Treasurer Barbara Hafer (Dem turned Republican turned Dem again) and Joe Hoeffel are the major likely candidates and in a Hafer-Hoeffel race, I'd bet Hafer wins it. However, word is that extremely popular conservative Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. (incoming State Treasurer) is considering a run. If he runs, he'd probably win the nomination and would beat Santorum.

In my opinion, Casey won't run. There will be a Hafer-Hoeffel primary with some minor candidates (State EPA administrator Kathleen McGinty, Charlie Crystle are possible candidates. If they run, they would probably have the "minor candidates" status.)

This is part of the reason why I don't think Santorum will win.  The Conservative Dems in PA are not very Conservative they are somewhat Conservative.  Santorum has taken a sharp right turn since 2000 and many of those Conservative Dems who voted for Santorum in 2000 aren't going to vote for him in 06 because of how far right he has gotten

The conservative Dems like Santorum. Conservative Dem has to make a decision - Liberal Democratic candidate  or conservative Republican that they like and respect and voted for in the past. He will win. He has about a 54% approval rating in the state. Get over it.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: January 04, 2005, 03:32:06 PM »

One advantage Santorum will have is that he'll have a united party. The Democrats will have to go through the primaries, while Santorum can just raise money during that period. BTW, is Hoeffel the frontrunner for the Dem nomination?

The PA GOP won't be that united. RINOs in suburban areas outside of Philly will not vote for him. However, I think he will pick up his numbers with conservative Dems, allowing him to win this race.

Right now, there is no frontrunner for the Dem nomination. Outgoing State Treasurer Barbara Hafer (Dem turned Republican turned Dem again) and Joe Hoeffel are the major likely candidates and in a Hafer-Hoeffel race, I'd bet Hafer wins it. However, word is that extremely popular conservative Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. (incoming State Treasurer) is considering a run. If he runs, he'd probably win the nomination and would beat Santorum.

In my opinion, Casey won't run. There will be a Hafer-Hoeffel primary with some minor candidates (State EPA administrator Kathleen McGinty, Charlie Crystle are possible candidates. If they run, they would probably have the "minor candidates" status.)

This is part of the reason why I don't think Santorum will win.  The Conservative Dems in PA are not very Conservative they are somewhat Conservative.  Santorum has taken a sharp right turn since 2000 and many of those Conservative Dems who voted for Santorum in 2000 aren't going to vote for him in 06 because of how far right he has gotten

The conservative Dems like Santorum. Conservative Dem has to make a decision - Liberal Democratic candidate  or conservative Republican that they like and respect and voted for in the past. He will win. He has about a 54% approval rating in the state. Get over it.

The whole union thing could be an issue though.  Bottom line is Santorum has gone well to the right from where he was in 2000, and the cross-over votes are going to suffer because of that.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: January 04, 2005, 03:35:20 PM »

One advantage Santorum will have is that he'll have a united party. The Democrats will have to go through the primaries, while Santorum can just raise money during that period. BTW, is Hoeffel the frontrunner for the Dem nomination?

The PA GOP won't be that united. RINOs in suburban areas outside of Philly will not vote for him. However, I think he will pick up his numbers with conservative Dems, allowing him to win this race.

Right now, there is no frontrunner for the Dem nomination. Outgoing State Treasurer Barbara Hafer (Dem turned Republican turned Dem again) and Joe Hoeffel are the major likely candidates and in a Hafer-Hoeffel race, I'd bet Hafer wins it. However, word is that extremely popular conservative Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. (incoming State Treasurer) is considering a run. If he runs, he'd probably win the nomination and would beat Santorum.

In my opinion, Casey won't run. There will be a Hafer-Hoeffel primary with some minor candidates (State EPA administrator Kathleen McGinty, Charlie Crystle are possible candidates. If they run, they would probably have the "minor candidates" status.)

This is part of the reason why I don't think Santorum will win.  The Conservative Dems in PA are not very Conservative they are somewhat Conservative.  Santorum has taken a sharp right turn since 2000 and many of those Conservative Dems who voted for Santorum in 2000 aren't going to vote for him in 06 because of how far right he has gotten

The conservative Dems like Santorum. Conservative Dem has to make a decision - Liberal Democratic candidate  or conservative Republican that they like and respect and voted for in the past. He will win. He has about a 54% approval rating in the state. Get over it.
Bottom line is Santorum has gone well to the right from where he was in 2000, and the cross-over votes are going to suffer because of that.

I don't believe he has gone far to the right since 2000. Bottom line is that Santorum is one of the most popular officials in the state and consistently receives high approval ratings/low disapproval ratings. Have fun arguing with the facts.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: January 04, 2005, 03:47:30 PM »
« Edited: January 04, 2005, 03:50:17 PM by Smash255 »

One advantage Santorum will have is that he'll have a united party. The Democrats will have to go through the primaries, while Santorum can just raise money during that period. BTW, is Hoeffel the frontrunner for the Dem nomination?

The PA GOP won't be that united. RINOs in suburban areas outside of Philly will not vote for him. However, I think he will pick up his numbers with conservative Dems, allowing him to win this race.

Right now, there is no frontrunner for the Dem nomination. Outgoing State Treasurer Barbara Hafer (Dem turned Republican turned Dem again) and Joe Hoeffel are the major likely candidates and in a Hafer-Hoeffel race, I'd bet Hafer wins it. However, word is that extremely popular conservative Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. (incoming State Treasurer) is considering a run. If he runs, he'd probably win the nomination and would beat Santorum.

In my opinion, Casey won't run. There will be a Hafer-Hoeffel primary with some minor candidates (State EPA administrator Kathleen McGinty, Charlie Crystle are possible candidates. If they run, they would probably have the "minor candidates" status.)

This is part of the reason why I don't think Santorum will win.  The Conservative Dems in PA are not very Conservative they are somewhat Conservative.  Santorum has taken a sharp right turn since 2000 and many of those Conservative Dems who voted for Santorum in 2000 aren't going to vote for him in 06 because of how far right he has gotten

The conservative Dems like Santorum. Conservative Dem has to make a decision - Liberal Democratic candidate  or conservative Republican that they like and respect and voted for in the past. He will win. He has about a 54% approval rating in the state. Get over it.
Bottom line is Santorum has gone well to the right from where he was in 2000, and the cross-over votes are going to suffer because of that.

I don't believe he has gone far to the right since 2000. Bottom line is that Santorum is one of the most popular officials in the state and consistently receives high approval ratings/low disapproval ratings. Have fun arguing with the facts.

His approval ratings have hovered in the low to mid 50's.  Thats decent I won't deny that, but its not like he has amazing approval ratings.  His approval ratings are a good 10-15% below both of the senators from my state.

Santorum has drifted pretty far to the right since 2000.  he ran under a fairly moderate campaign in 2000.  He can't come close to doing that this year.  The Conservative Dems you speak of I just don't see voting for Santorum, in the numbers they did in 2000 or anything.  Most of those Conservative Dems tend to be in western PA, a heavily unionized area, and Santorum's record on unions is bad & has gotten worse within the last 4 years.

His whole comments about government intervention in the so called "private life" of citizens will really come back to haunt him.  not many people know about his comments, but its something the Dems will make a big deal about in 06.  Those comments are probably going to wind up hurting him than his anti-gay tirade.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: January 04, 2005, 03:56:33 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

His ratings are usually the highest in Pennsylvania. I'm sorry but I don't care what Schumer and Clinton have in NY. That's really not of my concern when discussing a PA Senate race.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) I will stick by my statement that Santorum has not drifted further to the right.

2) Conservative Dems in the west are in heavily unionzed areas but that hasn't stopped them from supporting him in the past and doesn't stop them from saying that they approve of the job he is doing now. Once again, have fun arguing with the facts.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, he doesn't go on anti-gay tirades.

Secondly, people do know of his comments. It was all over the news. Guess what? His approval ratings stayed the same. Yes, I'll say it again: Argue with the facts.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: January 04, 2005, 04:01:45 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

His ratings are usually the highest in Pennsylvania. I'm sorry but I don't care what Schumer and Clinton have in NY. That's really not of my concern when discussing a PA Senate race.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) I will stick by my statement that Santorum has not drifted further to the right.

2) Conservative Dems in the west are in heavily unionzed areas but that hasn't stopped them from supporting him in the past and doesn't stop them from saying that they approve of the job he is doing now. Once again, have fun arguing with the facts.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, he doesn't go on anti-gay tirades.

Secondly, people do know of his comments. It was all over the news. Guess what? His approval ratings stayed the same. Yes, I'll say it again: Argue with the facts.

Guess what? His dissaproval numbers jumped when he said that.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: January 04, 2005, 04:02:44 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

His ratings are usually the highest in Pennsylvania. I'm sorry but I don't care what Schumer and Clinton have in NY. That's really not of my concern when discussing a PA Senate race.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) I will stick by my statement that Santorum has not drifted further to the right.

2) Conservative Dems in the west are in heavily unionzed areas but that hasn't stopped them from supporting him in the past and doesn't stop them from saying that they approve of the job he is doing now. Once again, have fun arguing with the facts.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, he doesn't go on anti-gay tirades.

Secondly, people do know of his comments. It was all over the news. Guess what? His approval ratings stayed the same. Yes, I'll say it again: Argue with the facts.

Guess what? His dissaproval numbers jumped when he said that.

Where are his latest approval/disapproval ratings, dan?
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: January 04, 2005, 04:02:55 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

His ratings are usually the highest in Pennsylvania. I'm sorry but I don't care what Schumer and Clinton have in NY. That's really not of my concern when discussing a PA Senate race.



Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) I will stick by my statement that Santorum has not drifted further to the right.

2) Conservative Dems in the west are in heavily unionzed areas but that hasn't stopped them from supporting him in the past and doesn't stop them from saying that they approve of the job he is doing now. Once again, have fun arguing with the facts.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, he doesn't go on anti-gay tirades.

Secondly, people do know of his comments. It was all over the news. Guess what? His approval ratings stayed the same. Yes, I'll say it again: Argue with the facts.


I mentioned the NY ratings because you try to act like Santorum is  untouchable.  His approval ratings are solid but he doesn't have 65-70% approval.

As far as Santorum not drifitng further right, just look at his ACU ratings.  His lifetime ratings is 87, but if you look at the past 3 years the average is well into the 90's.

I'm sorry, but he did go on an anti-gay tirade/  Beastiality??  hello.  and the comments I was talking about was his comments about private citizens rights or non rights in his view.  Those comments did not get nearly the coverage of his beastiality comments
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: January 04, 2005, 04:14:38 PM »

When did I say Santorum was untouchable? Given his likely opposition, he is very likely to win re-election, in my opinion. Untouchable would be like Craig Thomas (R) in Wyoming. I've never compared Santorum's chances to that of an untouchable.

As for ACU ratings, in 2000, Santorum had a 100 rating. I don't know how they came up with that. It seems too high. However, you decided to use the ACU argument and your argument is weak. Since his last re-election, according to these numbers, he has dropped. So, using these ratings, you can actually say that he was re-elected in 2000 being more conservative than he probably will be in 2006.

You continue to say Santorum is anti-gay and all that. It's nothing new so I hope that when he is asked during a debate "Do you hate gays?" and he gives you an answer that you can accept it and move on.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: January 04, 2005, 04:17:22 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

His ratings are usually the highest in Pennsylvania. I'm sorry but I don't care what Schumer and Clinton have in NY. That's really not of my concern when discussing a PA Senate race.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) I will stick by my statement that Santorum has not drifted further to the right.

2) Conservative Dems in the west are in heavily unionzed areas but that hasn't stopped them from supporting him in the past and doesn't stop them from saying that they approve of the job he is doing now. Once again, have fun arguing with the facts.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, he doesn't go on anti-gay tirades.

Secondly, people do know of his comments. It was all over the news. Guess what? His approval ratings stayed the same. Yes, I'll say it again: Argue with the facts.

Guess what? His dissaproval numbers jumped when he said that.

Where are his latest approval/disapproval ratings, dan?

lol, I showed you the article....gosh it must have been three times...that said his disapproval numbers jumped up after those comments. Go look for it yourself this time.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: January 04, 2005, 04:20:06 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

His ratings are usually the highest in Pennsylvania. I'm sorry but I don't care what Schumer and Clinton have in NY. That's really not of my concern when discussing a PA Senate race.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) I will stick by my statement that Santorum has not drifted further to the right.

2) Conservative Dems in the west are in heavily unionzed areas but that hasn't stopped them from supporting him in the past and doesn't stop them from saying that they approve of the job he is doing now. Once again, have fun arguing with the facts.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, he doesn't go on anti-gay tirades.

Secondly, people do know of his comments. It was all over the news. Guess what? His approval ratings stayed the same. Yes, I'll say it again: Argue with the facts.

Guess what? His dissaproval numbers jumped when he said that.

Where are his latest approval/disapproval ratings, dan?

lol, I showed you the article....gosh it must have been three times...that said his disapproval numbers jumped up after those comments. Go look for it yourself this time.

Hmmmm...I really liked how the article just stated "Yeah by the way, Santorum's disapproval numbers are up, up, up!" without showing the polls details. Sorry. When discussing this, I like to see the actual results. Until otherwise, I will continue to state that Santorum has some of the highest approval ratings and the lowest disapproval numbers of those officials rated.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: January 04, 2005, 04:36:48 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

His ratings are usually the highest in Pennsylvania. I'm sorry but I don't care what Schumer and Clinton have in NY. That's really not of my concern when discussing a PA Senate race.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) I will stick by my statement that Santorum has not drifted further to the right.

2) Conservative Dems in the west are in heavily unionzed areas but that hasn't stopped them from supporting him in the past and doesn't stop them from saying that they approve of the job he is doing now. Once again, have fun arguing with the facts.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, he doesn't go on anti-gay tirades.

Secondly, people do know of his comments. It was all over the news. Guess what? His approval ratings stayed the same. Yes, I'll say it again: Argue with the facts.

Guess what? His dissaproval numbers jumped when he said that.

Where are his latest approval/disapproval ratings, dan?

lol, I showed you the article....gosh it must have been three times...that said his disapproval numbers jumped up after those comments. Go look for it yourself this time.

Hmmmm...I really liked how the article just stated "Yeah by the way, Santorum's disapproval numbers are up, up, up!" without showing the polls details. Sorry. When discussing this, I like to see the actual results. Until otherwise, I will continue to state that Santorum has some of the highest approval ratings and the lowest disapproval numbers of those officials rated.

The article didn't quote his approval numbers either, just said they were nearly steady. What's your point?
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: January 04, 2005, 04:40:36 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point is that they didn't provide the data and I'm not ready to believe an article without seeing the breakdown.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: January 04, 2005, 09:41:40 PM »

When did I say Santorum was untouchable? Given his likely opposition, he is very likely to win re-election, in my opinion. Untouchable would be like Craig Thomas (R) in Wyoming. I've never compared Santorum's chances to that of an untouchable.

As for ACU ratings, in 2000, Santorum had a 100 rating. I don't know how they came up with that. It seems too high. However, you decided to use the ACU argument and your argument is weak. Since his last re-election, according to these numbers, he has dropped. So, using these ratings, you can actually say that he was re-elected in 2000 being more conservative than he probably will be in 2006.

You continue to say Santorum is anti-gay and all that. It's nothing new so I hope that when he is asked during a debate "Do you hate gays?" and he gives you an answer that you can accept it and move on.

Yes in 2000 his ACU rating was 100, but the years before that were in the 80's for the mostt part.  He pretty much ran his campaign as someone who is just slightly right of Center.  He was able to run a campaign like that for 2 main reasons.  1 his opponent did a poor job of pointing out that Santorum was actually well to the right of how he was running and 2.  Santorum really only had 1 year where he had a very conservative voting record.  prior years his voting record although being conservative wasn't very Conservative.  he can't run on that anymore because his voting record of the last 4 years has been very Conservative.  If he continues to have a voting record similar he will be running in 2006, with his seventh straight year of having a very conservative voting record.  As opposed to whjen he ran in 2000, where he had a very Conservative voting record for 1 year, but his voting record in the years prior despite being Conservative wasn't very Conservative
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: January 05, 2005, 03:17:28 PM »

When did I say Santorum was untouchable? Given his likely opposition, he is very likely to win re-election, in my opinion. Untouchable would be like Craig Thomas (R) in Wyoming. I've never compared Santorum's chances to that of an untouchable.

As for ACU ratings, in 2000, Santorum had a 100 rating. I don't know how they came up with that. It seems too high. However, you decided to use the ACU argument and your argument is weak. Since his last re-election, according to these numbers, he has dropped. So, using these ratings, you can actually say that he was re-elected in 2000 being more conservative than he probably will be in 2006.

You continue to say Santorum is anti-gay and all that. It's nothing new so I hope that when he is asked during a debate "Do you hate gays?" and he gives you an answer that you can accept it and move on.

Yes in 2000 his ACU rating was 100, but the years before that were in the 80's for the mostt part.  He pretty much ran his campaign as someone who is just slightly right of Center.  He was able to run a campaign like that for 2 main reasons.  1 his opponent did a poor job of pointing out that Santorum was actually well to the right of how he was running and 2.  Santorum really only had 1 year where he had a very conservative voting record.  prior years his voting record although being conservative wasn't very Conservative.  he can't run on that anymore because his voting record of the last 4 years has been very Conservative.  If he continues to have a voting record similar he will be running in 2006, with his seventh straight year of having a very conservative voting record.  As opposed to whjen he ran in 2000, where he had a very Conservative voting record for 1 year, but his voting record in the years prior despite being Conservative wasn't very Conservative

Once again I'll point out that people know about his conservative voting record. They approve of the job he is doing. The Dems are likely to put up a more liberal candidate that won't be able to connect well with the people of PA.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: January 05, 2005, 03:23:08 PM »

When did I say Santorum was untouchable? Given his likely opposition, he is very likely to win re-election, in my opinion. Untouchable would be like Craig Thomas (R) in Wyoming. I've never compared Santorum's chances to that of an untouchable.

As for ACU ratings, in 2000, Santorum had a 100 rating. I don't know how they came up with that. It seems too high. However, you decided to use the ACU argument and your argument is weak. Since his last re-election, according to these numbers, he has dropped. So, using these ratings, you can actually say that he was re-elected in 2000 being more conservative than he probably will be in 2006.

You continue to say Santorum is anti-gay and all that. It's nothing new so I hope that when he is asked during a debate "Do you hate gays?" and he gives you an answer that you can accept it and move on.

Yes in 2000 his ACU rating was 100, but the years before that were in the 80's for the mostt part.  He pretty much ran his campaign as someone who is just slightly right of Center.  He was able to run a campaign like that for 2 main reasons.  1 his opponent did a poor job of pointing out that Santorum was actually well to the right of how he was running and 2.  Santorum really only had 1 year where he had a very conservative voting record.  prior years his voting record although being conservative wasn't very Conservative.  he can't run on that anymore because his voting record of the last 4 years has been very Conservative.  If he continues to have a voting record similar he will be running in 2006, with his seventh straight year of having a very conservative voting record.  As opposed to whjen he ran in 2000, where he had a very Conservative voting record for 1 year, but his voting record in the years prior despite being Conservative wasn't very Conservative

Once again I'll point out that people know about his conservative voting record. They approve of the job he is doing. The Dems are likely to put up a more liberal candidate that won't be able to connect well with the people of PA.

Other than one year his voting record when he ran in 2000 wasn't as Conservative as his voting record over the past few years.  During the 90's Santorum was Conservative, but his voting record was far more moderate than its been over the last few years.  He was basically able to run his 2000 campaign as someone who is slightly to the right of Center.  He won't be able to run that type of close to a moderate campaign in 2006
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: January 05, 2005, 03:30:36 PM »

When did I say Santorum was untouchable? Given his likely opposition, he is very likely to win re-election, in my opinion. Untouchable would be like Craig Thomas (R) in Wyoming. I've never compared Santorum's chances to that of an untouchable.

As for ACU ratings, in 2000, Santorum had a 100 rating. I don't know how they came up with that. It seems too high. However, you decided to use the ACU argument and your argument is weak. Since his last re-election, according to these numbers, he has dropped. So, using these ratings, you can actually say that he was re-elected in 2000 being more conservative than he probably will be in 2006.

You continue to say Santorum is anti-gay and all that. It's nothing new so I hope that when he is asked during a debate "Do you hate gays?" and he gives you an answer that you can accept it and move on.

Yes in 2000 his ACU rating was 100, but the years before that were in the 80's for the mostt part.  He pretty much ran his campaign as someone who is just slightly right of Center.  He was able to run a campaign like that for 2 main reasons.  1 his opponent did a poor job of pointing out that Santorum was actually well to the right of how he was running and 2.  Santorum really only had 1 year where he had a very conservative voting record.  prior years his voting record although being conservative wasn't very Conservative.  he can't run on that anymore because his voting record of the last 4 years has been very Conservative.  If he continues to have a voting record similar he will be running in 2006, with his seventh straight year of having a very conservative voting record.  As opposed to whjen he ran in 2000, where he had a very Conservative voting record for 1 year, but his voting record in the years prior despite being Conservative wasn't very Conservative

Once again I'll point out that people know about his conservative voting record. They approve of the job he is doing. The Dems are likely to put up a more liberal candidate that won't be able to connect well with the people of PA.

Other than one year his voting record when he ran in 2000 wasn't as Conservative as his voting record over the past few years.  During the 90's Santorum was Conservative, but his voting record was far more moderate than its been over the last few years.  He was basically able to run his 2000 campaign as someone who is slightly to the right of Center.  He won't be able to run that type of close to a moderate campaign in 2006

I'll just keep saying it even though you refuse to accept the point: People know of his record. He is one of the most popular figures in the state. He has high approval ratings and the lowest disapproval ratings. I want you to argue with the people that like him and tell him "You can't like him. He ran a center-right campaign in 2000. His past voting record was like this. Don't you get it? You can't like him."
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: January 05, 2005, 03:34:54 PM »

When did I say Santorum was untouchable? Given his likely opposition, he is very likely to win re-election, in my opinion. Untouchable would be like Craig Thomas (R) in Wyoming. I've never compared Santorum's chances to that of an untouchable.

As for ACU ratings, in 2000, Santorum had a 100 rating. I don't know how they came up with that. It seems too high. However, you decided to use the ACU argument and your argument is weak. Since his last re-election, according to these numbers, he has dropped. So, using these ratings, you can actually say that he was re-elected in 2000 being more conservative than he probably will be in 2006.

You continue to say Santorum is anti-gay and all that. It's nothing new so I hope that when he is asked during a debate "Do you hate gays?" and he gives you an answer that you can accept it and move on.

Yes in 2000 his ACU rating was 100, but the years before that were in the 80's for the mostt part.  He pretty much ran his campaign as someone who is just slightly right of Center.  He was able to run a campaign like that for 2 main reasons.  1 his opponent did a poor job of pointing out that Santorum was actually well to the right of how he was running and 2.  Santorum really only had 1 year where he had a very conservative voting record.  prior years his voting record although being conservative wasn't very Conservative.  he can't run on that anymore because his voting record of the last 4 years has been very Conservative.  If he continues to have a voting record similar he will be running in 2006, with his seventh straight year of having a very conservative voting record.  As opposed to whjen he ran in 2000, where he had a very Conservative voting record for 1 year, but his voting record in the years prior despite being Conservative wasn't very Conservative

Once again I'll point out that people know about his conservative voting record. They approve of the job he is doing. The Dems are likely to put up a more liberal candidate that won't be able to connect well with the people of PA.

Other than one year his voting record when he ran in 2000 wasn't as Conservative as his voting record over the past few years.  During the 90's Santorum was Conservative, but his voting record was far more moderate than its been over the last few years.  He was basically able to run his 2000 campaign as someone who is slightly to the right of Center.  He won't be able to run that type of close to a moderate campaign in 2006

I'll just keep saying it even though you refuse to accept the point: People know of his record. He is one of the most popular figures in the state. He has high approval ratings and the lowest disapproval ratings. I want you to argue with the people that like him and tell him "You can't like him. He ran a center-right campaign in 2000. His past voting record was like this. Don't you get it? You can't like him."

He has decnet approval ratings, they are NOT through the roof.  The point I'm simply making is, the type of campaign which he ran in 2000 in which he was able to reach out toward middle of the road type voters he is NOT going to be able to do in 2006.  He can NOT run on the same type of basically a moderate platform as he did in 2006
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: January 05, 2005, 03:38:02 PM »

When did I say Santorum was untouchable? Given his likely opposition, he is very likely to win re-election, in my opinion. Untouchable would be like Craig Thomas (R) in Wyoming. I've never compared Santorum's chances to that of an untouchable.

As for ACU ratings, in 2000, Santorum had a 100 rating. I don't know how they came up with that. It seems too high. However, you decided to use the ACU argument and your argument is weak. Since his last re-election, according to these numbers, he has dropped. So, using these ratings, you can actually say that he was re-elected in 2000 being more conservative than he probably will be in 2006.

You continue to say Santorum is anti-gay and all that. It's nothing new so I hope that when he is asked during a debate "Do you hate gays?" and he gives you an answer that you can accept it and move on.

Yes in 2000 his ACU rating was 100, but the years before that were in the 80's for the mostt part.  He pretty much ran his campaign as someone who is just slightly right of Center.  He was able to run a campaign like that for 2 main reasons.  1 his opponent did a poor job of pointing out that Santorum was actually well to the right of how he was running and 2.  Santorum really only had 1 year where he had a very conservative voting record.  prior years his voting record although being conservative wasn't very Conservative.  he can't run on that anymore because his voting record of the last 4 years has been very Conservative.  If he continues to have a voting record similar he will be running in 2006, with his seventh straight year of having a very conservative voting record.  As opposed to whjen he ran in 2000, where he had a very Conservative voting record for 1 year, but his voting record in the years prior despite being Conservative wasn't very Conservative

Once again I'll point out that people know about his conservative voting record. They approve of the job he is doing. The Dems are likely to put up a more liberal candidate that won't be able to connect well with the people of PA.

Other than one year his voting record when he ran in 2000 wasn't as Conservative as his voting record over the past few years.  During the 90's Santorum was Conservative, but his voting record was far more moderate than its been over the last few years.  He was basically able to run his 2000 campaign as someone who is slightly to the right of Center.  He won't be able to run that type of close to a moderate campaign in 2006

I'll just keep saying it even though you refuse to accept the point: People know of his record. He is one of the most popular figures in the state. He has high approval ratings and the lowest disapproval ratings. I want you to argue with the people that like him and tell him "You can't like him. He ran a center-right campaign in 2000. His past voting record was like this. Don't you get it? You can't like him."

He has decnet approval ratings, they are NOT through the roof.  The point I'm simply making is, the type of campaign which he ran in 2000 in which he was able to reach out toward middle of the road type voters he is NOT going to be able to do in 2006.  He can NOT run on the same type of basically a moderate platform as he did in 2006

They're not through the roof but they are some of the highest, if not the highest, approval ratings in the state! What don't you understand? He also has the lowest disapproval ratings.

Santorum might not do as well as he did in 2000 when it comes to moderate voters but he has built up enough of a base among conservatives in the state and especially western PA residents that will allow him to win re-election in 2006.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.087 seconds with 11 queries.