The cult leader is on Leno.

[Keystone Phil]

Anyone see this disgusting display? It seems as if The Dangerous Candidate's followers found a way to stack something other than a straw poll...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aw, I missed it.

[Lief 🗽]

Romney is on Leno? Interesting...

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I saw Rick Santorum on a show in some guys basement once. The studio audience consisted of Keystone Phill and a bunch of stuffed animals. And besides that, at least our cult is sucessfull

[Reluctant Republican]

I missed it, but the consensus seems to be that Paul did really well.

And he got Joe Rogan's endorsement. He'd be fun to host a debate...

"The first candidate to eat 4 cockroaches wins."

[RI]

I saw Rick Santorum on a show in some guys basement once. The studio audience consisted of Keystone Phill and a bunch of stuffed animals. And besides that, at least our cult is sucessfull

You know, Paul's lost his share of elections too. 1974 and 1976 House, 1984 Senate primary, 1988 President, 2008 President primary... Heck, Paul lost to a Robert Casey too. Paul is 9/14 (64.3%) in his "final" elections for a seat before this year. Santorum is 4/5 (80%) in such races, which would have been higher if he would have stayed in the House like Paul.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I saw Rick Santorum on a show in some guys basement once. The studio audience consisted of Keystone Phill and a bunch of stuffed animals. And besides that, at least our cult is sucessfull

You know, Paul's lost his share of elections too. 1974 and 1976 House, 1984 Senate primary, 1988 President, 2008 President primary... Heck, Paul lost to a Robert Casey too. Paul is 9/14 (64.3%) in his "final" elections for a seat before this year. Santorum is 4/5 (80%) in such races, which would have been higher if he would have stayed in the House like Paul.

Well, those early losses occurred when Texas (including Paul's seat) was basically safe Dem. He lost the primary for Senate because it was against Bush and he was a lesser known (outside of the Houston area) congressman, and he lost in 1988 because the silly electoral system of the US means that even Jesus Christ Himself running as a Libertarian would probably lose without one of the major parties folding (or being a billionaire and not pissing away his chances by dropping out for no reason, like Perot).

Anyway, he won his first house elections in a district that was fairly Democratic, and he won his second house elections by increasingly wider margins despite never compromising his views and being targeted by the Democrats for attacks whereas Santorum won his first election by a decent margin and was destroyed just one term later.

[Keystone Phil]

And besides that, at least our cult is sucessfull

Oh, I guess Santorum never won two House races in Democratic districts and two statewide races in Pennsylvania.

[Zarn]

I saw Rick Santorum on a show in some guys basement once. The studio audience consisted of Keystone Phill and a bunch of stuffed animals. And besides that, at least our cult is sucessfull

You know, Paul's lost his share of elections too. 1974 and 1976 House, 1984 Senate primary, 1988 President, 2008 President primary... Heck, Paul lost to a Robert Casey too. Paul is 9/14 (64.3%) in his "final" elections for a seat before this year. Santorum is 4/5 (80%) in such races, which would have been higher if he would have stayed in the House like Paul.

Paul railed against the establishment of the Republican party, when he was trying to come back into Congress. That's not easy.

[Keystone Phil]

Santorum won his first election by a decent margin and was destroyed just one term later.

Uh, I'm pretty sure I have been over this with you before but we'll give it one more try...

Rick Santorum has won four elections out of five attempts so I'm not sure how he won his first race then lost just one term later. If you're referring to his statewide record, he ran three times, winning the first two races then losing while attempting to get a third term. So, no, he didn't lose "just one term later."

It would help if you were a little more informed before posting and (continuing) to look like an imbecile. Probably too much to ask of a Paultard though.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

You know the GOP has a poor field when "the cult" leader is mentioned and you can't figure out if that means Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Bachmann or Santorum

Perry did not come to mind

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Santorum won his first election by a decent margin and was destroyed just one term later.

Uh, I'm pretty sure I have been over this with you before but we'll give it one more try...

Rick Santorum has won four elections out of five attempts so I'm not sure how he won his first race then lost just one term later. If you're referring to his statewide record, he ran three times, winning the first two races then losing while attempting to get a third term. So, no, he didn't lose "just one term later."

It would help if you were a little more informed before posting and (continuing) to look like an imbecile. Probably too much to ask of a Paultard though.

Ahem. He won TWO elections, the first just barely, the SECOND by a decent margin, and the third was one of the biggest stompings of a challenger over an incumbent.

The fact still stands that he was defeated by nearly 20% of the vote, something I would expect for maybe New York or Vermont, not a lean-ish (at least outside of presidential elections) D state.

[argentarius]

Anyone see this disgusting display? It seems as if The Dangerous Candidate's followers found a way to stack something other than a straw poll...

I would think the dangerous candidate is the one who wants to start a war with a country that has nuclear weapons.

[RI]

Any Republican would have lost by at least that 17% in 2006 against Robert Casey Jr. That family is legendary in PA and rightfully so (sorry Phil).

[Keystone Phil]

Ahem. He won TWO elections, the first just barely, the SECOND by a decent margin, and the third was one of the biggest stompings of a challenger over an incumbent.

Ok, wrong again: he won four elections. Two of them were statewide. Say it with me: he won four elections. His record is far better than Ron Paul's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's because you're ill-informed. He was running against a Casey in Pennsylvania in 2006 as an unapologetic conservative defender of the war and the President. Sure, he could have done a little better but not by much.

[Averroës Nix]

Several of the Republican candidates have had embarassing electoral defeats:

Romney, obviously, has his loss to Ted Kennedy in 1994 (and his platform is more embarrassing for him than the fact that he lost by a Santorum-esque margin).

Then, after winning the 2002 gubernatorial election by a hair (and without a majority of the vote) despite outspending his opponent, Romney became so unpopular that he didn't even bother running for re-election. And when he ran for the Republican nomination instead, he suffered humiliating defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire despite (once again) outspending his opponents and despite by most accounts having the best-organized campaign.

Ron Paul's 1988 third party candidacy deserves mention, if only for the fact that it led to this. (It's helpful to Paul that it's been over a quarter century since he ran as a Libertarian and made his attempt at the Senate.)

It took Gingrich three attempts to win a seat in the house, and he came within a few hundred votes of losing his seat in 1990. He also was forced out of his seat by his colleagues, which seems just as embarrassing as any electoral defeat.

Rick Perry has never lost an election, but he's had a surprising number of close calls, the last two gubernatorial elections in particular.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm counting the statewide elections because if you count congressional elections its pretty clear who the "more electable" is.

Santorum: 2 successful elections as a congressman!
Paul: 12 successful elections as a congressman!

Oops.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? The senatorial candidate lost because he was running with wildly unpopular views against a well liked opponent? Why, that sounds like what would happen if a man who is most noted among those not affiliated with politics for hating gays and supporting wars found himself running against a president who still has decent favourability despite effectively being at the helm during a depression.

He's not much of a conservative either, going by what I've heard of his economic policy. What he supports is more like the Christian equivalent of a Kibbutz.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As much as defending anything to do with Santorum isn't really my idea of fun, it's at least vaguely telling that his district was gained by the Democrats when he ran for Senate in 1994.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm counting the statewide elections because if you count congressional elections its pretty clear who the "more electable" is.

Santorum: 2 successful elections as a congressman!
Paul: 12 successful elections as a congressman!


Oops.

Because Santorum only ran twice, genius. And you aren't leaving it out to level the playing field. You're leaving it out because it sounds better when you say, "Santorum won the first time and lost the second time" which is also factually inaccurate. Oh, that's right. You just "forgot" that he won statewide twice, not once. Right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

43% want to see him re-elected. Yeah, that's "decent favorability" all right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, but "Dr. Paul!!!111" is so economically conservative with his pork barreling and support for the most notorious pork barreling politicians. Keep telling yourself how different "THE DOCTOR!" is.

[Keystone Phil]

As much as defending anything to do with Santorum isn't really my idea of fun, it's at least vaguely telling that his district was gained by the Democrats when he ran for Senate in 1994.

Yet Santorum managed to carry it with 62% of the vote in 1992 after the Dems made it an even more Democratic district in the 1991 redistricting. But let's not consider that because OMGLOL HE LOST IN 2006!!!!

[Oakvale]

As funny and well-earned as Santorum's landslide defeat in 2006 was, it doesn't make a lot of sense for supporters of Ron Paul to be mocking him/Phil for it. How many times has Paul run for President? Fifty? Not to mention his other failed runs for Congress. I mean, Santorum may have been defeated in a very lopsided fashion, but Senator is still a higher office than Paul's ever come close to winning.

I now feel weird for defending Santorum.

[tpfkaw]

Ron Paul won a safe Democratic seat in a terrible year for Republicans, narrowly lost that same safe Democratic seat that same terrible year for Republicans, then regained it and held it for three terms before running in the Republican Senate primary against Phil Gramm simply to irritate the establishment.  Thereafter, he ran with the Libertarian Party for President, doing significantly better than any other Libertarian ticket besides the one that had a billionaire on it (which did terribly, given the circumstances, all things considered).  He then returned to Congress in one of the most-watched Congressional races of the year, beating the incumbent congressman who was backed by the entire party establishment in the primary, then beating another better-funded opponent in the still-Democratic district in the general election, all the while facing charges of "extremism."  He beat a well-funded opponent twice in 1998 and 2000, then won the rest of his elections in blowouts mainly by virtue of his personal popularity.  He then set fundraising records in his 2008 run, beat the initial frontrunner in the end, and made himself a household name, though he ultimately didn't win anything (unless the Louisiana caucus counts).  And all of this without ever receiving any support from the party establishment, or PAC and corporate donors.

But I suppose Phil is just pissy his boyfriend is going to finish well behind Paul.

[Keystone Phil]

But I suppose Phil is just pissy his boyfriend is going to finish well behind Paul.

A perfect example of the ever so endearing cult members!

THE FED

AUSTRIAN ECONOMISTS

MR. WE COULD USE A MAN LIKE GROVER CLEVELAND AGAIN!

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Watching Republicans duke it out is so much fun.

[tpfkaw]

But I suppose Phil is just pissy his boyfriend is going to finish well behind Paul.

A perfect example of the ever so endearing cult members!

Mr. Man-on-Dog is waiting, you dog.