Were the GOP establishment wrong to back Romney so quickly ahead of Santorum?

[User157088589849]

Looking at the state of the race, I think Santorum would have made Ohio, Michigan, Pennslyvania alot more competitive than Romney has.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No, Santorum would be getting slaughtered, but on different issues.

[User157088589849]

No, Santorum would be getting slaughtered, but on different issues.

All the states Romney currently leads so would Santorum.

[Craigo]

Looking at the state of the race, I think Santorum would have made Ohio, Michigan, Pennslyvania alot more competitive than Romney has.

You remember what happened the last time Santorum ran statewide in Pennsylvania? If he were the nominee we'd be arguing over whether all Republicans wanted to ban birth control, or just their nominee.

[Adam Griffin]

No, Santorum would be getting slaughtered, but on different issues.

All the states Romney currently leads so would Santorum.

Santorum would have given even more validity to the "social warfare" argument Democrats have been making for months. Remember that the issues of contraception, abortion et al gained traction in the campaign only after a series of Santorum comments and sound-bytes ("I don't want to make bla people's lives better", "contraception is not okay", "JFK makes me want to vomit"). Perhaps he would have brought some modest gains in areas of the rust belt due to his ability to intertwine economics and social issues, but that would be at the expense of losing votes in almost every other state in the country.

Santorum would have been down 10 points before the conventions.

[Simfan34]

[5280]

If Romney loses, I hope Jon Huntsman runs in 2016.

Santorum would of been slaughtered for his social views.

[Donerail]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Garyjohnsonphoto_-_modified.jpg/195px-Garyjohnsonphoto_-_modified.jpg











Gallery of candidates for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination who were superior to Romney, and certainly to Santorum.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Ron Paul as a viable candidate? You're joking, aren't you?

[cavalcade]

Out of the people who ran, Romney is ahead of where any other Republican would be.  Maybe not by much in the case of Santorum, but Michigan and Pennsylvania wouldn't be competitive.  Huntsman was not substantially more charismatic than Romney, and liberals would have realized by now that he would be the Worst President Ever, just as they did with McCain.

I don't really know how Christie, Jeb, etc. would have handled a national campaign but I'd imagine at least a few in that group would be doing better.  Huckabee would be doing slightly better, assuming he'd distanced himself from the Akin comments.

[Donerail]

Ron Paul as a viable candidate? You're joking, aren't you?

I didn't say viable. I used the specific term "superior".

[technical support]

Looking at the state of the race, I think Santorum would have made Ohio, Michigan, Pennslyvania alot more competitive than Romney has.

Not sure santorum could raise money like romney

[King]

They should have backed Gingrich.  With all the patchwork they have to do to make Mitt seem likable, they could have at least done it to somebody with a decent resume and plan for America.

[Lincoln Republican]

Santorum is a right wing fanatical nut case who, for example, said Protestants are not Christians.

His social views are so far out of the main stream he would be fatal to Republican candidates for Governor, Senate, and House.

Did you ever wonder why Pennsylvania voters gave him a 17 point butt kicking?

Santorum is a self centred, self absorbed, arrogant, graceless, fanatic, who will never be elected to any public office ever again at any time, anywhere in the United States of America.     

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Santorum Romney is a self centred, self absorbed, arrogant, graceless, fanatic, who will never be elected to any public office ever again at any time, anywhere in the United States of America.     

[Maxwell]

Gallery of candidates for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination who were superior to Romney, and certainly to Santorum.

Tim Pawlenty isn't superior to ANYBODY. He is america's biggest LOSER.

[RJ]

I'm not an I told you so kind of person, but I said at the beginning that Santorum would have fared better in the long run than Romney, and I think we're finding out why.

Romney makes a gaff or finds himself in a procurious position that he attempts to take advantage of. His way of dealing with it is to swear up and down that he had no intention of offending anyone and simply chose his words unwisely or that there's some kind of seperation when there's not. For example, his 47% comment. He claims his words do not represent his views and he was misunderstood. Then there was his position on the Supreme Court's ruling on Obamacare, particularly the mandate. He claimed in so many words that his mandate in while governor of MA was justified somehow because the state has the right to pass such a law, not the fed. government. Then there was his attack ad against Santorum that accused Rick of supporting "liberal justice Sotomayor"(talk about misleading). The bottom line is that there is too much inconsistency on his part and voters tend to see him as just a politician willing to say or do anything to get elected.

Santorum is a little different in the fact that I think that he actually believes in what he says and comes across as such. Many may not concur with his views but at least he wouldn't spend a lot of time doing some kind of damage control by backtracking his mis-statements or taking a minor issue or difference and turning it into a major one. If Santorum had done any of these things he wouldn't back away from what he said and would hammer away on the major things that seperate him from Obama. I'm not saying Santorum would win but I just think he would have made a better choice for the Republican Party this fall.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1. He wouldn't have anywhere close the amount of money that Romney and Obama have been raising

2. He wouldn't be able to escape the War on Women thing and Akin's comments would have brought his own unpalatability with women back to the front and center. Obama would be playing that clip of Rick on contreceptives in every swing state. The lesson that Democrats learned from Colorado in 2010 has been played aggressively as it is, but with Rick, it would have stuck like glue far more then it has with Mittens.

3. Rick was a big advocate for Bush's Social Security Reform. If Romney can barely defend Ryan's medicare reform using the Obamacare cuts as a counterpoint, what could Rick point to or do to avoid that being wrapped around his neck in Florida.

4. Rick is also very gaffe prone

5. Rick would have the same problems articulating an alternative to Obama on National Security and there is no guarrantee that he wouldn't end up making many of the same mistakes Mittens has, especially when you consider the types Romney is taking advice from are from the same school of thought as Rick.

6. Rick wouldn't have had the same potential in NH, CO and NV that Mittens has. Those people want someone who tilts more on the fiscal side and is less aggressive on social issues. They way they moved during the Bush years attests to that fact. Santorum would merely exacerbate the GOP's problems in rich suburbs. Now if this was Pat Toomey, we were talking about, he likely would avoid this problem.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Out of the people who ran, Romney is ahead of where any other Republican would be.  Maybe not by much in the case of Santorum, but Michigan and Pennsylvania wouldn't be competitive.  Huntsman was not substantially more charismatic than Romney, and liberals would have realized by now that he would be the Worst President Ever, just as they did with McCain.

I don't really know how Christie, Jeb, etc. would have handled a national campaign but I'd imagine at least a few in that group would be doing better.  Huckabee would be doing slightly better, assuming he'd distanced himself from the Akin comments.

But he couldn't distance himself from Akin, because of what Huckabee with did with Boozman in the 1990's. "Huckabee not only stood by him, he put him in charge of healthcare in Arkansas, can you really trust Huckabee not to do same in Washington?"

[PrisonerOfHope]

@IDS Legislator SJoyceFla -- Herman Cain "superior" to Romney?  Yes he's claiming it, but you'd have to be just as unhinged to believe it.  Failed Republican contenders had one or more of the following problems: No Money, No Exposure, No Experience, No Policies, No Personality, No Grounding in Reality.  Gingrich was the least hindered of the rest of the field.  He or anyone else  would still have to win almost all the swing states, very daunting.  Plenty of people look good until they actually have to run the national campaign.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And when Romney the moderate gets trounced what then? That will be 0-2 for the moderate wing.

Newsflash - republicans win when they offer a credible alternative to Obama, not just Obama lite.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And when Romney the moderate gets trounced what then? That will be 0-2 for the moderate wing.

Newsflash - republicans win when they offer a credible alternative to Obama, not just Obama lite.

It's not the whole 'moderate' thing that's sinking the Republican Party. It's spineless moderate candidates who turn off independents by their tendency to embrace, placate and pander to the fringe elements of conservatism in order to solidify their support. It makes people fear that they will be controlled by them if elected. The vast majority of the country does not share your worldview (I can empathize). Republican candidates could win again if they were actual moderates who stood for something.

Think about Romney. Six months ago, a large portion of America thought him to be more liberal than he claimed to be - conservatives, liberals and independents alike. Many, many people still believe this to be true. In the broader context, he is to the right of Obama but still somewhat near the middle based on his record. In theory, he should be exactly what independents want, moderate enough to pull some Democrats away from Obama and acceptable enough to receive Republicans' support: he's not Obama. Yet this is not occurring. It's because he has no core, no spine and can't stand for what he believes. It is disgusting to swing voters.

Then consider McCain. McCain had a lot of disadvantages working against him; age, a decade of Republican failure culminating in the final stretch of his campaign, "combo-breaker" opposition that was far better at grassroots campaigning and appeal. Yet McCain began to slide in the final weeks, once he endorsed the reactionary Sarah Palin in a vein attempt to appeal to women and conservatives. From that point, his polls began to slide. Suspending his campaign didn't do any favors. McCain once stood for something, but he himself even admits that he lost his compass in the election. He became someone who had no core, no spine and couldn't stand for what he believed because he needed a contrast, a game-changer. It was disgusting to swing voters.

[Badger]

Santorum's biggest problem is he's percieved as a cultural warrior. Even if one agrees with him non-zealously on such issues, he'd be hampered as not being seen as an "economics guy" when the economy is of top priority to the country by far. romney could run on his business credentials and executive experience, even though he's done a piss-poor job of executing so far. Santorum would've been better suited (hypothetically) in a 2004 or 1996 type-race.

[mondale84]

Santorum would be down 15 points.

END OF STORY.

[Comrade Funk]

Say what you want about Romney, but compared to the last three (Ricky, that 90s guy, and Pope Liberty), he is the greatest politician ever.