Why I think we will pick Rick.

[Keystone Phil]

This sums it all up. Everything the guy says here is exactly how I feel. I know it will irritate a lot of you but this is how a lot of us feel. This is why he's so well liked. This is why the man has a following Rick hits it home - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

[Rob]

Huckabee would run better than Santorum in Pennsylvania.

[Franzl]

Please do.

[Psychic Octopus]

He's not even on Intrade, lol.

[Holmes]

I just noticed that his singing voice does not fit his look.

[Keystone Phil]

Huckabee would run better than Santorum in Pennsylvania.

He's not even on Intrade, lol.

OH NO, RICK! BETTER NOT RUN NOW!


By the way, big to three of the four people posting here for not even getting the point of this thread. Thanks.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He has to get his name out there somehow - and even then, I think it's a stretch.  If he actually wants to run, he'd need to start RickPAC or something.

[Nym90]

Huckabee would run better than Santorum in Pennsylvania.

Um, no, that's definitely not true, but losing Pennsylvania by only 5 instead of 15 points doesn't matter as far as the Electoral College is concerned, so it's a moot point anyway. I guess you could argue that Santorum at least ensures Pennsylvania doesn't get ignored and forces Obama to spend money there, whereas with Huckabee it'd be off the radar screen completely.

Phil, I admire the fact that you stand by your man, but even you have to admit there are better candidates out there than a guy who lost his bid for reelection by over 17 points.

[Nixon in '80]

We've already had a candidate who said he wouldn't lie to us...

Another Carter? No thank you!

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

We've already had a candidate who said he wouldn't lie to us...

Another Carter? No thank you!

Explain how Carter and Santorum are similar.

[Nixon in '80]

We've already had a candidate who said he wouldn't lie to us...

Another Carter? No thank you!

Explain how Carter and Santorum are similar.

Watch the video, it comes through in spades.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

We've already had a candidate who said he wouldn't lie to us...

Another Carter? No thank you!

Explain how Carter and Santorum are similar.

Watch the video, it comes through in spades.

Phil, you're an idiot. 

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, you're an idiot. 

The idiots are the people in this thread that didn't watch the video. 

whereas with Huckabee it'd be off the radar screen completely.

No, that's definitely not true either. If Obama is a very weak incumbent, it's crazy to say that PA would be a lock for him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've addressed this re-election point several times now and why we, as politicos, might over emphasize it.

I've stressed that Santorum could be a very serious threat to Obama if Obama is struggling as President. Do I think Santorum would have beaten Obama in 2008? No. Do I think the fact that he got destroyed in 2006 would have meant more in 2008? Yes, I do. I just refuse to believe this idea that his re-election thumping of 2006 would be the defining issue of a hypothetical 2012 campaign with a hypothetically unpopular, struggling incumbent President.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

You're forgetting our party's tradition, Phil. We all know that our nominee will be Romney or Huckabee in 2012. It will not be Palin, Santorum, Gingrich, or anyone else. If Romney and/or Huckabee run, it will be theirs for the taking. It's their turn. Romney will be especially strong if the economy is still in the tubes.

When was the last time the GOP nominated someone no one else expected would be nominated? If we've ever done that, it's been a very long time. I'm not saying it's impossible Mr. Santorum gets it, but it would be out of the blue and very unlike our party. He may run, but he won't gain traction because Romney will have the money, the establishment backing, and the organization to win the primary.

[Mr. Morden]

When was the last time the GOP nominated someone no one else expected would be nominated? If we've ever done that, it's been a very long time.

No one would have expected in September or October of 2007 that McCain would be nominated.  He was the longest of longshots at that time.......but that might not be exactly what you meant.   

[Keystone Phil]

You're forgetting our party's tradition, Phil. We all know that our nominee will be Romney or Huckabee in 2012. It will not be Palin, Santorum, Gingrich, or anyone else. If Romney and/or Huckabee run, it will be theirs for the taking. It's their turn. Romney will be especially strong if the economy is still in the tubes.

When was the last time the GOP nominated someone no one else expected would be nominated? If we've ever done that, it's been a very long time. I'm not saying it's impossible Mr. Santorum gets it, but it would be out of the blue and very unlike our party. He may run, but he won't gain traction because Romney will have the money, the establishment backing, and the organization to win the primary.

It boggles my mind how people (again, the politicos) stick to such silly standards. "It's not his turn, therefore, no one other than Romney or Huckabee has a chance at all. Period. End of story."

To say with certainty this far out that one candidate will have everything needed is just plain assinine. Sorry but it's the truth. I remember this one candidate from 2008 with everything you mentioned. Everything. Ask Hillary how that all worked out for her.

Don't handicap this far out, folks.

[Akno21]

Exactly how many elections does your "tradition" cover, discounting those in which an incumbent Vice President or President defeated a primary opponent? 2008, 2000, 1996, 1980, 1968? That's an extraordinarily small sample size, replete with specific reasons for the eventual nominations. Making a call three years out based on a sample of 5 is pretty stupid.

[Nym90]

Phil, you're an idiot. 

The idiots are the people in this thread that didn't watch the video. 

whereas with Huckabee it'd be off the radar screen completely.

No, that's definitely not true either. If Obama is a very weak incumbent, it's crazy to say that PA would be a lock for him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've addressed this re-election point several times now and why we, as politicos, might over emphasize it.

I've stressed that Santorum could be a very serious threat to Obama if Obama is struggling as President. Do I think Santorum would have beaten Obama in 2008? No. Do I think the fact that he got destroyed in 2006 would have meant more in 2008? Yes, I do. I just refuse to believe this idea that his re-election thumping of 2006 would be the defining issue of a hypothetical 2012 campaign with a hypothetically unpopular, struggling incumbent President.

Sure, I agree Santorum or pretty much any half way competent Republican could beat Obama if he's got Bush-like approval ratings. I was just pointing out that you guys have to have better candidates out there than people who have been out of the Senate for 6 years and were defeated for reelection by 17 points.

[WalterMitty]

rick isnt going to be president.   he isnt going to win statewide office in pa or va.

his best bet is to run for a house seat.

[Matt Damon™]

Rick Santorum is an insane, bigoted piece of sh**t who exemplifies why the US is basically cartoonishly evil.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Santorum will not be president. In fact I doubt he will even run. There will be at least a half dozen other conservatives running, none of whom will have anywhere near his baggage. If Palin, Huckabee, and Jindal are all running, there's not much room for Santorum. And no, Santorum would not put Pennsylvania in play. The best he could do for himself, if he does indeed want to return to federal office, is to either move to Kansas and run for Sam Brownback's seat or run for a house seat somewhere.

And no, the GOP nominee is not necessarily going to be Romney or Huckabee. I'm not even sure those are the two most likely potential nominees at this point. The nominee could just as easily be somebody noone on this forum is talking about right now.

[Keystone Phil]

I was just pointing out that you guys have to have better candidates out there than people who have been out of the Senate for 6 years and were defeated for reelection by 17 points.

Saying that some of these candidates are "better" is awfully subjective. But even if there are "better" candidates out there, please realize that that doesn't make someone the nominee.

Richard Nixon was tainted with an electoral defeat in 1960 and a terrible lose in 1962. "But, Phil, the first race was for President and it was very close while in 1962 he wasn't the incumbent!" Right, got it but still had to very demoralizing losses around his neck. He was thought to be finished. He was out of office for seven years and then he's back. Yep, Santorum is a polarizing figure and so was Richard Nixon.

Don't just rule this out. I'm not saying that it's likely or that it will even happen. Just entertain that there is more than a "0% chance" when you consider that this man is still involved in the movement.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

rick isnt going to be president.   he isnt going to win statewide office in pa or va.

his best bet is to run for a house seat.

Where? His old one doesn't exist anymore, and most of it is now in the Pittsburgh-based district. As for his actual residence in Virginia, he could try primarying Frank Wolf if he likes, but he won't win, nor would he win the general.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I don't think Rick has more than a 0.00001% chance of winning the nomination.  He is too controversial for the GOP to nominate, and besides, there will probably be at least 2 other candidates who will split his base.

[Reaganfan]

Saw this coming.

Phil...I know I posted that "Case for a President Santorum" thread, and I know I bust you a lot on Rick...but let's be honest. You are the only person in the World (including Rick himself) who ever thinks he will run, or have a shot.