August 11th Fox News Iowa presidential debate **live commentary thread**

[Keystone Phil]

I'm only fifteen minutes into the debate but I decided to comb through this thread as a break. I just had to respond to this gem...

Wait, did Santorum really just boast his electoral history?

If he wants to look at a decent record, look at Paul, someone who can win reelection...

Rick Santorum was elected to the House in a Democratic district by beating a seven term incumbent in 1990. The Democrats redistricted in 1991 and gave him an even more overwhelmingly Democratic district in 1992. He won again...with 62% of the vote that time. He went on to be elected and re-elected to the U.S. Senate from a swing state (or Democratic leaning state but I'm sure the Santorum haters that usually call PA a Democratic state will suddenly say it is Republican leaning to undermine Santorum's wins). In 2000, he received more votes than Gore-Lieberman.

Give me a call when Ron Paul wins something outside of his safe Republican Congressional district. Give me a call when he wins a statewide race in a swing state. Yeah, Santorum got his ass kicked in hard when he was running for his third term to the Senate. He still has way more electoral achievements in terms of quality than Ron Paul will ever have.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, their is no doubt Santorum has great history. Too be fair, he lost in a bad year. But, he lost by 18%! Even George Allen lost by 0.4%! And that was after Maccagate!! So if Santorum thinks he can beat Obama (and he cant, Im not from PA, but I have family in Cambria county), he has to poll ahead in PA. And he is not.

George Allen was running in a far more favorable state and wasn't opposed by a political dynasty.

Santorum is actually polling within two points of Obama in Pennsylvania and as much as I want to see us win the state next year, our nominee doesn't have to win here to win the Presidency.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm only fifteen minutes into the debate but I decided to comb through this thread as a break. I just had to respond to this gem...

Wait, did Santorum really just boast his electoral history?

If he wants to look at a decent record, look at Paul, someone who can win reelection...

Rick Santorum was elected to the House in a Democratic district by beating a seven term incumbent in 1990. The Democrats redistricted in 1991 and gave him an even more overwhelmingly Democratic district in 1992. He won again...with 62% of the vote that time. He went on to be elected and re-elected to the U.S. Senate from a swing state (or Democratic leaning state but I'm sure the Santorum haters that usually call PA a Democratic state will suddenly say it is Republican leaning to undermine Santorum's wins). In 2000, he received more votes than Gore-Lieberman.

Give me a call when Ron Paul wins something outside of his safe Republican Congressional district. Give me a call when he wins a statewide race in a swing state. Yeah, Santorum got his ass kicked in hard when he was running for his third term to the Senate. He still has way more electoral achievements in terms of quality than Ron Paul will ever have.

As I recall, Ron Paul took his seat initially back when Texas was strongly Democratic and his seat was firmly aligned with them, which he won. He eventually lost after giving up and trying for a higher office.

Was his seat Democratic throughout his time in office? No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you're going to ignore that he was twice elected statewide as well as winning a Democratic Congressional seat. Ok. Not surprising.

How is he performing worse than other candidates here? A Quinnipiac poll had him only down by two points in the General! Get a clue before you post. Seriously.

[Keystone Phil]

So your point is that Santorum is clearly very unpopular in the state but only trailing by two (while everyone else trails by more an Romney is barely ahead) isn't good enough? Please stop posting.

To add insult to your already horrendous "analysis," you think Obama will coast to victory against Santorum or anyone else that isn't Paul. Someone needs to wake up.

[Keystone Phil]

He isn't trailing because he's from here, ass. Plus, if he's so terribly unpopular, he would trail by more!

Santorum isn't running a race mostly based on abortion or the wars. Further proof of your ignorance. Save us both some time and don't continue this.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, you jumped the shark on Santorum a long time ago.

His numbers are microscopic outside of PA, and he's losing PA.

I know you like him, but arguing that he's a strong candidate is just willful blindness.

Dude, you're a Gary Johnson fan. You lose. Don't talk to me about supporting a candidate when you support a joke fad candidate. And you have the nerve to talk about microscopic support for other candidates to say that they aren't credible. Good one.

I didn't argue that he is a strong candidate. I'm saying he isn't as weak as he is being portrayed. If he's horribly unpopular here, he would get blown out of the water in polling. He isn't. He's barely trailing and so are others.

Do me a favor and stop putting words in my mouth.

[Keystone Phil]

...No, he is performing better because he is from Penn. thus meaning that people probably at least have an idea of who he is and some might be motivated to back the "home team".

Truly idiotic. He's so unpopular here yet he's doing well because he's from here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

America is going to vote against Santorum because of his views on abortion when unemployment is through the roof, consumer confidence is in the toilet, etc. (those are the reasons for a GOP victory. I'm sorry you haven't been paying attention as I and others noted this countless times). Yeah. Ok. And you talk about Santorum focusing too much on abortion! Pot, meet kettle.

[Keystone Phil]

I was wrong -- you're not just willfully blind about Santorum's chances, you're willfully blind about every political analysis that doesn't fit into your warped fantasy world.  You're in pbrower-land.

You've been around here for how long? Clearly not long enough.

I don't say that Santorum is favored. I don't think he is likely to win the nomination. I've said this time and time again but because it doesn't fit the joke that Phil is a blind Santorum supporter who thinks he'll win everything, it is ignored.

I'm not going to accept "analysis" that states how horribly unpopular Santorum is in his home state then concludes that he's doing so well because it's his home state! If anything, if he's so unpopular, this being his home state works against him because people are very familiar with him! That's what I'm rejecting here. That isn't "warped fantasy land." I'm not dismissing analysis that says Santorum won't win the nomination and/or the General; I'm dismissing idiocy from one particular poster who is using conflicting arguments to prove one point.

And, yes, you attacked his credibility. In this case, it's the same as his electability. You're saying that his support is so microscopic that, in terms of his chances of winning, he isn't credible.  

[Keystone Phil]

  If Santorum can't scrape together even 2nd place primary polling in PA, what's his path nationally?

What's any Republican's path? Pennsylvania isn't needed to win.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because he isn't portrayed as a serious candidate by the media because everything begins and ends with "LOL HE LOST BY 18%!"

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's no rational way for Santorum to win...but he's not unpopular and within striking distance in a state that you'd likely classify as lean Democrat. Ok.

Also, there's no rational way for Santorum to win...but the guy who everyone (aside from the Paul fanatics) agrees sounds like a crazy uncle is viable against Obama. Again, ok.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, that makes sense. "I'm a uniter, not a divider" is going to resonate when this man is easily one of the most polarizing Presidents ever (just like Bush). "Santorum is hateful...just ignore unemployment, the second global economic crisis and all of that other stuff and re-elect me."

If you think people are voting anything other than their pocketbooks next year barring some unforeseen disaster, you're crazy. That Obama strategy you spelled out above will be trashed even against someone like Santorum.

[Keystone Phil]

Wrong. There was nothing "Democratic" about the 1980's 18th district. I assure you it was the definition of "swing". I don't know the PVI offhand of the 1990's version of what was split between Murphy's district and Hart's, but Santorum faced a nonentity in 1992 (an airline pilot with no political experience if I recall), and the fact Murphy and Hart represented most of his old district throughout the 90's should tell you it was hardly "overwhelmingly Democratic".

Nothing Democratic about it...except for that seven term Democratic Congressman that Santorum had to beat.

Doug Walgren's electoral history in the 1980s 18th district...

1982 - Re-elected with 54%

1984 - Re-elected with 63%

1986 - Re-elected with 63%

1988 - Re-elected with...yeah...63%

That's hardly a "swing" district. It was agreed that Santorum's win in 1990 was a huge upset. The district after the 1991 redistricting was worse. That "non-entity" that Santorum faced in 1992 must have been a pretty good candidate to make it out of a competitive six-way primary. That non-entity, by the way, wasn't some airline pilot with zero political experience; it was this guy -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Pecora. Hardly a non-entity. Hardly a political novice.

And Santorum was succeeded by Mike Doyle after the 1994 elections. It isn't the same Doyle district as now but it was at the very least a Democratic leaning district. He won it by about ten points in 1994 and by a 56% to 40% margin in 1996.