Meghan McCain: Obama/Santorum would be a "bloodbath"

[Miles]

Well, I agree with her conclusion.

"Santorum is on every level an unelectable candidate," she said. "I think for anyone the end goal should be beating President Obama. And if you want to put Santorum up against President Obama, I always say it's going to be an absolute bloodbath during the election cycle."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/meghan-mccain-santorum-obama-msnbc_n_1293802.html

[RogueBeaver]

Who cares about MeggyMac? Not that I disagree with her conclusion...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I like how the Republicans saying that this election is about getting a President they don't like out of office seems to indicate that they've mostly given up on getting a President they do like in.

[Keystone Phil]

Like 2008, right, Meghan?

[Politico]

Like 2008, right, Meghan?

2008 would look close compared to Obama Vs. Santorum. Santorum would be lucky to win fifteen states.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If there is anything worse than being supported by Donald Trump, it is being supported by Meghan McCain.

[redcommander]

Like 2008, right, Meghan?

You're right. 2008 would have been much closer if Santorum's pick for president Mitt Romney had been the nominee.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Two years ago I would have agreed, but the sheer incompetence of the Romney campaign this past month leads me to beleive he would have done worse.

[Wisconsin+17]

Keystone Phil speaks the truth.

[Yank2133]

Two years ago I would have agreed, but the sheer incompetence of the Romney campaign this past month leads me to beleive he would have done worse.

Maybe, Mitt could at least run on his "business exp."

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The question here isn't whether Obama/Santorum will be a bloodbath, because we know it will. The only question is what kind of bloodbath.

My money is on a Schundler v. McGreevey 2001 bloodbath, where conservatives are motivated but everyone else votes Democratic. That'd mean a sizable loss for Santorum, but limited downballot damage for the GOP as a whole. That contrasts with, say, a Kean v. Shapiro 1985 bloodbath where the nominee loses his base. That kind of drubbing would have Republicans losing seats no one would think imaginable to lose.

[Keystone Phil]

The question here isn't whether Obama/Santorum will be a bloodbath, because we know it will. The only question is what kind of bloodbath.

My money is on a Schundler v. McGreevey 2001 bloodbath, where conservatives are motivated but everyone else votes Democratic. That'd mean a sizable loss for Santorum, but limited downballot damage for the GOP as a whole. That contrasts with, say, a Kean v. Shapiro 1985 bloodbath where the nominee loses his base. That kind of drubbing would have Republicans losing seats no one would think imaginable to lose.

Ridiculous to an insane degree. Thanks for the amusement.

[California8429]

Meghan McCain said it, therefore the opposite is true.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The question here isn't whether Obama/Santorum will be a bloodbath, because we know it will. The only question is what kind of bloodbath.

My money is on a Schundler v. McGreevey 2001 bloodbath, where conservatives are motivated but everyone else votes Democratic. That'd mean a sizable loss for Santorum, but limited downballot damage for the GOP as a whole. That contrasts with, say, a Kean v. Shapiro 1985 bloodbath where the nominee loses his base. That kind of drubbing would have Republicans losing seats no one would think imaginable to lose.

Ridiculous to an insane degree. Thanks for the amusement.

Uh...
I think he was trying to say that Romney will lose worse than Santorum.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I seldom agree with her, but I think she's right.  I think Gingrich and Santorum are the only 2 candidates where you'd see Obama make gains from his 2008 states.  With Paul, it's hard to predict, because I'm skeptical the GOP die hards would back him, so a third party candidate may emerge (how ironic would that be), and Obama would sweep the nation.

[Vote UKIP!]

Like 2008, right, Meghan?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Like 2008, right, Meghan?

I'd wager Rick would lose much worse than McCain in 2012 in a much more favorable environment for Republicans. McCain was the strongest candidate the GOP could field in a year that they had absolutely no chance at holding the White House. His only mistake was picking Sarah Palin, which will remain the biggest WTF I have ever seen.

[Torie]

Like 2008, right, Meghan?

I'd wager Rick would lose much worse than McCain in 2012 in a much more favorable environment for Republicans. McCain was the strongest candidate the GOP could field in a year that they had absolutely no chance at holding the White House. His only mistake was picking Sarah Palin, which will remain the biggest WTF I have ever seen.

My wild guess is that Rick would lose to Obama by about 10 points, 55%-45% of the two party vote.

[BigSkyBob]

I wonder what Meghan McCain's thought of the [John] McCain/Obama race?

[Ljube]

Yes, it would be a bloodbath in states that Republicans can't win anyway. But in states that matter, Santorum is a far stronger candidate.
Santorum would be weaker than Romney in New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada, but stronger in all other battleground states.
Santorum would make Minnesota and Wisconsin competitive and Ohio likely R.
Romney would struggle to win Ohio.

[Cory]

Like 2008, right, Meghan?

[Brandon H]

Why do people treat her opinion as important?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If that's what Mr. Moderate implied I can sort of see the logic. Romney trailing Obama by 8 points on Halloween would be much worse for Republicans than Santorum doing so. The question becomes a bit tricker though if you consider Santorum could be trailing by 15 points as well.