EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 6, 2012 11:14:21 GMT -5
Why do so many people think a candidate has to play down the social issues? Like McCain did in 08? Santorum has to be Santorum and the social issues are a core part of who he is. It's refreshing to see an authentic candidate and not one who acts because the polls tell him/her so.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jan 6, 2012 11:15:08 GMT -5
Santorum also believes states should have the right to ban birth control, is against abortion even in cases of rape or incest, and has said that he wants to eliminate "welfare" entirely, and that he "doesn't want to give black people other people's money so they can live better", among many other stupid positions.
A majority of Americans support the right to have access to birth control and are in favor of abortion in the circumstances sited above.
The statement about Black people and welfare is beyond belief, and is racist (yes, I said it!) in its characterization by singling out Blacks as welfare recipients. Does this fool not realize that white Americans account for the largest percentage of welfare payments each month? Welfare is defined by the government as benefits funded by tax dollars. How's that going to play with the recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and food stamps, the majority of whom are white? And again, why single out Black people?
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Jan 6, 2012 11:36:10 GMT -5
Point was more that a Libertarian ticket with Paul and his following cult is much more attractive than one with, say, Gary Johnson. I think Paul would be much more likely to get talked into that if it GOP went Santorum instead of Romney. Why that will not happen and in response to both of your points is that Santorum won in 2000 2.48M-2.15M in a presidential year, and lost 2.39M-1.68M in 2006. That's the opposition that was mobilized for a Senate race in a state that hadn't elected a full-term Democratic senator since 1962. He spent 100 days in Iowa just to finish second there to a guy who pretty much ignored the state. I've watched probably two-thirds of the Republican debates and he's capable of sounding quite reasonable and has a populist streak that I agree would poll well, but you are underestimating how negative his social issues are for a lot of people.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 6, 2012 11:44:07 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure how someone can read up on Santorum / watch him and think he really has a shot long term.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 6, 2012 14:13:11 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure how someone can read up on Santorum / watch him and think he really has a shot long term. Easy. All he has to do is win the primary (which he won't do, but that's the short term). After that, he goes up against Obama with 8.5% unemployment considered good news and Europe on the precipice. I like those odds.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 6, 2012 14:33:01 GMT -5
Yes, but he would (hypothetically) also face a mainstream media who would find a way to turn Barry's 8.5% unemployment rate (actually closer to 12% when one considers those who have just plain given up) into a triumph.
It is an absolute travesty that what passes for media in this nation refuses to hold this President accountable for anything.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 6, 2012 15:03:54 GMT -5
Easy. All he has to do is win the primary (which he won't do, but that's the short term). After that, he goes up against Obama with 8.5% unemployment considered good news and Europe on the precipice. I like those odds. Yeah, good things happen when people vote for politicians who believe in government-sponsored social engineering just because the economy is in the dumps. I'm sure all the moderates would be on board.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 6, 2012 15:29:07 GMT -5
Easy. All he has to do is win the primary (which he won't do, but that's the short term). After that, he goes up against Obama with 8.5% unemployment considered good news and Europe on the precipice. I like those odds. Yeah, good things happen when people vote for politicians who believe in government-sponsored social engineering just because the economy is in the dumps. I'm sure all the moderates would be on board. Austin's right. For example, look how well the last 3 years have gone. /too easy ;D
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 6, 2012 15:50:04 GMT -5
Yeah, good things happen when people vote for politicians who believe in government-sponsored social engineering just because the economy is in the dumps. I'm sure all the moderates would be on board. Austin's right. For example, look how well the last 3 years have gone. /too easy ;D Well played, sir.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 6, 2012 16:28:46 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure how someone can read up on Santorum / watch him and think he really has a shot long term. Easy. All he has to do is win the primary (which he won't do, but that's the short term). After that, he goes up against Obama with 8.5% unemployment considered good news and Europe on the precipice. I like those odds. How many voters internalize what is going on in Europe and vote on it?
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Jan 6, 2012 16:39:10 GMT -5
Easy. All he has to do is win the primary (which he won't do, but that's the short term). After that, he goes up against Obama with 8.5% unemployment considered good news and Europe on the precipice. I like those odds. How many voters internalize what is going on in Europe and vote on it? Only coastal elitists.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jan 6, 2012 19:50:33 GMT -5
Talking to normal Dems outside the Beltway, the ones that don't eat/sleep/breath politics, I don't think a Santorum candidacy is likely to mobilize the party at all. The ones who will spin up in a frothy rage over this are the activists who are going to be unshakeable Obama supporters regardless of whom the GOP nominates. The Democratic advantage in 18-24 has been decreasing ever since 2008. A Santorum candidacy would be a giant Christmas present and spike that again in favor of Democrats. Let's be honest, the guy is getting his 15 minutes - just like Bachmann, just like Cain, just like Perry, just like Gingrich. Unlike them, he peaked at the right time. It'll be over soon. Romney is winning states he shouldn't even compete in like Iowa and South Carolina. I wonder if he'll lose any states.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 6, 2012 21:00:01 GMT -5
For all of the talk about Santorum, where will he win? He is playing catch up in every single state with a campaign apparatus that cannot matchup with the Romney campaign, even with its imperfections.
I could not agree with TC's take more.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jan 7, 2012 10:33:41 GMT -5
One other thing - if this thing falls apart, and Romney wins states, but doesn't get a majority and this thing goes to a brokered convention - does anyone really think that Santorum has the chops to win the bloodbath that ensues? It seems to me like Romney or Gingrich would come away from that the winner.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 7, 2012 10:44:43 GMT -5
Santorum also believes states should have the right to ban birth control, is against abortion even in cases of rape or incest, and has said that he wants to eliminate "welfare" entirely, and that he "doesn't want to give black people other people's money so they can live better", among many other stupid positions. A majority of Americans support the right to have access to birth control and are in favor of abortion in the circumstances sited above. The statement about Black people and welfare is beyond belief, and is racist (yes, I said it!) in its characterization by singling out Blacks as welfare recipients. Does this fool not realize that white Americans account for the largest percentage of welfare payments each month? Welfare is defined by the government as benefits funded by tax dollars. How's that going to play with the recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and food stamps, the majority of whom are white? And again, why single out Black people? If someone believes that abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being, then abortion after rape or incest is still the taking of an innocent life. Kudos to Santorum for having the courage of his convictions. Why shouldn't states have the right to outlaw birth control since many of the means of "birth control" are actually abortion devices? Liberals don't seem to have a problem with states or the federal government outlawing such things as incandescent lights, mandating the use of seat belts, having taxpayers pay for services to illegal aliens, and an enormous number of nanny state intrusion into our lives. As for his comments on giving blacks money so they could live better - it is a fact that 60% of African Americans are on welfare of some sort while only 4% of whites are so his comments are not racist. www.topix.com/forum/afam/TFPNA50LR3837M7MM
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jan 7, 2012 11:30:49 GMT -5
"I said 'blah' people." Really?
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Jan 7, 2012 12:28:59 GMT -5
Ed, your stat is bull and is discredited in your link. The title of that post is not supported by the article. Far more than 4 percent of whites are on welfare.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 7, 2012 13:24:10 GMT -5
Fact check from HHS stats: 4.4 million recieve TANF (federal welfare) benefits, 36% African-American, 31% white, 20% Hispanic, 13% Asian. But since only 1.4% of the population recieves this funding, it is statistically impossible for either stat above to be correct.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jan 7, 2012 14:51:02 GMT -5
"I said 'blah' people." Really? It's kind of like the stuff that Jeremiah Wright said about whah? People. Weakest dog whistle backtrack ever.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Jan 7, 2012 15:38:46 GMT -5
Just looking at Medicaid, which is the most expensive means-tested program financed by tax dollars:
Nonelderly enrollment in 2010: 19.5 million non-Hispanic whites, 12% of non-elderly n-H white population 9.7 million non-H blacks, 29% of non-elderly, non-H black population 12.5 million Hispanics, 27% of non-elderly Hispanic population 3.3 million other, 17% of non-elderly other population
In Pennsylvania, which Santorum represented in Senate, Medicaid non-elderly enrollment in 2010 was 1.1 million whites, 330,000 blacks, 211,000 Hispanics, 79,000 other. But even those figures are misleading, because the money goes more to the nursing homes than to care for poor kids. There also are about 9 million "dual-eligibles" the low-income elderly enrolled in Medicare with Medicaid covering all or part of the expenses not paid by Medicare. While they are less than 20 percent of the Medicaid enrollment, they account for about 40 percent of Medicaid costs. 70% of Medicaid spending on dual-eligibles is for long-term care, with a large share of that paying for nursing homes for elderly white women.
When Haley Barbour tried to cut drug coverage under Medicaid for dual-eligibles in Mississippi in 2004, he quickly discovered that they were not mostly poor blacks as he thought, but a lot of white grandmas whose middle class children and grandchildren did not want to have to pick up the slack on grandma's care. Barbour backed down after the white middle-class backlash against the cuts.
|
|