It's November 7th and Rick Santorum is President-elect: How did it Happen?

[BrentWil]

I can't see Rick winning if he wins the GOP nom. He is simply too radical and I think he puts alot of states in play for us. If he gets it, I think TX is in play, IMHO.

However, lets give people the benefit of the doubt. Lets do a "postmortem. " Lets say he wins. What states does he win? What is his message? Where did Obama go wrong?

[CTyankee]

1. Why don't we NOT?

What is the matter with you?

[BrentWil]

3. People are worried about him.. say he is a better nom then Mitt..

I don't see it. I really don't see how he wins.

Plus it is good habit to always work your way though the worst thing happening.

[CTyankee]

4. I'm going to let the Obama re-elect team do that for me. They are far better than I am at

figuring out what to do to prevent that from happening.

that's about as far into the future as I'll go...

[ProSense]

6. Which

"People are worried about him.. say he is a better nom then Mitt.."

..."people"?

Please Baby Jesus, Make the Rick Santorum Car Win Today!!! Please, Please, Please...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002353406

Michigan's Democratic and Liberal Voters: Get out and Vote for Rick Santorum on Feb. 28th.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002330434

Liberals for Rick Santorum
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125110379

[BrentWil]

8. I post those, and people tell me to be careful what I wish for NT

[ProSense]

10. Maybe

"I post those, and people tell me to be careful what I wish for"

...because those posts are wishful thinking?

[BrentWil]

23. You can think what you want of me..

But I am pro-gay rights, pro-redistribution of some wealth, pro-choice, etc. While I may not fit your preconceived notion, I am a Democratic voter. I have no want to see Rick win the General. Now a long nomination fight in which he wins the nomination, perhaps...

[ProSense]

28. I really

You can think what you want of me..

But I am pro-gay rights, pro-redistribution of some wealth, pro-choice, etc. While I may not fit your preconceived notion, I am a Democratic voter. I have no want to see Rick win the General. Now a long nomination fight in which he wins the nomination, perhaps...

...don't care what you are. I think the OP speaks for itself.

[BrentWil]

31. I think your general closed mindedness speaks for itself. NT

[ProSense]

32. So

"I think your general closed mindedness speaks for itself."

..."closed mindedness" is what it takes to reject the idiotic exercise in the OP?

[BrentWil]

35. No, to suggest that I must be a Santorum voter because I dare to want to do an

exercise on how he could win, suggests a high degree of being closed minded.

The OP is a question. To turn a question into an ad hominem attack is remarkable for what that suggests about yourself. I would suggest that this is a good exercise and would have been useful many times in history. For example, 1925 Germany.

[ProSense]

37. Well,

No, to suggest that I must be a Santorum voter because I dare to want to do an

exercise on how he could win, suggests a high degree of being closed minded.

The OP is a question. To turn a question into an ad hominem attack is remarkable for what that suggests about yourself. I would suggest that this is a good exercise and would have been useful many times in history. For example, 1925 Germany.

...I tend to get suspicious in the face of constant RW talking points. Sue me!

Since you decided to make an implication by citing "1925 Germany," may I go all democratic and invoke a little transparency?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=53741

[BrentWil]

40. Not thinking marriage in general should be recognized by law is "right-wing"

I don't think that has much support on the right. However, I have come to think that view is unrealistic and thus I think one should expand the benefits to same-sex couples.

[ProSense]

41. So

Not thinking marriage in general should be recognized by law is "right-wing"

I don't think that has much support on the right. However, I have come to think that view is unrealistic and thus I think one should expand the benefits to same-sex couples.

...when you wrote "Gay marriage," you meant all marriages? I mean, that was only part of the point.

You define yourself as: "a Moderate and I vote Democratic Everytime" and as someone who "slowly turned from a moderate Republican to a moderate to semi-liberal democrat"

[BrentWil]

46. FIrst, people change

At one point in my life I did vote Republican. I voted for Bush the first time he ran. I voted for Kerry at his mid-term. After that, I have voted for the Democratic choice and have voted straight ticket. I fully plan on voting that way for every election that I could see in the future. I think that qualifies as "every time"

Second, on marriage, this is what I wrote.

Gay marriage: I don't think marriage should be recognized by the state. If people want to say they are married, so be it, but I see no reason that they should have special rights and tax benifits under the law.

In other words, I was saying that I didn't understand why people that are "married" should get special state benefits. I was saying any marriage. I don't think that is "right-wing"

With that said, I find it funny you would only post one part of that post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8469949&mesg_id=8469949

I just wanted to take a second to introduce myself, because I think I have rubbed some people wrong. Let me start.

I am 29, and a active duty Captain in the Army. Currently the Army is sending me to graduate school. Been to Iraq twice and have slowly turned from a moderate Republican to a moderate to semi-liberal democrat. However, I don't do group think... which has got me called "right-wing" a few times in the posts I have made. Here is where I stand.

Economy: The world is globalized. Business can move with ease. In this environment, we have to regulate with the world and ensure our tax polices do not force business out. The best means of taxes is one that is based on higher income people as individuals and that can go across international lines. However, Capitalism and Globalization are here to stay. It is best to figure out the best means to use those forces to make the nation more competitive and to maximize benefits for all people.

Drugs: Legalization of Pot. Let science be the guide for the rest. Do an honest cost benefit analysis.

Gays in the Military: Support

Gay marriage: I don't think marriage should be recognized by the state. If people want to say they are married, so be it, but I see no reason that they should have special rights and tax benifits under the law.

War in Iraq: Huge mistake and we got very lucky

War in Afghanistan: Unfixable. Need to get out

Health Care: Government needs to ensure access by all people

Welfare/SS/etc: Every important safety net. Reforms may be needed but it is very much needed for the society.

Education: Want more resources and choice for the underprivileged.

I don't know what else. Ask me. I did not mean to rub so many the wrong way on this board.

Thanks,

Brent

[ProSense]

48. There is

FIrst, people change

At one point in my life I did vote Republican. I voted for Bush the first time he ran. I voted for Kerry at his mid-term. After that, I have voted for the Democratic choice and have voted straight ticket. I fully plan on voting that way for every election that I could see in the future. I think that qualifies as "every time"

Second, on marriage, this is what I wrote.


Gay marriage: I don't think marriage should be recognized by the state. If people want to say they are married, so be it, but I see no reason that they should have special rights and tax benifits under the law.


In other words, I was saying that I didn't understand why people that are "married" should get special state benefits. I was saying any marriage. I don't think that is "right-wing"

...nothing wrong with changing, but you stated elsewhere that your views were conservative. So why the insistence that they're not?

With that said, I find it funny you would only post one part of that post.

I posted the portion that jumped out at me. So, what exactly is the point of this comment?

You've changed, fine. The point is that some of the views you're expressing have a conservative bent, and yet you're challenging anyone who cares to point that out. Not only that, but you're doing so by invoking the fact that you're a strong Democrat and listing a bunch of positions to prove it.

[BrentWil]

49. I stated my views were conservative in 2000.

That is a long time ago, you know. As far as gay marriage... the view that government should not recognize marriage as an institution is not "conservative" I would say that view is simply out of the mainstream.

I am a strong democratic voter. However, as I said in 2010, I don't do groupthink. You apparently do.

[ProSense]

50. Is

I stated my views were conservative in 2000. That is a long time ago, you know. As far as gay marriage... the view that government should not recognize marriage as an institution is not "conservative" I would say that view is simply out of the mainstream.

I am a strong democratic voter. However, as I said in 2010, I don't do groupthink. You apparently do.

...that so? Here:

I am 29, and a active duty Captain in the Army. Currently the Army is sending me to graduate school. Been to Iraq twice and have slowly turned from a moderate Republican to a moderate to semi-liberal democrat.

I take it you meant the second Iraq war? Now considering the war started in 2003, and you went on two tours of duty, when did you switch from Republican to Democrat, for the 2004 election? Was that between your first and second tour?

No, I don't do "groupthink." I do calling out inconsitencies and engaging in debates that make sense: Not speculating about what a postmortem discussion if Santorum won, and identifying which states he would win. I blame this kind of thinking on "bad teachers," maybe even home schooling.

[BrentWil]

51. The first Bush term turned me into a Dem...

And I continued to evolve after that. THe 2004 election was during my first tour.

And I wasn't "home schooled" I had public and free education all the way, including my undergrad degree.

[ProSense]

53. Then

The first Bush term turned me into a Dem...

And I continued to evolve after that. THe 2004 election was during my first tour.

And I wasn't "home schooled" I had public and free education all the way, including my undergrad degree.

...you can understand why it's strange to suggest that people pay for an education that's free?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002312347

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=315686

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=315837

You keep saying you're evolving, fine. Still, please understand that some of your views ring conservative. You seem to respond to anyone pointing that out by asking, and in a defensive way: "Would conservatives support this?"

The answer is yes because the views are conservative.

[BrentWil]

54. You like to label things..

I like to think about problems. Please provide me one conservative that suggests a new federal program that provides education vouchers to the poor and allows it also to go to local public schools. That is not "conservative". It may be an idea that isn't in the mainstream of either political party, but I doubt you could find many people who are thinking about that idea in general.

[ProSense]

52. Also

"With that said, I find it funny you would only post one part of that post. "

...to that point, here's another thing that jumps out at me:

War in Iraq: Huge mistake and we got very lucky

War in Afghanistan: Unfixable. Need to get out

For someone making those two declarations, I found this post strange at the time, but now even more so:

How Likely is a War with Iran if President Obama is Re-elected?

<...>

When put together, this tells me that the Administration really is looking at all options for Iran and that war isn't an impossibility, if the President is re-elected. The other element is that Sunni Arab countries in the region would really like to keep Iran from getting the bomb. They would be the most likely partners in this, I would think.


If I had to put a number on it, I would say that we have between a 10 and 20 percent chance of war with Iran under a second term with President Obama.

Let me be clear, I think this is far better then the GOP entering the White House. Iran is a serious security problem and I trust the President to handle it and I think he will handle it by bring together allies and regional friends to deal with the problem . However, I would suggest that war is still a possibility with Iran, even with the re-election of the President.

Stating that fact doesn't mean that I love war. It means I am trying to describe the World as it is, not as I want it to be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002238448

[BrentWil]

55. Iran is an actual threat. Iraq wasn't. Why is that "odd"? NT

[ProSense]

56. And

"Iran is an actual threat. Iraq wasn't. Why is that 'odd'?

...Afghanistan? Why is Iran a threat?

Oh yeah, go re-read the comments related to Afghanistan in that thread.

It's up to you to figure out why it's odd. I certainly am not going to convince you. This is more of that defensiveness, it's on display in that thread.

It's not that you love war, you're just keeping it real!

[BrentWil]

57. I have seen enough not to "love War"

However, Iran has a long history of attacks and them getting the bomb would be a diaster for the Middle East. Iran does not equal Iraq. Again, just because I didn't think Iraq was worth it doesn't mean President Obama doesn't need to figure out a plan to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

[ProSense]

58. He

I have seen enough not to "love War"

However, Iran has a long history of attacks and them getting the bomb would be a diaster for the Middle East. Iran does not equal Iraq. Again, just because I didn't think Iraq was worth it doesn't mean President Obama doesn't need to figure out a plan to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

...has a plan, it's called diplomacy.

I don't love war, and I see no need to sit around and speculate about hypotheticals involving war with Iran. That's not keeping it real, that's plumb crazy, Republican crazy.

[BrentWil]

59. Well, he and his Secretary of defense have said all options are on the table...

He has vastly, vastly, vastly expanded the use of drones to attack US enemies. That doesn't sound like a "diplomacy" only President to me.

[ProSense]

60. I know

Well, he and his Secretary of defense have said all options are on the table...

He has vastly, vastly, vastly expanded the use of drones to attack US enemies. That doesn't sound like a "diplomacy" only President to me.

...you're just a progressive repeating what the President said.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=238515

In other words, we've been through this before, and Obama didn't start the thread. The President isn't speculating about war with Iran, you are.

[BrentWil]

62. And you are ignoring part of what he said AND what his administration said...

I can't help if you live in a dream world. However, it is a cold hard fact, that this President has increased its use of drown attacks around the world. Iran may or may not happen. The increase in drown attacks is currently happening.

I think it isn't a bad thing. But it is a fact.

[ProSense]

63. Wait

And you are ignoring part of what he said AND what his administration said...

I can't help if you live in a dream world. However, it is a cold hard fact, that this President has increased its use of drown attacks around the world. Iran may or may not happen. The increase in drown attacks is currently happening.

I think it isn't a bad thing. But it is a fact.

...you start a bunch of threads based on wild hypotheticals (like paying for free education) and accuse me of being in a "dream world"?

Start with this OP: a ridiculous exercise.

[BrentWil]

64. As I stated in the OP, I didn't see how it Santorum could win.

However, is there anything wrong with looking at it?

[ProSense]

66. You

"As I stated in the OP, I didn't see how it Santorum could win."

...evidently like wasting time.

"However, is there anything wrong with looking at it?"

I guess you didn't read the entire comment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=355529

[ProSense]

33. Btw

here's my favorite image of your idol:

[BrentWil]

36. I wouldn't disagree with that. NT

[FrodosPet]

42. There's no way the American people would elect him

There is NO WAY an aging "B" movie actor ex-governor could beat an intelligent incumbent president!

I mean...

There is NO WAY a business failure ex-governor could beat an intelligent incumbent vice president!

Anyone else see a pattern here?

Santorum "fans" - like I said before - be careful what you wish for.

[ProSense]

44. I guess

"There is NO WAY an aging "B" movie actor ex-governor could beat an intelligent incumbent president!"

...when you look at Santorum, you see Reagan?

"I mean... There is NO WAY a business failure ex-governor could beat an intelligent incumbent vice president!"

Are you suggesting that Obama will win the popular vote and the SCOTUS will select Santorum?

Please, get real!

Life is unpredictable, and we all can come up with unbelievable scenarios.

[ProSense]

2. This

However, lets give people the benefit of the doubt. Lets do a "postmortem. " Lets say he wins. What states does he win? What is his message? Where did Obama go wrong?

...is for you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002354584

[BrentWil]

7. I don't get it...

I am just trying to think how he could win. If he is the nom, I think Obama is in and we have a Democratic House of Representatives. I just don't see how he wins anything but the south (minus perhaps VA, NC, TN, TX) and the middle states (KS, Utah, etc). To me, he goes down huge. I don't see how he wins.

[ProSense]

13. Um

I am just trying to think how he could win. If he is the nom, I think Obama is in and we have a Democratic House of Representatives. I just don't see how he wins anything but the south (minus perhaps VA, NC, TN, TX) and the middle states (KS, Utah, etc). To me, he goes down huge. I don't see how he wins.

Why? Or do you simply like wasting time speculating about implausible right-wing outcomes? Actually, it appears you want people to offer up realistic scenarios that would result in a Santorum win.

Do you seriously believe that Democrats are going to engage?

[BrentWil]

19. They already are. Check down thread. Economic downturn is the most likely event

to result in Santorum winning. I agree with that. However, I still can't see him winning.

[ProSense]

20. Well,

They already are. Check down thread. Economic downturn is the most likely event

to result in Santorum winning. I agree with that. However, I still can't see him winning.

...you are smarter than some, but those are not realistic scenarios, and frankly the responses you will get amount to "no way that'll happen."

[zbdent]

5. world-wide shortage of turd polish

after the "liberally-biased mainstream media" bought up as much as it could, and used it to turn Santorum into a mirror-like surface ...

[unblock]

9. santorum president on november 7th: here's the most plausible scenario (and it takes a lot):

obama and biden both die on the same day, or in any event, close enough so that the second of them dies prior to the vacancy in the vice-presidency being filled. boner (ack!) becomes president, and picks santorum as veep. the senate rolls over and approves. boner then dies, santorum becomes president. all this before november 7.

if none of this comes to pass and santorum wins the election in november, he still doesn't become president until january 20.

so what went wrong? obama and biden died and boner made a terrible choice for veep (approved by the senate) before dying himself.

[ecstatic]

25. lol! nt

[Nye Bevan]

11. Simple. $6 gas and 10% unemployment.

Personally I don't think that will happen. But it's possible.

[BrentWil]

12. I think even with that it is tough...

But not impossible. He is just too radical.

[CAG]

14. a combination of bad economic indicators over the late summer, for instance

unemployment ticks up + $4 gasoline, combined with Obama administration handing repubs some hype on some social issues and voter suppression tactics working in key states. It could happen, people...

[BrentWil]

18. The economy going in the right direction is essential. NT

[HopeHoops]

15. Probably none. It might be the only election in history where one candidate gets all EC votes.

That would be Obama, of course.

[BrentWil]

17. He won't get all...

But I think it would be a landslide.

[HopeHoops]

27. I'd put my money on all. Who the fuck would vote for Mr. Frothy in a general election?

Sure, there are some REALLY whacked out wingnuts - but they voted for the shrub and saw what he did. At least Mr. Frothy isn't stoned all to Jesus on alcohol, but he's still a moron.

[MadHound]

16. Because Obama shot himself in the foot and elsewhere

The fact of the matter is that this is Obama's election to lose. The Republican party is fatally split in two, with no candidate to unite it. If Romney wins the nod, then conservatives stay home, and Romney doesn't get their votes and loses. If Santorum gets the nod, the Republican moderates and money goes over to Obama and Santorum loses.

However if Obama continues to marginalize the left, continues to govern as a center right president, then he will suppress voter turnout on the left, and whoever his opponent wins.

Thus, this is Obama's race to lose. Sad, but he could certainly do so.

[spanone]

21. it didn't.

[ecstatic]

22. Diebold, although

I can't picture anyone powerful wanting a lunatic as Pres. There's no way Santorum can win.

[customerserviceguy]

24. The only thing he has to do is win the states Shrub won in 2004

We have no idea what's going to happen with the European debt crisis, or what Israel and Iran are going to do to each other. We don't know about the next steps in the 'Arab Spring' or how ugly things are going to get in Iraq and Afghanistan. Being as an accidental book burning pisses them off more than drone strikes, it's simply unpredictable what will happen and how the independent voters are going to feel about that, or who they will want to blame.

The only states that Obama peeled away from the 2004 Bush list are: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. I don't think the President's got too good a chance in the Western three states, we all know how Santorum has worked Iowa, the two Midwestern states are susceptible to Santorum's manufacturer tax exemption proposal, and I just don't see VA and NC falling back into line for Obama this time around. If Santorum picks Rubio, he wins Florida.

If he does win, it will be because he has managed to stop babbling about culture war issues, because he's already got the nomination and the fundies will know that he has to tack to the center to win. His tax proposals might also help. As for the President "going wrong", it will be because he's failed to motivate the base as much as he did in 2008, and has failed to hold the confidence of white people who thought that electing a black man was what they wanted as part of the story of the USA. He really won't have made any major mistakes, unless things go to hell in the Middle East, and he is seen as not being decisive enough.

[Union Scribe]

26. "How did it happen": Obama quit the race

and endorsed Santorum, who gets a boost from Jeremy Lin becoming his running mate. And even then he barely beats the Green Party nominee, Roseanne.

[Cal33]

29. Massive GOP Vote Fraud?

[davidthegnome]

30. That one

While I don't see how this could be anywhere near as close as the 2000 election, we shouldn't underestimate the right's ability to lie, cheat and steal.

[Autumn]

34. Massive voter fraud or a corrupt supreme court

and the media will go for it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

38. He found the Spear Of Destiny

What better mask for the son of satan to wear than someone who claims he sees the devil everywhere? Something for his Fundie supporters to think about.

[Zalatix]

39. Indoctrination, Reaper-Style.

Ever played Mass Effect? If Rick Santorum brings one of these to Earth

[img][/img]

he could win in 2012.

Short of that? I doubt he has a chance.

[whistler162]

43. My guess it was the pizza with anchovies and pickles..

they are well known to give you nad dreams.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Because millions of people all over the country simultaneously decide they love the taste of shit

which is about as likely as Santorum winning the GE.

[JNathanK]

47. Hormones in the food supply and reality TV n/t

[yellowcanine]

61. Useless exercise, imo. Might as well say, "Sarah Palin is President-elect: How did it happen?

[JonLP24]

65. Voters are stupid

It continues to amaze me the Republican party is a legitimate contender. Not voting for Democrats is one thing, but why vote for those guys? Majority, it seems, don't look closely and the Republicans are good at putting on a show, appearing to be something they are not. Appealing to issues that don't even to exist. I live in Arizona and it is crazy to listen people here (Only one person in this case so TWIW) that 'Separation of Church of State was secretly added to the Constitution against the wishes of the founding fathers and the proof of that is because on dollar bills it says "In God We Trust". Or that Obama wants government health care(which I would like) when that isn't even what we requested as far back to his campaign. Some background before I go on to these next two, in Arizona awhile back, the Republican legislature and governor cut funding to AHCCS which is the state Medicaid agency. In ways they did they made it harder to be accepted into it even for very low income people and the biggest way is those without children weren't accepted. Even if you made $0, if you don't have kids, you can't get on. Now one Republican I talked to actually argued Government health care is bad because they make rules that you have to be a certain way and have to do this or that in order to be accepted and AHCCS was the example why. It was something like that I couldn't believe it. Another person I talked to said "I hate AHCCS" for the changes. It wasn't them, it was the Republican legislature.

Also a few Republicans awhile back(I haven't heard this recently--more like 6 months ago) were saying that Obama wants to cut or get rid of Social Security!

I wish I was making this up. Democrats and the things they fight for are receiving blame for decisions the Republicans make, by Republicans. Then there is stupid racist bullshit that is far too common in this state or at least Maricopa County.

I'm sure there are Republican voters that have all the facts but the only ones I'm coming across are operating with absolutely crazy information and they come across as serious when they say these things.