How quickly will Santorum fade away?

[melensdad]

Rick Santorum, by coming in second place, and literally a handful of votes behind Romney, won the Iowa Caucus last night. No, he didn't really win, but he came from a virtual LAST PLACE TIE to raise himself to a virtual FIRST PLACE TIE.

So he got the "most improved player" ribbon.

Now the question is how fast will he fade away as he has faced virtually ZERO vetting.



ON TO NEW HAMPSHIRE . . . Mitt Romney is very popular in that state. Santorum stands very little chance of pulling off a "tie" in the granite state. He will be trounced by Romney. So the real hope for Santorum is simply survival in NH.

But has the die already been cast?

Has the conservative vote so splintered that Romney will win (like McCain) by simple default?

 

[Robert Richardson]

As soon as they find some dirt on him.

 

[Stschil]

Just me guessing. There's a lot of "Not Romney" voters out there.
Santorum has a chance IF the field narrows quickly and he can hold out.
If the other candidates press on, the vote will continue to split and he will fade as his $$ dwindles.

 

[melensdad]

As soon as they find some dirt on him.

There are plenty of facts, I don't think they need dirt.

He's the darling now for his "conservative" views, but when its shown that he was far less fiscally conservative than many believe him to be, that is when I think he will fade away. Right now he is popular simply because he is NOT Mitt Romney. So he's the flavor of the month. The question is can he survive any scrutiny of his record?

I'm not sure he's actually electable. I doubt he is. Too much emphasis on religious topics. No real emphasis on jobs.

 

[ViperJock]

And Ron Paul not too far in 3rd. I think that shows that he could be realistically elected if the rest of America doesn't go with the Lemmings. Santorum didn't get much bad press/attack ads cause noone thought he could win. He will now.

Not a Romney fan, but if it can't be Paul, I'd prefer Romney over any of the rest of them.

 

[melensdad]

Here is what I think.

It tells us the Romney machine that has been in place since the last election can still only garner 25% support at best.

It tells us that Romney is in a tie with a former Senator (Santorum) with no executive experience who has religious conservative views that all but assure he’ll lose moderates and independents in a general election.

It tells us that 21% of Iowans are spoilers, conspiracy theorists, dangerously naive, or dreamers who want a return of our freedoms and think we can get back there, or a combination of all of these. You have to be to vote for Ron Paul. It tells us that a great debater that is a lousy human being with a spotty track record (Newt) can finish fourth, which makes the media giddy with the thought of parading his many skeletons around the longer he remains.

It tells us that the only candidate in either party with a proven track record of economic success as an executive (Perry) is likely out of the race because people care more about debate gaffes than track records.

And it tells us that a religious evangelical conspiracy theorist (Bachmann) will hang around even after proving herself unelectable.

So what does Iowa tell us? It tells us we are well on our way towards giving Barack Obama a fighting chance of making the worst American Presidency a two-term affair.

And Ron Paul not too far in 3rd. I think that shows that he could be realistically elected if the rest of America doesn't go with the Lemmings. Santorum didn't get much bad press/attack ads cause noone thought he could win. He will now.

Not a Romney fan, but if it can't be Paul, I'd prefer Romney over any of the rest of them.

Ron Paul was farther down the list, at a fairly distant 3rd (numerically) than was expected by most folks. After all he had been in a virtual tie with Romney only a week before the election. In fact until Santorum's surge, there were some who believed that Dr Paul could actually win.

In fact he finished far enough back in 3rd that Sarah Palin had to come out with a statement warning the GOP not to marginalize him and his supporters. For Palin to do that is a stunning sign of support for Dr Paul, certainly one I did not expect but that I happily welcome.

These results show how weak his support is from people who are voting against Romney. They are not Paul supporters, they are simply people voting for the person they think can stop Romney. Dr Paul has very loyal supporters but he lost the swing (anti-Romney) voters and didn't get the undecided voters.

 

[Stschil]

And Ron Paul not too far in 3rd. I think that shows that he could be realistically elected if the rest of America doesn't go with the Lemmings. Santorum didn't get much bad press/attack ads cause noone thought he could win. He will now.

Not a Romney fan, but if it can't be Paul, I'd prefer Romney over any of the rest of them.

Kinda like saying if you can't eat that steak, you'd eat the pile of left by the steer?

Personally, I can't stand Mittstake Romney. He's just another establishment RINO, IMO. A successful "moderate" who served as governor with a go along to get along attitude in a lib state. He is no real friend to liberty. The fact that the media gives him so many passes is proof enough to me that the Dems want him to be the candidate because they think BO has a better chance of winning with Romney on the R ticket.

Though, admittedly, I can't say who of the rest would be better. Too soon to tell.

 

[bhvostal]

Seems to me we've seen this worst to first script not too long ago in '08 with McCain. Just a thought

- Brian

 

[jgreiner]

Rick Santorum, by coming in second place, and literally a handful of votes behind Romney, won the Iowa Caucus last night. No, he didn't really win, but he came from a virtual LAST PLACE TIE to raise himself to a virtual FIRST PLACE TIE.

So he got the "most improved player" ribbon.

Now the question is how fast will he fade away as he has faced virtually ZERO vetting.



ON TO NEW HAMPSHIRE . . . Mitt Romney is very popular in that state. Santorum stands very little chance of pulling off a "tie" in the granite state. He will be trounced by Romney. So the real hope for Santorum is simply survival in NH.

But has the die already been cast?

Has the conservative vote so splintered that Romney will win (like McCain) by simple default?

He has been vetted, though not nearly as heavily as some other PUB candidates, but far more so than Obama was in 2008.

I don't see him as a flash in the pan. He is the LAST viable CONSERVATIVE on the Republican ticket. And he has been around a long time, so he isn't a shock to the system.

He was 8 votes short of beating Romney...and he spent $30,000 in Iowa on his campaign. That is about $1 a vote. Romney spent over $100 per vote. And Perry around $1000 per vote. This was TRULY a grassroots campaign.

I am happy. Finally a Conservative candidate comes forward that I can support without reservations. And one that my wife will support as well.

 

[jsgolfman]

You are looking at Iowa from the wrong perspective. It is a caucus, not a primary. All three of them got 7 delegates (unbound, btw). So, while Romney gets the"winner" tag and Santorum gets the headline for comeback kid, they won nothing. In Iowa it's all about the ground game and Santorum has none. Santorums' vote totals show you the power of persuasion and the gullibility of the average voter and the ease by which they can be swayed by the msm. It's not about who voted, but who stayed around AFTER the vote to become a delegate. Santorum just had his 15 minutes, nothing more.

 

[Pocketman]

There are plenty of facts, I don't think they need dirt.

He's the darling now for his "conservative" views, but when its shown that he was far less fiscally conservative than many believe him to be, that is when I think he will fade away. Right now he is popular simply because he is NOT Mitt Romney. So he's the flavor of the month. The question is can he survive any scrutiny of his record?

I'm not sure he's actually electable. I doubt he is. Too much emphasis on religious topics. No real emphasis on jobs.

The Iowa results are just another indication that many (most) Republicans do not like Romney. As melensdad posted, Ricky is the "flavor of the month." Since Romney has the money and the organization, he'll continue to hang on and eventually outlast the rest of the pack.

 

[melensdad]

You are looking at Iowa from the wrong perspective. It is a caucus, not a primary. All three of them got 7 delegates (unbound, btw). So, while Romney gets the"winner" tag and Santorum gets the headline for comeback kid, they won nothing. In Iowa it's all about the ground game and Santorum has none. Santorums' vote totals show you the power of persuasion and the gullibility of the average voter and the ease by which they can be swayed by the msm. It's not about who voted, but who stayed around AFTER the vote to become a delegate. Santorum just had his 15 minutes, nothing more.

Well said. Factual.

The Iowa results are just another indication that many (most) Republicans do not like Romney. As melensdad posted, Ricky is the "flavor of the month." Since Romney has the money and the organization, he'll continue to hang on and eventually outlast the rest of the pack.

I think he will win, just like McCain did, by outlasting the pack and dividing the conservative vote.

 

[Zoub]

I think Santorum in Iowa only proves two things.

1) Good looks matter

2) The AROP vote is real. Anybody but Romney or Paul


Santorum's out of gas, his tank is on E. Paul won't do well on the East Coast, his tank is low. If they both manage to hang in there and it stays a 3 way race with the noise of the others gone, it becomes a real race/debate. I think Romney has been able to hide in the large crowd of candidates and has plenty of gas/money in the tank.

The only thing Iowa does in my mind is eliminate weaker candidates. Perry is toast. Others won't quit just yet but he is tired of it.

 

[SSGSAD]

Here is what I think.

It tells us the Romney machine that has been in place since the last election can still only garner 25% support at best.

It tells us that Romney is in a tie with a former Senator (Santorum) with no executive experience who has religious conservative views that all but assure he’ll lose moderates and independents in a general election.

It tells us that 21% of Iowans are spoilers, conspiracy theorists, dangerously naive, or dreamers who want a return of our freedoms and think we can get back there, or a combination of all of these. You have to be to vote for Ron Paul. It tells us that a great debater that is a lousy human being with a spotty track record (Newt) can finish fourth, which makes the media giddy with the thought of parading his many skeletons around the longer he remains.

It tells us that the only candidate in either party with a proven track record of economic success as an executive (Perry) is likely out of the race because people care more about debate gaffes than track records.

And it tells us that a religious evangelical conspiracy theorist (Bachmann) will hang around even after proving herself unelectable.

So what does Iowa tell us? It tells us we are well on our way towards giving Barack Obama a fighting chance of making the worst American Presidency a two-term affair.





Ron Paul was farther down the list, at a fairly distant 3rd (numerically) than was expected by most folks. After all he had been in a virtual tie with Romney only a week before the election. In fact until Santorum's surge, there were some who believed that Dr Paul could actually win.

In fact he finished far enough back in 3rd that Sarah Palin had to come out with a statement warning the GOP not to marginalize him and his supporters. For Palin to do that is a stunning sign of support for Dr Paul, certainly one I did not expect but that I happily welcome.

These results show how weak his support is from people who are voting against Romney. They are not Paul supporters, they are simply people voting for the person they think can stop Romney. Dr Paul has very loyal supporters but he lost the swing (anti-Romney) voters and didn't get the undecided voters.

I think, I agree with everything you say... I saw Ron Paul, on TV, a couple days ago and he was answering a question, and I could NOT understand a word he said, it sounded like baby talk... I quit watching the debates, because I was working at those times... TO ME, MY OPINION, Ron Paul looks like R R, at 90 years old, with all timers I just don't make sense of ANYTHING he says ... I read on the internet, that Santorum, is "anti gun", and was wondering if ANYONE had known any of his voting record... I am so confused, I don't know who I'll be voting for, but I guess the "good" thing is it will be all decided, B4 we vote anyway .....

 

[dross]

I absolutely can't stand Santorum. I'd vote for him over Obama, but it would be the most painful vote in my life. He's through before he starts, however. Once he starts getting attention, and really looked at, he's done, IMO.

I learned much more about Newt than I knew before this process began. No longer an enthusiastic fan.

Paul is done now. His only chance was to win big over Romney. With Santorum surging, a guy who is probably least like Paul in the entire field, Paul drops further in NH.

It's coming down to Romney, who will pick up more votes as others drop out. Most of Newt's voters will go to Romney, and many of Santorum's votes will never go to Paul.

Goal 1 is to get Obama out of there. If we can't get rid of his healthcare before it starts dishing out goodies, we'll have it forever. If he appoints justices they'll be the kind who will have no qualms about overturning Heller and the like.

Also, I think Obama is one of the least political presidents we've seen. He cares more about his agenda than he does reelection. If he gets a second term, we'll see things that you won't believe. Appointments, gun control via executive order, more government expansion by any means necessary. He's run his first term like a second term. I shudder to see him as a lame duck.

What we need is a political Ron Paul. A Republican who is for small government but who understands incrementalism. A guy who isn't aggressive in foreign policy, but who understands that the realities aren't a political science freshman class discussion, but they have real consequences. A guy who tones down the rhetoric but holds to the values of libertarianism.

I don't know who that guy is. Maybe Paul's son Rand, if he learns from his father's political mistakes.

You guys who say it doesn't matter, look at it this way. Would you rather have a freedom President have a smaller or a larger mess to clean up if we finally manage to elect one?

 

[melensdad]

I absolutely can't stand Santorum. I'd vote for him over Obama, but it would be the most painful vote in my life. He's through before he starts, however. Once he starts getting attention, and really looked at, he's done, IMO.

I learned much more about Newt than I knew before this process began. No longer an enthusiastic fan.

Paul is done now. His only chance was to win big over Romney. With Santorum surging, a guy who is probably least like Paul in the entire field, Paul drops further in NH.

It's coming down to Romney, who will pick up more votes as others drop out. Most of Newt's voters will go to Romney, and many of Santorum's votes will never go to Paul.

Goal 1 is to get Obama out of there. If we can't get rid of his healthcare before it starts dishing out goodies, we'll have it forever. If he appoints justices they'll be the kind who will have no qualms about overturning Heller and the like.

Also, I think Obama is one of the least political presidents we've seen. He cares more about his agenda than he does reelection. If he gets a second term, we'll see things that you won't believe. Appointments, gun control via executive order, more government expansion by any means necessary. He's run his first term like a second term. I shudder to see him as a lame duck.

What we need is a political Ron Paul. A Republican who is for small government but who understands incrementalism. A guy who isn't aggressive in foreign policy, but who understands that the realities aren't a political science freshman class discussion, but they have real consequences. A guy who tones down the rhetoric but holds to the values of libertarianism.

I don't know who that guy is. Maybe Paul's son Rand, if he learns from his father's political mistakes.

You guys who say it doesn't matter, look at it this way. Would you rather have a freedom President have a smaller or a larger mess to clean up if we finally manage to elect one?

Paul is dead now. Santorum will be as soon as people vet him and see where he really stands. Bachmann should bow out.

It looks like Perry just quit. Instead of flying to South Carolina he went home to Texas. I think Perry is the LEAST OBJECTIONABLE of all the candidates and has the MOST LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE of the pack. Romney has leadership experience and business experience but he's simply a moderate and that is a problem.

Gingrich should walk away but he won't. A 4th place for him assures that he will stay. Too bad. His supporters, and Bachmann's supporters and even eventually Santorum's supporters would likely go to Perry if Perry stuck it out. I just don't see others dropping and Perry sticking. Perry versus Romney is a no brainer, even with Ron Paul in the mix (and Paul will stick it out to the GOP convention). Not saying Perry is a great choice, but of the REALISTIC choices I think I'd prefer to vote for him but it looks like he is taking himself out.

 

[rtfisher1]

I doubt if we should stick a fork in Santorum just yet... it very well may be that the Bachman & Perry voters(if/when they drop out) incline towards Santorum thinking he is the most conservative of the rest of the field. Granted that may only add 5-10% right now but that would be huge. I think most religious right/ultra conservatives strongly dislike Newt and Romney and Paul scares them with his foreign policy, so Santorum might be the best option for them. Going to be an interesting few weeks ahead.

 

[jsgolfman]

Bachman and Perry are out, no way their supporters flock to Romney. They may split to Gingrich/Huntsman/Paul, but not Romney. Santorum was a single digit, media creation for Iowa, he's done. The only 2 candidates polling in double digits consistently in NH are Romney and Paul (Huntsman and Gingrich pull dd in some, single in others). The media may try another "surge" with Huntsman, but that's about it. I don't think they will attempt to resurrect Newt, though he will hang in for at least a couple of more states to gauge interest. The vast majority of voters in NH are NOT evangelical, no bump for Santorum.
The gap between Romney and Paul is significant ~15%-25% depdneing on poll and the gap between Paul and Gingrich/Hunstman is half that, ~8%; again depending on poll.
Unless Romney wins over 50% of the vote, the delegates will be proportional. Remember people, it's not a contest of who gets the most votes, it's who gets the most delegates.

 

[rambone]

It tells us that 21% of Iowans are spoilers, conspiracy theorists, dangerously naive, or dreamers who want a return of our freedoms and think we can get back there, or a combination of all of these. You have to be to vote for Ron Paul.

You forgot paleo-conservatives, peacemongers, civil libertarians, economic realists, people not drinking Establishment Koolaid.

In fact he finished far enough back in 3rd that Sarah Palin had to come out with a statement warning the GOP not to marginalize him and his supporters.

Any reasonable analyst would be saying the same thing. Alienate this crowd, by either ridiculing them or by nominating a liberal, and Republicans will lose. You need the GOP's most impassioned supporters to beat Obama. That's not going to happen when average Republicans are embarrassed to admit who they are voting for.

I read on the internet, that Santorum, is "anti gun", and was wondering if ANYONE had known any of his voting record... I am so confused, I don't know who I'll be voting for, but I guess the "good" thing is it will be all decided, B4 we vote anyway .....

Let me help you out a bit.

Santorum is a poster-boy for Big Government Conservatism. Instead of voting against Federal expansions through the 8 years of Bush, he helped Republicans grow government. He voted to expand prescription drug entitlements with his support of Medicare Part D, which is now a $7 Trillion unfunded liability. He helped double the size of the Department of Education, in both employees and in budget size. He voted for No Child Left Behind, further federalizing education in America. He voted to bailout the airline industry with Federal tax-dollars. He voted for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. He voted to create the TSA, which now unconstitutionally searches people in airports, bus stations, subways, train stations, on highways, and more. He loves Federal prohibition laws, which cost America hundreds of billions of dollars per year. He has no desire to stop the out-of-control overseas spending on war, nation-building, and foreign aid. He was found to be the #1 most lobbied member in all of Congress in 2006, and made the list of most corrupt members of the Senate. He wants to start a shooting war with Iran, and who knows where else. He voted to raise the debt ceiling at least 8 times, to help Republicans keep pace with unprecedented levels of spending. He has proven that he will be easily lobbied and has no real adherence to fiscal conservative principles.

Senators like Santorum are the reason that voters hated Republicans so much in 2008 that they flocked to the Democrat Party.

Paul is dead now.

Bachmann, Huntsman, and Perry are dead now. Paul remains a frontrunner and even will appear on every states' ballot. Unlike some of the less serious candidates.

 

[Mosineer]

Paul is dead now. Santorum will be as soon as people vet him and see where he really stands. Bachmann should bow out.

It looks like Perry just quit. Instead of flying to South Carolina he went home to Texas. I think Perry is the LEAST OBJECTIONABLE of all the candidates and has the MOST LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE of the pack. Romney has leadership experience and business experience but he's simply a moderate and that is a problem.

Gingrich should walk away but he won't. A 4th place for him assures that he will stay. Too bad. His supporters, and Bachmann's supporters and even eventually Santorum's supporters would likely go to Perry if Perry stuck it out. I just don't see others dropping and Perry sticking. Perry versus Romney is a no brainer, even with Ron Paul in the mix (and Paul will stick it out to the GOP convention). Not saying Perry is a great choice, but of the REALISTIC choices I think I'd prefer to vote for him but it looks like he is taking himself out.

Think this is very close scenario. Bachman has canceled her trip to S.C. and has scheduled a news conference in an hour ( 11 am ish) she’s toast and knows it and doesn’t want to run up a million dollar debt. Newt will stay in long enough to try and get revenge on Romney and see if that gives him a boost, probably if he can afford through South Carolina. Santorum is heading to a more “moderate”state where anyone “more conservative” has even less punk’in, with not much ofa ground game and further vetting, I also think Rick will fade quick. I believe the “moderate” crowd will hurt Paul as well. Just heard that McCain is throwing his support to Romney (no big deal for me, but they adore him in New Hampshire, for somereason) this will not help anybody but Romney. Perry is considering getting out, but if he can, I agree he should maybe stick around a little longer. By S.C. probably down to 3 or 4 at the most.