Rand-hater Santorum heavily considering 2016 presidential run

[Warlord]

Akin was just a bad candidate. Mourdock would have won if he kept his mouth shut. He's a twice elected state officeholder and lost to a Dem congressman in INDIANA.

All because he couldnt keep his mouth shut the dumbass.

He shouldn't have even been in that debate. All he had to do was ride Romney's coat tails and he would have been a US senator but he decided to speak and it cost him.

 

[erowe1]

Akin was just a bad candidate. Mourdock would have won if he kept his mouth shut. He's a twice elected state officeholder and lost to a Dem congressman in INDIANA.

All because he couldnt keep his mouth shut the dumbass.

He shouldn't have even been in that debate

I don't think it's from not keeping his mouth shut. I saw no evidence that that debate affected the outcome more than a very small amount. He was down before it. I think his comment won him some votes and lost him some others. I was leaning toward Horning before that, but Mourdock almost won me over with that comment. I ended up not voting.

His statewide office was treasurer. I'd say that puts him at a disadvantage to a Congressman, not an advantage. And Donnelly was an ideal kind of Democrat for Indiana. He was seen as a centrist and had been elected in a centrist district that was recently redrawn to make it more Republican. He was the Dems presumed nominee and had the full support of his party and their funders. The GOP leadership was cool to Mourdock all along. Part of the reason his statement had the fallout it did was because other Republicans used it against him, demanding he apologize for nothing.

 

[Warlord]

I don't think it's from not keeping his mouth shut. I saw no evidence that that debate affected the outcome more than a very small amount. He was down before it. I think his comment won him some votes and lost him some others. I was leaning toward Horning before that, but Mourdock almost won me over with that comment. I ended up not voting.

His statewide office was treasurer. I'd say that puts him at a disadvantage to a Congressman, not an advantage. And Donnelly was an ideal kind of Democrat for Indiana. He was seen as a centrist and had been elected in a centrist district that was recently redrawn to make it more Republican. He was the Dems presumed nominee and had the full support of his party and their funders. The GOP leadership was cool to Mourdock all along. Part of the reason his statement had the fallout it did was because other Republicans used it against him, demanding he apologize for nothing.

No it does not. The guy had been on the ballot twice statewide against a congressman who nobody had heard of.

People were used to seeing his name on the ballot and would vote for him.

Maybe not you erowe but news flash; you and your anecdotes dont matter. I'm talking about the herd mentality of tens of thousands of voters within the state.

The comment on the debate stage cost him as it was picked up nationally and caused a storm which grabbed people's attention in the state away from the dog and pony presidential show and focused on who was further down the ballot.

He should never have done a debate. He was overwhelmingly favorite to win that race and all he had to do was safely ride Romney's coat tails all the way to election day. He ended up under performing him massively. Sickening and it cost the GOP a sure senate seat.

Mourdock you MORON!

 

[erowe1]

No it does not. The guy had been on the ballot twice statewide against a congressman who nobody had heard of.

Being on the ballot statewide for a minor office doesn't make you well-known. I'm pretty sure Donnelly was better known than Mourdock before that race.

People were used to seeing his name on the ballot and would vote for him.

Is that how it works for you? You see some name of someone you've never heard of on a ballot one time, and then 4 years later you see that same name on a ballot again and say to yourself, "Oh yeah, I remember that name from last time."?

Maybe not you erowe but news flash; you and your anecdotes dont matter. I'm talking about the herd mentality of tens of thousands of voters within the state.

If so, then some evidence would be nice. So far you're just repeating the same things the media has been telling you, and they never back it up either.

He should never have done a debate. He was overwhelmingly favorite to win that race and all he had to do was safely ride Romney's coat tails all the way to election day. He ended up under performing him massively. Sickening and it cost the GOP a sure senate seat.

You may be right about coattails and being better off not debating. But he was never the overwhelming favorite. And he was definitely down in the polls before that debate.

 

[Warlord]

Being on the ballot before is a big deal. He was known and people were used to voting for him.

All he had to do was sneak under the radar ignore the fat liberal posing as a centrist and become a US senator

But no... Richard knows best. He had to open his mouth and make himself visible.

 

[erowe1]

Being on the ballot before is a big deal. He was known and people were used to voting for him.

I really think that's ridiculous. You get used to something you do frequently. You don't get used to a name that you see among a list of names once every four years. Congressmen are better known than state treasurers.

 

[Warlord]

I really think that's ridiculous. You get used to something you do frequently. You don't get used to a name that you see among a list of names once every four years.

YOU may think that but the dumbed down masses are used to seeing that name on the ballot and would have had no problem voting ROMNEY-MOURDOCK until he opened his mouth and drew attention to himself.

 

[erowe1]

the dumbed down masses are used to seeing that name on the ballot

Sorry. Not buying it.

The dumbed down masses are either so dumb that they don't recognize any politicians names, or, if they do recognize names, the names of congressmen are more recognizable than the names of state treasurers. I can't believe this is just me. I'm pretty certain that you'll find lots of voters who can name not only their own representative, but also a bunch of others from their own state and other states, and their level of knowledge of who their state treasurer is will be far lower.

 

[Warlord]

The trick was to get them to vote straight ticket but he made such a mess of it they ended up voting Romney and SWITCHING from someone they have voted for before to a Congressman from a confined district that many of them had never heard of.

It's practically unheard of. He would have won if just shut up and ran his ads, avoided debate, sent out his mailers and campaigned hard under the Romney banner.

 

[erowe1]

The trick was to get them to vote straight ticket but he made such a mess of it they ended up voting Romney and SWITCHING from someone they have voted for before to a Congressman from a confined district that many of them had never heard of.

It's practically unheard of. He would have won if just shut up and ran his ads, avoided debate, sent out his mailers and campaigned hard under the Romney banner.

You're mixing together different arguments. The coattails one is valid. The one about being better known isn't. A congressman from one district will generally be better known across the whole state than the state treasurer will be. Before that senate race, Donnelly was better known than Mourdock. That changed over the course of the Republican primary, which put Mourdock in the news a lot while Donnelly was unopposed on the Dem side. But whatever name recognition Mourdock had going into the general election was a lot more because of those primaries than because of having been state treasurer. Also, along with that name recognition from the primaries came an unwarranted label of him being an unbending Tea Part extremist. So it wasn't all good for him.

 

[Warlord]

He would have won if he stuck to the Romney-Mourdock playbook. To underperform Romney by such an amount is laughable and shows you how bad his campaign was. The debate was the final nail in the coffin. He should never have been in it and should have just spent a month traveling the state, shaking hands and campaigning for Mittens and bashing Obama/Obamacare at every opportunity

 

[erowe1]

He would have won if he stuck to the Romney-Mourdock playbook. To underperform Romney by such an amount is laughable and shows you how bad his campaign was. The debate was the final nail in the coffin. He should never have been in it and should have just spent a month traveling the state, shaking hands and campaigning for Mittens

I agree with everything except the part about the debate.

 

[FriedChicken]

I'm confident Mourdock would have won if it were not for the comment - he did a poor job wording it and poor job explaining it later. What he meant I didn't think was disagreeable at all and any person believing in God and that "no one person is an accident" would have to agree with him also.

He could have done a great job defending himself and he didn't.

Personally, even though I'm a Christian, I wish he would have left his faith in God out of his answer and stuck to the rights of the unborn regardless of circumstances the life began under and thrown something in about how he believes in x,y and z measures to help rape victims recover and measures to help prevent rape. Its a lot to ask that he think of all that on his feet - but he could have followed up with all that the day after.

I actually support Mourdocks statement but I completely understand that everyone twisting it and telling everyone what to think about it cost him the election.



... I think we've had this discussion before.

 

[FriedChicken]

Every pro-life person who believes people who were conceived in tragic circumstances DON'T deserve to die for the sin of their biological "father" need to have a prepared response in their their back pocket AND written on the palm of their hand they've rehearsed OVER and OVER.

They should never just wing and answer to that question like Mourdock did and they should never plan on the question not being asked.

 

[Warlord]

erowe, your other senator Coats had been on the ballot before and cruised to victory in 2010. That should have been Mourdock in 2012 but he's a moron and drew too much attention to himself.

That's a fact .

Now your stuck with a fat liberal posing as a centrist. You can thank Richard for that.

 

[erowe1]

erowe, your other senator Coats had been on the ballot before and cruised to victory in 2010. That should have been Mourdock in 2012 but he's a moron and drew too much attention to himself.

That's a fact .

Now your stuck with a fat liberal posing as a centrist. You can thank Richard for that.

Coats had been a US Senator. He had been in the news a lot for a long time. People had a lot more reason to know him than just having seen his name in a list of names once every so many years.

Congressmen are better known than state treasurers, and US senators are better known than congressmen. You can't put a state treasurer on the level of a US Senator.

As for Donnelly, to be honest, I'm just glad Lugar lost. I don't think Mourdock would have been that great. And if I have him to thank for Lugar being gone, then I'm happy to thank him for that.

 

[Warlord]

He was already relatively known after de-throning Lugar and had a story to tell the voters and also ROMNEY winning the state

It was simple and he blew it.

 

[erowe1]

He was already relatively known after de-throning Lugar and had a story to tell the voters and also ROMNEY winning the state

It was simple and he blew it.

That's true.

 

[fr33]

I could see Santorum being a spoiler. According to the media he was one of the many deemed "the conservative alternative to Romney". I blame the media mostly for Romney getting the nomination. He was the presumptive nominee before the first primary votes were cast. I guess I should really blame GOP voters for being stupid enough to be manipulated. It could happen again.

 

[Warlord]

Rand will beat them all in IA and NH.