THE DEFINITIVE THREAD Breaking-Santorum calls news conference for 2:00 Is he dropping?

[helmuth_hubener]

Well, as I see it, it comes down to ability to win. Polling is a little sketchy for the race, but it looks like the race is between Rohrer and Smith. So do you vote for a guy that you like a lot that is in the bottom tier of the polls, or do you vote for a guy you like a little that is in the top tier?

I'd hate to be looking at the results and see Rohrer lose by two points, and Scaringi have those 2 points.

So you said the Paul folks are behind Scaringi, but what about the rest of the electorate?

Strategic voting is stupid. You vote for who's best. Or better still, you don't vote. Your one vote is never ever ever going to affect the outcome. To vote for something or someone who you don't agree with is just stupid, and counter-productive to yourself.

 

[sailingaway]

Well, as I see it, it comes down to ability to win. Polling is a little sketchy for the race, but it looks like the race is between Rohrer and Smith. So do you vote for a guy that you like a lot that is in the bottom tier of the polls, or do you vote for a guy you like a little that is in the top tier?

I'd hate to be looking at the results and see Rohrer lose by two points, and Scaringi have those 2 points.

So you said the Paul folks are behind Scaringi, but what about the rest of the electorate?

I think people should vote for the best candidate or the best candidate won't win.

 

[tbone717]

Strategic voting is stupid. You vote for who's best. Or better still, you don't vote. Your one vote is never ever ever going to affect the outcome. To vote for something or someone who you don't agree with is just stupid, and counter-productive to yourself.

But when the choice is between two persons that you agree with, you need to vote strategically. Both Rohrer and Scaringi are strong libertarian-conservatives. This is not a situation where it is the lesser of two evils.

And I thought we were activists here. We have influence over a lot more than one vote. Personally, I have been able to secure a hundred or so for Rohrer just by working my neighborhood.

 

[tbone717]

I think people should vote for the best candidate or the best candidate won't win.

Again, they are BOTH the best candidate. It is like if we were choosing between Rand and Schiff or something similar. Both guys we would rally behind if they were on their own in the race, but they are not. And what will wind up happening potentially is that a strong libertarian-conservative will wind up losing if the vote is split.

 

[sailingaway]

But when the choice is between two persons that you agree with, you need to vote strategically. Both Rohrer and Scaringi are strong libertarian-conservatives. This is not a situation where it is the lesser of two evils.

'libertarian-conservative' means different things to different people. Ask dondero, whom no one here would likely ever vote for.

 

[sailingaway]

Again, they are BOTH the best candidate. It is like if we were choosing between Rand and Schiff or something similar. Both guys we would rally behind if they were on their own in the race, but they are not. And what will wind up happening potentially is that a strong libertarian-conservative will wind up losing if the vote is split.

I'd vote for Rand. The difference matters to me.

 

[tbone717]

'libertarian-conservative' means different things to different people. Ask dondero, whom no one here would likely ever vote for.

Have you researched the candidate? If not then honestly you have nothing to comment on.

It is shit like this that makes me wonder if this Ron Paul faction of this movement will ever accomplish anything, because some are so willing to cut of their nose to spite their face.

 

[jay_dub]

I'm guessing that the proposed debate won't be happening now. Romney will just try to run out the clock and won't expose himself to any potential gaffes. No one will get a free shot at him. They'll have to pay for it.

It will be interesting how the dust settles on this development. Gingrich is running on a shoestring so the ball is now in Ron's court.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

But when the choice is between two persons that you agree with, you need to vote strategically. Both Rohrer and Scaringi are strong libertarian-conservatives. This is not a situation where it is the lesser of two evils.

Nope, voting strategically is still stupid. You vote will still not affect the outcome. Period. So you vote for whoever you like. If you like two people exactly equally you do eeny-meeny-miney-moe. It's delusional to do strategic voting when voting for something which will be decided by hundreds of votes, much less thousands of votes like the election you're discussing will be.

 

[tbone717]

Nope, voting strategically is still stupid. You vote will still not affect the outcome. Period. So you vote for whoever you like. If you like two people exactly equally you do eeny-meeny-miney-moe. It's delusional to do strategic voting when voting for something which will be decided by hundreds of votes, much less thousands of votes like the election you're discussing will be.

I amended my reply to you, but will state it here.

We are activists. Most of us can deliver more than one vote on election day. Personally, I have been able to secure about a hundred or so votes for Rohrer just by walking my neighborhood. If I decided to support Scaringi, I would have been able to deliver votes for him. So the decisions many of us make on who we will support can sway an election one way or another.

 

[sailingaway]

Have you researched the candidate? If not then honestly you have nothing to comment on.

It is shit like this that makes me wonder if this Ron Paul faction of this movement will ever accomplish anything, because some are so willing to cut of their nose to spite their face.

I don't have to look at this particular candidate because I am not from that area. I am speaking of the principle of voting for the best not just the one some group thinks can win. If your pragmatic group thinks they are pretty much the same, maybe the pragmatists should vote for the guy the idealists like.

 

[tbone717]

I don't have to look at this particular candidate because I am not from that area. I am speaking of the principle of voting for the best not just the one some group thinks can win. If your pragmatic group thinks they are pretty much the same, maybe the pragmatists should vote for the guy the idealists like.

Here is an interview that should give you a nice overview of what he stands for on the federal level http://www.conservativedeclaration.com/2012/02/episode-169-candidate-series-sam-rohrer/

Summary: against Read ID, against Patriot Act, for a Fed Audit, for competing currency, against Obamacare, for Soc Security opt outs, pro states rights, limited government champion, for deregulation, supports a flat tax as an improvement over current system (but believes fed withholding to be unconstitutional), mirrors Paul on immigration, against foreign aid, supports congressional declaration of war, against the dept of education.

Nothing pragmatic at all in my decision.

The main difference between the two is in name recognition and fundraising. Scaringi is a rookie candidate - he has never run for anything before and most people have never even heard of him. He also has no track record to go on. Rohrer has served in the PA legislature and was a gubernatorial candidate in 2010. He has a great record from his past service, and he also has the ability to communicate libertarian-conservative principles to people in a way that inspires them.

 

[69360]

But what are you "selling out" on?

999

 

[tbone717]

999

If you followed his comments on that he didn't endorse specifics of the plan, but the concept of a reform of the IRS. Additionally, it was a political move to get the endorsement of Cain, who oddly enough still has a decent level of support in PA

 

[69360]

If you followed his comments on that he didn't endorse specifics of the plan, but the concept of a reform of the IRS. Additionally, it was a political move to get the endorsement of Cain, who oddly enough still has a decent level of support in PA

Close enough to a sellout. It's where he lost me. I don't despise him. If he wins the primary I'll vote for him no problem.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

So the decisions many of us make on who we will support can sway an election one way or another.

True. Strategic activism can make sense, just not strategic voting by your lonesome.

 

[Ivash]

ahhh crap... there goes the brokered convention...

He did his job of taking votes from RP though... fck...

Santorum and Ron Paul don't share the same base. Or even remotely similar bases (except, apparently, in Iowa). My bet is that less than five percent of people who would have voted for Santorum head to Ron Paul. Furthermore, Santorum dropping out a month or so ago would have handed Romney the nomination.

Santorum is dropping out because a loss in his home state kills any chance he had of another political run (maybe in 2016, maybe in Penn for some other office). More charitably, I am sure his daughter's illness and hospitalization had something to do with his choice as well.

Anyways, this is probably the end of the primaries. Santorum supporters are likely to just not vote if they really hate Romney, and now that his biggest opponent is out of the race Romney will probably take the rest of the delegates in a landslide.

 

[fearthereaperx]

Good thing Ron Paul made some deal-making with Romney early on in the contest.

 

[unknown]

He just doesn't want to go through the embarrassment of losing his own State; which is very possible.

PA handed him the biggest loss in state history for an incumbent. No effing way he would win PA.

 

[undecidedsantorumfan]

Didn't this forum always trash Santorum. Call him frothy, called his supporters stupid. Questioned how they could support Santorum. Now they want his supporters votes?