United States Presidential Election, 2012

[Toad Eightyfive]

Perhaps the main reason why I think Romney'd give Obama the best run for his money is because he'd split the moderate vote. Democrats who don't like Obama would flock to Romney, and Republicans who don't like Romney might vote Obama.

With ultra-conservative guys like Santorum or Gingrich, even though they have a better shot of winning the nomination, they're too dead-set within party lines to go after moderate liberals.

That's actually part of the reason Obama won in the first place; all the moderates flocked to his side because no one could stand McCain.

 

[Red Barchetta]

Wait... what's going to happen now? I'm new to this.

Rick announced he's to suspend his campaign - he's going to give a news conference in Gettysburg shortly announcing it.

It's now obvious Mitt Romney will win the nomination - Santorum was the only serious competition he had.

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

And so this now signals the end of the competition for the Republican nomination.

Rick Santorum has announced that he is suspending his campaign.

 

[Red Barchetta]

Wait... what's going to happen now? I'm new to this.

Rick announced he's to suspend his campaign - he's going to give a news conference in Gettysburg shortly announcing it.

It's now obvious Mitt Romney will win the nomination - Santorum was the only serious competition he had.

I don't understand that logic. Is Santorum's support group now completely dedicated to Romney?
[/quote]
I don't understand your logic. I didn't say anything like that - I said he's suspending his campaign and that Romney will now win the nomination with no contest, as Santorum was the only serious competition he had. I didn't say anything like that.

(also, he didn't endorse anybody at this point)

 

[Red Barchetta]

Wait... what's going to happen now? I'm new to this.

Rick announced he's to suspend his campaign - he's going to give a news conference in Gettysburg shortly announcing it.

It's now obvious Mitt Romney will win the nomination - Santorum was the only serious competition he had.

I don't understand that logic. Is Santorum's support group now completely dedicated to Romney?

I don't understand your logic. I didn't say anything like that - I said he's suspending his campaign and that Romney will now win the nomination with no contest, as Santorum was the only serious competition he had. I didn't say anything like that.

(also, he didn't endorse anybody at this point)
[/quote]
He still has two opponents. This isn't a done deal, especially if Santorum's supporters swing away from Romney and give one of the opponents a large boost. Santorum's endorsement could encourage a boost as well if he gives it to somebody other than Romney.

I guess I'm just trying to say that this election has had a way of twisting and turning rather quickly. I doubt this is just magically over because Santorum bowed out. We've seen about four or five big challengers to Romney rise and fall. It could happen again.
[/quote]

Fair enough - if anybody, Santorum would probably endorse Gingrich, but it's apparently mathematically impossible for Gingrich to get enough delegates to get near Romney. Paul's even farther behind.

But I see what you're saying - we've had Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum; which Paul thrown in there because his numbers have always gone up-and-down (seems only one major candidate never had a surge: Huntsman) all on this carousel. Gingrich or even Paul could still have a surge but it does seem unlikely at the moment (as you said, it still could happen).

Sorry if what I said in the last post was harsh, didn't mean to make it sound like that. :S

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Uh... no. Santorum thinks that contraception should be illegal, so most women won't vote for him

>implying that women are less likely to oppose abortion than men

Allow me to quote some statistics to share light on that issue.

Women
Pro-choice - 50%
Pro-life - 43%

Men
Pro-choice - 49%
Pro-life - 46%

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/107458/Abortion-Issue-Laying-Low-2008-Campaign.aspx

It is a 2008 poll, but that's fairly recent.

 

[Toad Eightyfive]

Uh... no. Santorum thinks that contraception should be illegal, so most women won't vote for him

>implying that women are less likely to oppose abortion than men

Allow me to quote some statistics to share light on that issue.

Women
Pro-choice - 50%
Pro-life - 43%

Men
Pro-choice - 49%
Pro-life - 46%

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/107458/Abortion-Issue-Laying-Low-2008-Campaign.aspx

It is a 2008 poll, but that's fairly recent.

A) He said contraception.
B) There's still a lesser number of pro-life women then pro-life men.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

B) There's still a lesser number of pro-life women then pro-life men.

...are you seriously saying that that 3% is a big deal?

Also, contraception is still a big pro-life/pro-choice debate, so it amounts to the same topic.

 

[Red Barchetta]

[quote author=redacted]
It's fine, no worries. :P

But yeah, I do agree with your points. It would be unlikely for a surge in favor of another candidate to happen, but this race is perhaps one of the more extraordinary ones to have run its course for a while now (I remember when everybody in the news was like, "That Santorum guy will never amount to much in the race!" and look what happened there x_X).
[/quote]

Yeah, back when in early polling, he was ahead of only one candidate (and for awhile, none) - that being Huntsman, who, like I said before, never really got anywhere...

I'm sure Santorum's campaign will be a campaign that'll be remembered for a long time. But he also played it out smart if he runs again in 2016, especially because he somewhat weakened Romney. If Romney loses the general election (if he becomes the nominee) to Obama, then Rick could have another great run in 2016. But anything's possible in races now, as Santorum's defied all odds...

 

[Toad Eightyfive]

B) There's still a lesser number of pro-life women then pro-life men.

...are you seriously saying that that 3% is a big deal?

I never said that. But 46 is still more than 43.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

B) There's still a lesser number of pro-life women then pro-life men.

...are you seriously saying that that 3% is a big deal?

Also, contraception is still a big pro-life/pro-choice debate, so it amounts to the same topic.

Abortion=/=contraception

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Also, contraception is still a big pro-life/pro-choice debate, so it amounts to the same topic.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

Also, contraception is still a big pro-life/pro-choice debate, so it amounts to the same topic.

Alright either way it's a petty debate since the only way to outright ban Abortion would be a constitutional amendment (same with flag burning and making it illegal to protest at military funerals)

 

[Toad Eightyfive]

Also, contraception is still a big pro-life/pro-choice debate, so it amounts to the same topic.

Not really.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Also, contraception is still a big pro-life/pro-choice debate, so it amounts to the same topic.

Alright either way it's a petty debate since the only way to outright ban Abortion would be a constitutional amendment (same with flag burning and making it illegal to protest at military funerals)

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean they have to force Catholic hospitals to do so as part of Obamacare.

That's not constitutional either.

Also, contraception is still a big pro-life/pro-choice debate, so it amounts to the same topic.

Not really.

Uh, yes it does.

Find me significant statistics that show that people who are pro-life/pro-choice differ on their opinions with contraception and abortion.

In other words, how many pro-life people are okay with contraception but not abortion? If it's a significant number, then you have a point, but otherwise...

 

[Daniel Dyce]

I disagree Jack woman have a right to an abortion under the constitution therefore Catholic hospitals have to provide them under the constitution unless your trying to say that Churches are allowed to restrict the constitutional rights of people

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Yeah, but the institution, which in this case is the Catholic Church, should still have a right not to offer certain services.

Smoking is legal, but businesses aren't forced to offer cigarettes to people, are they?

 

[Daniel Dyce]

Yeah, but the institution, which in this case is the Catholic Church, should still have a right not to offer certain services.

Smoking is legal, but businesses aren't forced to offer cigarettes to people, are they?

No because that violates a women's constitutional right to have an abortion while you don't have a constitutional right to smoke they are to totally different concepts

 

[Dr. Javelin]

It's not violating their rights because there are other hospitals they have access too.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

So Catholics churches should have the ability to deny people their constitutional rights

 

[Dr. Javelin]

They're not denying anything. They're choosing not to offer services.

They should not be forced to offer certain services to people if they don't want to.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

So they get to chose whether or not they will give a woman an abortion which is according to the Supreme Court a Constitutional right

 

[Dr. Javelin]

So they get to chose whether or not they will give a woman an abortion which is according to the Supreme Court a Constitutional right

Yes, they do.

Stores aren't forced to offer guns to people, even though it's a constitutional right to bear arms, right?

Could you find for me where abortion is granted by the Constitution, Shoe?

 

[Daniel Dyce]

The Supreme Court of the United States said woman have a right to abortion under the Constitution (I believe it was right to Privacy) therefore in my opinion refusing to give someone an abortion is deny thing them their constitutional right. Also Jack having the right to bear arms has nothing to do with forcing stores to sell guns they are completely different topics. Spoiler alert the way this going i'm going to end up looking like a total hypocrite

 

[Dr. Javelin]

What I'm saying is that just because someone has the right to do something doesn't mean you can force others to make that right available to them.

Let's say being a doctor went out of style for whatever reason (please bear with me, I have a point to this), and suddenly there are no doctors in the US whatsoever. Should common citizens be forced to go to school and become doctors just to provide people with contraception simply because they have a right to it?