Are you fucking kidding me? Is this a rhetorical question?
If you want to ask a serious question - the kind that no one in their right mind would answer "Hillary" in a heartbeat to - ask about Hillary vs. Marco Rubio, even Jeb Bush, anyone other than Santorum.
The answer by the way no matter whom you would pit against her is Hillary, but there is no way in hell Santorum would stand a snowball's chance in the Yucatan against Hillary.
R1, the point is that the social conservatives and right-wing of the Republican Party think they would have done better if they had a conservative running instead of a 'moderate' like Mitt Romney
Social conservatives and the far right wing will not have the same power in 2016 as they did in 2008, 2010, and 2012.
She'd have Santorum for lunch.
R2, I assume R1's point is that right-wing conservatives are continuing the delude themselves, and as most more rational Repukes understand, the reason they got their asses whupped is because they continued to demonize many of the constituencies that they can't win without, particularly moderate women and Latinos. You don't fix that problem by picking someone even MORE conservative next time.
OP: Get real. Santorum is irrelevant.
The better question would be is: How would Hillary fare against Rubio, Bush, Christie, etc.
These last elections really proved there are some states that will never care what the Republicans do -- they'll vote them the presidency. They'd back Rick Santorum.
It's time for a woman president.
Althought Santorum in drag would look prettier than Hillary.
Exactly, R7. Despite the fact that Romney is a pathological liar, 24 states voted for him.
Santorum is a lock for the Iowa fundies' vote; they splintered this year, and won't make that mistake again!
Santorum won 11 states in the 2012 primaries. He can definitely win a few in 2016.
[quote]These last elections really proved there are some states that will never care what the Republicans do -- they'll vote them the presidency. They'd back Rick Santorum.
I completely agree. The problem is that the Republican candidate needs to win at least five or six more, and there's no fucking way Santorum can accomplish that. *Smart* Republicans know this, and knew it after McCain got his ass beat in 2008, but in the past two election cycles (2010 and this year) figured, probably correctly, that it was best to let the remnants of "Tea Party fever" die out before attempting to move the party back to the center, as many Congressional Republicans are currently doing (e.g. all the congressmen telling Grover Norquist to fuck off).
[quote]Santorum won 11 states in the 2012 primaries. He can definitely win a few in 2016.
R11. The Repug primaries are vastly different than the general election. Sure, Santorum will win a few states, but he will get blown out of the water and be mondo beyondo humiliated if he were ever to be the Repug nominee for the general election.
The diehard religious whackos will vote for Santorum, but the country has moved on. Santorum is over.
Sanitorium can't win a general election
I doubt Santorum can win the nomination.
As Rachel Maddow said, "We will not be overturning Roe vs. Wade;" "We will not be amending the Constitution so that gay people cannot get married."
"We had the choice to do that. And we said NO."
Thank you, Rachel
Rick has already basically announced for 2016.
He's the Runner Up from 2012, and that person often becomes the nominee the next time.
R17 - Yes, he thinks it's his turn. It really isn't. The GOP nomination is wide open for the first time in a long time.
[quote]The GOP nomination is wide open for the first time in a long time.
Not really. You're forgetting all the potential runners who sat out 2012 thinking (accurately, in hindsight) that no Republican could beat Obama. As much as I hate to say it, the party's best bet at the moment is Jeb Bush, of all people.
R19, why on Earth would people vote for the brother of George W. Bush?
R20, why on earth would people vote for GWB a second time? These are mysteries I can't answer.
R21, at least one of those elections was stolen.
"The point is that the social conservatives and right-wing of the Republican Party think they would have done better if they had a conservative running instead of a 'moderate' like Mitt Romney"
My point is that any analysis of the last election proves that they are completely out of their minds if they think the right direction for them is to go right of Romney.
R19 - "You're forgetting all the potential runners who sat out 2012 thinking (accurately, in hindsight) that no Republican could beat Obama. "
I agree. Then there's Rubio, Christie, Portman, Ryan, etc. That's what I meant by a wide open field. There's no one or two obvious choices like there is most years.
I doubt it be anyone named Bush.
"Santorum won 11 states in the 2012 primaries. He can definitely win a few in 2016."
But what the fuck does that have to do with whether he would have a chance against Hillary, or, more to the point, whether he could possibly have a better chance against Hillary than a more moderate member of his party?
He couldn't. The only way the Republicans would have even a slight chance against Hillary is to run someone who presents him/herself like Romney did in the last chapter of his campaign - the debates - but without his constant pandering, saying anything to whomever he's addressing at the moment to get their support, and presenting a relative vision of integrity.
Even then, they would lose.
Hills would DESTROY him!!!!!!
R24, Paul Ryan is finished. He may continue to have a career in the House, but his Presidential career is over. No losing Vice-Presidential nominee has gone on to be President in recent history.
He is also a conservative white male who has the same views on abortion as Todd Akin. Not going to sell nationally.
R26 is correct.
But on to the really important stuff, do you think Jeb and George Bush jerked off together alot?