The Anti-Romney Parade: Palin, Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Paul...Santorum?!

Yep, it looks like Rick “Man On Dog,” “Frothy Mix” Santorum is the last anti-Romney standing. Who knew the wingnuts would get this desperate?

But if you follow the link (to the single-day and rolling two-day results from the Des Moines Register poll taken Tuesday through Friday of this past week), it’s pretty clear that Ron Paul is the latest anti-Romney to have his bubble burst, and that Santorum’s polling in Iowa has been taking off like a rocket.

The wingnut base is like a woman trying on dresses before a big party, finding nothing she likes, and pulling more dresses off the rack faster and faster, hoping there’s something there that she’ll look good in.

The wingnut base hasn’t yet figured out that there’s NO dress they can put on that will make them look good.

As far as I can tell, Santorum’s the last one; there simply ain’t nobody else. They’ve been through all the other declared candidates with any anti-Romney potential. (Huntsman is really more of an anti-anti-Romney: if, say, Gingrich had stayed on top in the polls for a bit longer, and Romney’s support had nosedived (as it briefly looked like it might), the GOP establishment might’ve settled on Huntsman as a better anti-anti-Romney than Romney himself. But that was really Huntsman’s only path to the nomination this time around.)

And JFTR, Santorum’s not gonna be the GOP nominee. A Santorum win in Iowa simply clears the path for Romney to win the nomination.

It’s important to recognize that Santorum’s success in Iowa is not at all indicative of his standing in the nation as a whole. Remember that last summer, Santorum had a strong showing in the Iowa straw poll with 10% of the votes … but this never amounted to any increase in popularity nationally. The reason? He concentrated all his resources in one place. He is campaigning very hard in that state, but he simply doesn’t have the resources to carry that momentum beyond Iowa. I would be absolutely shocked if Santorum ever became close to a top tier candidate during this election cycle.

National popularity, as best as I can tell, is a bit of a trailing indicator. Take Gingrich, for instance - he’s still at 24% in the Gallup tracking poll, but he’s at 12-13% in Iowa, and his national numbers will eventually sink to match his lack of success in early primaries.

Doesn’t mean Santorum’s national numbers will jump into the 20s from his current 4-5% if he should win Iowa, but if he wins Iowa, those numbers will surely bump up for a bit as people looking for an alternative to Romney give him more consideration than they’ve previously given him.

‘Top tier’ on the GOP side is kinda meaningless at this stage: there’s Romney, and there’s everybody else. I agree that Santorum’s not going to seriously challenge Romney for the nomination, if that’s what you mean.

But this is the only game a candidate with few resources has historically been able to play, really: sink all your time, and what money you have, into Iowa; and if you win there, maybe that’ll get you the credibility you need to get the contributions that will enable you to compete down the road.

This happened for Mike Huckabee in 2008. However, he made a patzer’s mistake: he wasted a good chunk of those resources, and a week’s worth of time, campaigning in New Hampshire, a state that he was a terrible fit for, rather than, say, going directly to South Carolina and building up support there while the others were duking it out 800 miles to the north.

If Santorum wins, I bet he falls into the same trap. He’ll sink a week and however much money he has into NH, and come out with jack shit.

The difference, IMHO, is that Huckabee really could have been a contender in 2008 if he’d skipped NH. I can’t see Santorum making Romney break a sweat, no matter how optimally he plays his hand. The sort of press coverage a serious candidate gets will kill Santorum, just like it’s killed all of the other anti-Romney wannabes.

Santorum defends pre-existing condition clauses in health insurance:

Oooh, now there’s a popular campaign issue, run with it, Rick!

Gee, I wonder why that is?

:smack:

Santorum is a Twilight fan!

Santorum and Paul duking it out with Romney for the lead in Iowa? Only one explanation: alternate timeline. Which one of you bastards went back in time and shot Hitler … again? :mad:

Paradoxically enough, it was RomaGypsyKing. With Hitler not around to execute his grandfather, GrandpaGypsy successfully prevented his daughter’s marriage to the local tinker, which in turn prevented RomaGypsyKing’s birth…

As the clown car continues to disgorge one bizarre horror after another, nobody on the fringe of the right is paying any attention to the driver. Once Mitt leaves with the car, the rest of the buffoons will be left stranded in the political desert, trying to walk home in those ridiculous shoes they’ve been wearing in Iowa.

@FearItself. Doesn’t that provision not go into effect until 2014? If so, then Santorum is saying, absent the healthcare law, he was still able to get insurance for his child?

That confuses me, though. As a former Senator, aren’t he and his family covered by the Federal insurance given to Congressmen?

I just looked at the poll in the OP. They interviewed 150 likely caucus goers each night. Poll has MOE of +/- EIGHT (8)! Fucking 8 percentage points.

Wouldn’t it be better to throw a dart at the board for a prediction?

No. The HCRB forbids denying insurance for children with pre-existing conditions as of Sept 2010. This kicks in for adults in 2014, hand in hand with the individual mandate.

The provision for children went into effect last year. For adults it goes into effect in 2014.

I thought so to. Maybe he can’t add new family members to the plan if their addition to the family post-dates when he left the gov’t?

It’s too bad that Paul the octopus is dead.

Well, sure, but it wouldn’t be falsifiable.

Come on. Ron Paul adds a certain dimension to the whole affair that I’d really miss if it weren’t there. He gets it right more often than he’s given credit for around here.

There’s a certain Survivalist (for lack of a better word) crowd that is attracted to libertarianism, and I think many of Ron Paul’s more “out there” positions and past actions are explained by an alignment, or at least a casual association, with that faction. Not endorsing that aspect, just offering an explanation.

The guy isn’t going to get elected, but the election would be poorer without his participation.

If he is, I’m pretty sure I can get across the border before Canada closes it.

If he were, he’d be OK with your whole state seceding and joining Canukistan.

No.

The difference between Santorum’s support on Tuesday and Santorum’s support on Friday is significant, even at that level. Ditto Paul’s. And I’m looking at the MOE of a difference, here (which is basically the published MOE*sqrt(2) when it’s the same MOE throughout, or 11.3% in this case) which is the only MOE that really counts with these things, AFAIAC.

Also, the rolling 2-day results have a MOE of 5.6% (MOE of a difference: 7.9%), and Santorum’s rise from earlier in the week to later in the week is unquestionably significant by that measure.

Don’t forget the password. You do remember the password, right?

There is no Federal Insurance given to Congressmen since, oh, about 1984. They pay for a portion of it just like all the other Federal employees. The Gov picks up about 2/3rds and individuals pay about 1/3rd. There is no special Congressional plan - they have the same choices as other Federal employees. Most popular plans are Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Aetna, and US Postal Mail Handlers (any Federal employees can get the Mail Handlers plan by “joining” the union - $45 a year for dues).

Congressmen who leave office can extend medical benefits by use of COBRA insurance. I believe it’s for up to 15 months. But there are no lifetime benefits as seems to circulate on the Interwebs periodically. Please note that Congresscritters also pay Social Security like other 'Mericans since 1984 also in contrast to various email claims.