Santorum drops out of the race.

[kochman]

But you do know that Obama won't... so... lesser of two evils, as they say... that's the system in the USA, like it or lump it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Or choose not to support either one.... As I've pretty much decided to do at this point.

 

[caketastydelish]

I also don't like the implication of "lesser of two evils" as this implies there are only two choices.

America is a democracy- there are more than two choices. I hate it when people say "You throw away your vote when you vote for a third party". I have no intention of voting for a third party myself, but that's because I'm perfectly content with one of the two "main" choices available, a.k.a Obama. However, if I wasn't, then I would not be ashamed to vote for a third party.

For example, people on the left often whine that Ralph Nader needs to drop out because he's "stealing votes" from the left

Or conservatives telling Ron Paul to drop out because he's "stealing votes" from the republican running for President.

Neither of these claims are valid however. ANYONE has the right to run for President, presuming they meet the qualifications. You are not stuck with "the lesser of the two evils". In countries like Iran, that is the case(stuck with lesser of the two evils) In America, it is not.

 

[Takhisis]

I was concerned that Mr. Santorum would pull a "Clinton" - where Hilary continued with her campaign long after she had been mathematically eliminated and dealt it into the top cabinet position at the convention. Mr. Santorum's comment that' "...we are not done fighting," is a bit disturbing though.

Is he in time to run as an independent?

I also don't like the implication of "lesser of two evils" as this implies there are only two choices.

America is a democracy- there are more than two choices. I hate it when people say "You throw away your vote when you vote for a third party". I have no intention of voting for a third party myself, but that's because I'm perfectly content with one of the two "main" choices available, a.k.a Obama. However, if I wasn't, then I would not be ashamed to vote for a third party.

For example, people on the left often whine that Ralph Nader needs to drop out because he's "stealing votes" from the left

Or conservatives telling Ron Paul to drop out because he's "stealing votes" from the republican running for President.

Neither of these claims are valid however. ANYONE has the right to run for President, presuming they meet the qualifications. You are not stuck with "the lesser of the two evils". In countries like Iran, that is the case(stuck with lesser of the two evils) In America, it is not.

Not quite, but Obama will do nowhere as much harm to us eveil foreigners as a Republican would. We hope.

 

[LucyDuke]

Mr. Santorum's comment that' "...we are not done fighting," is a bit disturbing though.

Eh, they always say that.

I also don't like the implication of "lesser of two evils" as this implies there are only two choices.

In practice, for the presidency, today, yeah there are only two viable choices.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Perhaps if a third party changed the results of the election, one of the major two parties would take on some of their ideas. In any case, I have every right to make a protest vote if I sufficiently dislike the two major candidates. And I'd gladly write in a candidate this year and not sell my soul to the devil and vote for Romney.

 

[caketastydelish]

Perhaps if a third party changed the results of the election, one of the major two parties would take on some of their ideas. In any case, I have every right to make a protest vote if I sufficiently dislike the two major candidates. And I'd gladly write in a candidate this year and not sell my soul to the devil and vote for Romney.

I thought you are 17 this year and therefore can't vote anyway.

But yeah, nothing wrong with a protest vote. In fact, I wish more people would do it. You'd be amazed how many people are unhappy with both of the "two" choices, but still vote for on one of them anyway.

I personally am on the polar opposite of the political spectrum from you, but I support your protest vote.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yeah I'm 17 I can't vote this time along.

I personally am on the polar opposite of the political spectrum from you, but I support your protest vote.

Stopped clock is right twice a day

Glad to know we're on the same side here

 

[Takhisis]

I wish people in the US would actually show up and vote, instead of the 'I don't vote' excuse wielded all the time.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Oh, if it was legal I'd definitely vote. Just probably not for Romney and definitely not for Obama.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Eh, I'm not even sure I want Romney to win. It would be more of the same, and we DEFINITELY won't get anything better in 2016.

I've been supporting Dr. Paul for awhile, but Rick Santorum would have been my No. 2. The very thought of Gingrich or Romney honestly makes me gag a little.

Then again, I can't outright support Obama.

Good luck third parties!

Seconded!

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Agreed. Romney out spent Santorum by quite a margin. I don't think Santorum ever had a chance to begin with. The fact that he faired as well as he did however, proves that he is quite a resourceful politician and one that will certainly run again in the future.

Actually I think it shows how weak of a candidate Romney is and how lukewarm the republicans are to support him.

 

[caketastydelish]

Actually I think it shows how weak of a candidate Romney is and how lukewarm the republicans are to support him.

I'm not sure how "weak" Romney is.

I say this because:

1. He has plenty of spending money for his campaign. McCain lacked spending money compared to Obama, but Romney may not have that problem.

2. Romney is a plain, "vanilla" republican. This sounds like a bad thing, but compared to the other republicans running, it's good. I mean for example, whenever Jon Stewart tries to make fun of Romney, in my opinion it doesn't work. While Romney isn't particularly exceptional about anything, the times he makes a fool of himself are few and far between. Romney doesn't say things unbearably backwards such as

"Unlike John F. Kennedy, I will place my Catholic faith at the head of my administration" or something like that. Santorum said something like that. You won't see Romney saying anything like that.

The truth is, if the economy gets bad enough then Romney has an excellent chance to win.

 

[MjM]

The truth is, if the economy gets bad enough then Romney has an excellent chance to win.

Romney has flip flopped so many times that I doubt he has any serious chance of winning.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't necessarily see the problem with that (Second to last paragraph) depending on context or what he meant by it. That said, I do wonder. I doubt there are all that many people like me that really don't want to vote for Romney badly enough they'd "Throw away a vote" as Kochman described it. So he'll probably do fine. But I'm definitely not excited about him, and a lot of Republicans may not be excited enough about him to bother voting.

@Mjm- He killed the GOP primary even though he flip flops often. I doubt the moderates will mind too much. Unfortunately.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm not sure how "weak" Romney is.

I say this because:

1. He has plenty of spending money for his campaign. McCain lacked spending money compared to Obama, but Romney may not have that problem.

2. Romney is a plain, "vanilla" republican. This sounds like a bad thing, but compared to the other republicans running, it's good. I mean for example, whenever Jon Stewart tries to make fun of Romney, in my opinion it doesn't work. While Romney isn't particularly exceptional about anything, the times he makes a fool of himself are few and far between. Romney doesn't say things unbearably backwards such as

"Unlike John F. Kennedy, I will place my Catholic faith at the head of my administration" or something like that. Santorum said something like that. You won't see Romney saying anything like that.

The truth is, if the economy gets bad enough then Romney has an excellent chance to win.

So Romney doesn't depend on himself, he just depends on the outcome of his party's backers' antics to screw the country enough for sheeple to blame Obama.

 

[JtheJackal]

We'll see what happens but Romney still feels like he'll go the way of McCain. Cater to the right and lose the election.

 

[Antilogic]

Breaking news from the Gingrich campaign: Gingrich Urges Romney To Drop Out So He Can Focus On General Election.

I'm waiting to see what Romney's general election strategy is going to be, as well as his VP pick. We'll know more that point.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think this just demonstrates how unpopular conservatism has become - the conservatives cannot even credibly challenge for the GOP nomination.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Agreed. Romney out spent Santorum by quite a margin. I don't think Santorum ever had a chance to begin with. The fact that he faired as well as he did however, proves that he is quite a resourceful politician and one that will certainly run again in the future.

I heard he's planning another run in 1956.