It isn't about supporting BC and you know that. It's about a policy forcing religious institutions of all types to provide a particular type of coverage they don't prescribe too. That simple.

Regardless, all the Republican nominee will do is pound his domestic economic record into the heads of the voters in the BG states and if they those folks have enough sense they'll know which way to vote imo.

And Obama compromised on it, and they don't have to cover it. Also 59% of Catholics support the compromise. It is still a losing issue and why do you say if they have enough sense? Just because you think one way does mean they can't think another. I think he has done a good job, but I wouldn't say that about people. Besides, it seems like people don't like Romeny and that will matter. People don't vote for people they don't like. It happened with Kerry, people like Bush more. And Santourm is too batshit to the right for independents.

Yeah, Santorum would be more doomed than Newt Gingrich in the presidential election. Using the struggling economy as cannon fodder, I agree, is a near sure fire win for the GOP, if they focus on a candidate who is more known for his economic policies (despite the irony that the president actually has little to do with the economy), Rick Santorum is not one of those people. He appears more wrapped up, or at least in terms of his perception, into fighting the "liberals" on the social front, a topic more people in this country lean left on.

Do I really see some polls showing Santorum above/even with Romney in the states of PA, OH, and FL?

LOLpublicans

Santorum is beating Romney in Michigan in most polls. If Romney loses Michigan, he is in trouble.

The latest Rasmussen Reports Poll has Santorum beating Romney by 18(!) points in Ohio...

And Democrats everywhere are collapsing with laughter.

Romney is the one with the best chance of beating Obama, and even then, he has trailed Obama in every poll done over the last 6 months. Santorum will be much easier to beat.

I'm positive that's not true but I do agree Dems are laughing themselves silly.

However, all that matters are the BG states. These general heads up polls mean little.

And Obama has taken the lead in most of the swing states outside of Florida and North Carolina. I think of lot of it is Romney has ran a bad campaign and is scaring away independents with a conservative impersonation of John Kerry. I still am thinking we might have a brokered convention. Newt hurts Santorum from winning enough delegates but Romney can't win enough because of Santorum.

yeah its quite silly, I think most Americans see Obama as a better choice, I doubt many are pleased about the choices overall though unlike 4 years ago.

Romney's popularity is eroding pretty quickly actually. He has no ability to connect.

Well this has happened twice before 1996 and 2004 if the Democrats or Republicans had better candidates those years they could have won. Bob Dole and John Kerry were awful candidates.

Bob Dole...the figurehead for the Republican Party for two decades a horrible candidate?

Dole is a good man, but he was too old, not a good campaigner and going against a guy who had wind in his sails.

Exactly, he ran a horrible campaign. His age was a problem and there were other issues with him (the GOP forced him to retire from the Senate). Kerry looked great on paper as well but ran a terrible campaign which was worse than what Gore ran. Hell Gore could have ran again and stood a better chance of beating Bush in 2004.

No, it is true.

Obama has lost to a generic "Republican" in polls but that's meaningless, because whenever people answer those kinds of polls, they imagine a perfect Republican. When you actually give names, the real Republicans lose to Obama.

And yes, polls this far ahead of the election are kind of meaningless. I remember when I was young, working on the Dukakis campaign, and being so happy that he was far ahead at this point.

EDIT: I stand corrected. I had seen one poll that always had Obama ahead but this chart, showing an average of all polls, shows small periods where Romney was slightly ahead:

He did turn out to be a horrible candidate. The problem was his time had passed. He would have been a better candidate years earlier but that wasn't possible. Of course the Republicans had a lot of bad candidates and it does remind me a lot of the year.

I pretty much agree. Gore could have ran well in 2008 too. I'd say he'd run in 2016 if he didn't retire.

Pretty much. He doesn't have the anger required for a Clintonian Republican.

and yeah, Romney's popularity in the public eye is eroding fast. He's starting to be behind by McCain levels.

Gore has lost all creditability outside of the leftist base with his crazy environmentalism.




Yeah if its Obama vs Ronald Reagan, Obama would lose

Well first he is dead so that would never happened. Also, he could only run against who is there. As I said Clinton would have lost to a better candidate and the Democrats could have challenged Regan with someone better than Mondale (who I say was one of the worst presidential nominees in the last 30 years).

nah I think both Clinton and Reagan were way to hard to beat in 1984 and 1996 as the country economy was booming.