Talk about being clueless.
Posted on 02/25/2012 3:27:56 PM PST by johnatures
The talk among college professors, students and those in the conservative southern community I live in, is that Barack Obama is going to win big, whether one wants it to happen or not. The other day, someone said it could be as big a victory as FDR's overwhelming reelection in 1936.
I pointed out that Democrats would do well to remember the lessons of the 1980 election. Others in the conversation dismissed such talk. After all, Obama's got a big lead in the polls. According to realclearpolitics.com polls, Obama is opening up big leads in Associated Press polls and even in Rasmussen Tracking surveys, which always favor Republicans. A Franklin & Marshall poll had Obama winning the battleground state of Pennsylvania, even thumping native son Rick Santorum!
But we have a lot of myths about the 1980 election. According to Will Rogers, the Larry the Cable Guy of the 1930s, said a myth is "what we know, that ain't necessarily so!"
Sure Reagan took 44 states and 489 electoral votes in 1980, compared to 49 for President Jimmy Carter. But Reagan only won 50.7 percent of the vote, while Carter got 41 percent and John B. Anderson picked up the rest. As recently as October 26, a Gallup poll had Carter ahead 47 percent to Reagan's 39 percent. Reagan's comeback was so remarkable that Gallup had seen nothing like it since they began polling in 1936.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I have a better definition of Myth: “What never was true, and always will be.”
LOL, that’s pretty good, I’m going to use that.
Did you ever read the book “The Daughter of Time” by Josephine Tey?
It is novel, one of a series about a police detective in England. In this book he has been severely injured (I think he fell through a skylight or something) and is laid up for several months. Out of boredom he “re-investigates” the murders of the “tower princes” by Richard III.
It it most interesting and gives many good examples of “myths” as per your definition.
I thought the same thing when I read that. Good grief, if that isn’t the ultimate example of an idiot thinking just because something is of today it is better than anything in the past.
Did the left see Nov 2010 coming or did they not?
Carter was/is just inept. He trashed the US not by design, but through his stupidity.
Obama is damaging the country on purpose. He is, as he promised, fundamentally transforming the United States of America. As such, he will do whatever he believes is necessary to accomplish his goals, including the seemingly non-stop, in-your-face unconstitutional crimes. Fast and Furious, non-recess recess appointments, forcing employers to pay for medical procedures against their beliefs, etc.
Hey John. Seems to me that until we know for sure who nobama’s opponent will be that all the polls you cite are BS or at best wild guesses.
If every conservative, Tea Partier and Republican would just make copies of the chart in your post about the size of a post-it note and afix it to the gas pumps where they fuel their vehicles. Or take a post-it and write “Hows that Hope and Change working out for you?” and do the same, he’d lose in a landslide.
That is a superb idea 2ndDivisionVet! It's true grass roots activism and it begins with each one of us. Watch for me to start the campaign at a 7-11 when I fill up tomorrow. I'll clip out the Clinton part. :-)
Let's make this happen! Jim any thoughts?
I wouldn’t clip out the Clinton part! That’ll make it more believable to Democrats, independents, moderates, blacks, PUMAs, union people, etc. Either they stay home, vote for our guy or vote third party.
That's a good point. Leaving the Clinton part of the graph in does add to its authenticity.
Of course the lowest gas prices during the Clinton years (under a dollar here in Texas) came when Newt Gingrich's Contract with America revived our economy along with budget surpluses and only 4.2% unemployment.
I'll have to take some issue with that. Carter was one of Admiral Hyman Rickover's 'nuclear whiz kids'. Such as they were never stupid, nor inept.
So, the question begs, why did the nation fare so poorly under his 'stewardship'? I have to contend, and what followed since indicates, but not definitively proves, that much of the damage done could well have been intentional...
the infowarrior
The article concludes,Carter's poor debate performance, troubles in Iran, Afghanistan, and high gas prices, and overconfidence did him in. All Obama lacks is that poor debate performance, for now. So Democrats would do well to remember the lessons of the 1980 election, unless they want Obama to have an early retirement party.You might think that incumbent presidents would be veteran pros at the game and would do better in debate the second time around than they did before, but that’s not the case at all, at least in the first debate. IMHO the only example of an incumbent POTUS not stumbling badly in a TV debate was Bill Clinton. Even Ronaldus Maximus did in 1984!Apparently the reality of the fact that they could actually lose “their” mansion, perks, and power “four years too early” comes home to presidents going into their first TV debate as an incumbent - and the pressure is impossible.
Consider The Franchise Affair and Brat Farrar as well.
Cheers!
1. Illinois law license: What is the story concerning your license to practice law in Illinois?
Can you practice law in Illinois today?
If not, why not?
I find it difficult to believe that a lawyer who is not allowed to practice law in his own home state of Illinois is the best person to run for and become President of the United States in 2012.
2. LA Times tape of you speaking at a Muslim dinner/meeting: During the 2008 presidential campaign, as you know, a person gave a videotape of you speaking to a Muslim dinner/meeting to the LA Times with the promise that the LA Times would not release it to the public.
As I understand it, information on the tape was leaked in which you said some bad things about Jews. Is that true?
Why don't you tell the LA Times to release the videotape because (1) you are not ashamed of what is on the tape and (2) the LA Times---I thought that the LA Times is bound by journalistic ethics to present the truth. good or bad, wherever it might lead---had no right to promise the owner that it would not release the videotape.
3. Kapiolani Hospital, the hospital named on your long form birth certificate: Why don't you give Kapiolani officials permission to verify that your mother was a patient there and permission to show tourists the room where your mother stayed?
It has been almost a year since you released your long form birth certificate in April 2011 and still not a single word from Kapiolani officials to verify that you were born there. Why is that?
As you know, a simple phone call or a brief letter from you to Kapiolani officials could allow those officials to talk to reporters tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.