Nation: But Can Reagan Be Elected? (Compare to todays Palin!)

Time Magazine, courtesy Organize4Paalin ^ | March 11, 1980 | Editorial

[fantail 1952]

Yes, say Republicans, as they assess Carter's weaknesses

For several decades, it has been an article of faith among politicians and political analysts that no candidate can win a U.S. presidential election unless he can dominate the broad center of the spectrum, that all candidates on the edges of the left or right are doomed. Barry Goldwater's "extremism . . . is no vice" campaign of 1964 provides the classic evidence, reinforced by George McGovern's 1972 defeat in 49 out of 50 states. And since G.O.P. Front Runner Ronald Reagan relies upon a base of support that is on the far right wing of the Republican Party, some experts have long declared that if he wins the nomination, the G.O.P. would simply be repeating the suicidal Goldwater campaign. Ex-President Gerald Ford left no doubt about his views when he warned last month: "A very conservative Republican cannot win in a national election."

But last week, after Ford gave up his own ambitions and Reagan's nomination took on a look of inevitability, a reassessment was under way across the country. The consensus was that although many hazards lie ahead, Ronald Reagan indeed has a chance to be elected as the 40th President of the U.S.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921912,00.html#ixzz1UpBj9KeM

[Mr. Lucky]

...and he was one of the most popular public spokesmen during the 20th Century, highly paid by corporations such as GE because of his ability to draw large crowds wherever he went. (Your recollections of your ancestral provenance notwithstanding)

[SuziQ]

Heh, I remember it well!! Carter did such a number on the economy, and our military, that Reagan's optimism was infectious. Folks WANTED to believe in a strong America again, so they elected him overwhelmingly.

I do believe that Sarah has that same optimism, along with the right amount of skepticism ("trust, but verify") that Reagan had, and if she can get herself heard, beyond the continual negative drumbeat of the MSM, people will respond positively to her.

[M. Thatcher]

How old are you?

[SoConPubbie]

--Reagan, according to this article, was the frontrunner.

Reagan was not the front runner until the last couple of months of the Primaries.

[fantail 1952]

(((((pingg)))))

[Al B.]

Reagan was not the front runner until the last couple of months of the Primaries.

Exactly, and this article was the first acknowledgment of that. That's why -- at about the same time in March, 1980 -- they were trotting out Gerald Ford as the only Repub that could beat Carter.

ABC News, March 10, 1980 -- FORD LEADS BOTH CARTER AND REAGAN, ALTHOUGH STILL UNDECLARED CANDIDATE

Comparing this point in the 2012 campaign to the middle of the 1979 primary is a false comparison. At this point in 1979, they were writing Ronald Reagan's political obituary. A Field poll in CA in Sept., 1979 had Reagan getting swamped by Ted Kennedy in his home state, and barely even with Carter.

[TexasGunRunner]

Wow!! A truly amazing article.

I especially like the part where they trash his “simple solutions” of cutting taxes and lowering the costs of energy. The author uses some “experts” to imply no serious person would take Reagan’s positions.

...and then 30 years later, Reagan was right and the so-called intelligentsia was 100% wrong!!

Now they are in control again. Their experiments in applying abstract academic theory have caused a total societal breakdown in the UK, and destroyed our economy.

We can’t afford a “pretty alright governor” who’ll be just an “OK president.” We need an authentic reformer who actually has experience balancing budgets and reducing the size of government.

We need somebody who can seriously claim to be an outsider willing to bring both parties to heel.

For all the meaningless, and blatantly biased, polling and all the tired old self-defeating excuses, only one potential candidate has actually ever reduced the size of government while openly stepping on the toes of elites in both parties..

My governor does not fit the bill, and neither does anybody whose ever been contaminated by the political games of DC.

Sarah Palin.

She’s not Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s not Sarah Palin. Different solutions for different times, but uncanny similarities in how the media elites attempt to destroy them, paint them as ‘unelectable’, ill-informed, and armed only with overly simplistic solutions.

Reagan was the right answer in 1980. Sarah is the right answer in 2012.

[FreeReign]

ABC News, March 10, 1980 --FORD LEADS BOTH CARTER AND REAGAN, ALTHOUGH STILL UNDECLARED CANDIDATE

The anti-Palins won't like your little reminder.

[Gargantua]

I was drawing (for the sake of apples-to-apples consistency) a comparison between the relative popularity of pre-president Reagan to pre-president Palin. That Reagan after his 1980 presidential success was heralded as "The Great Communicator" (and subsequently in great demand on the "speaking circuit") is neither in dispute nor is it the issue being discussed here.

At least, it wasn't until you raised it as your transparent and deceitfully obfuscatory red-herring smokescreen. Busted. "pwned." Try again.

;^\

[Gargantua]

"How old are you?"

My first vote was cast in 1964. Do the math.

[papasmurf]

Both. A little funny background...I had been ranting on both of them, but dad really didn’t need mush pushing, he liked Reagan as our Gov., and as a person. Mom, OTOH, argued ferociously with me. Then, on Election Day, she sneaked out at lunchtime and voted. When she came home she said she wasn’t going to vote, period! After the returns from the East Coast started coming in, I started “bagging” on her, then she confessed she had voted at lunchtime and had voted for Reagan and her and the rest of the family started laughing at me. I had been setup. LOL

[papasmurf]

OK let's compare.
--Reagan, according to this article, was the frontrunner.
--Palin isn't in the race.
--Reagan's nomination, according to this article, seemed inevitable.
--Palin's seems unlikely at best.
--Reagan was a two term governor from CA, which in 1980 had 47 electoral votes--most of any state.
--Palin's AK had 3.
--Today, Cali has 55, still tops.
--AK still has 3.
--Reagan had already run for president, as an insurgent from the right, challenging the establishment moderate.
--Palin ran for VP on the ticket with the establishment moderate.
OK, that was fun.

Oh, come on. Let us have some hope, will ya'?

[Mr. Lucky]

You're not nearly as knowledgeable (or maybe as old) as you pretend.

In the early days of television, advertisers pushed to have their product, and the shows they sponsored, closely associated with a known, respected and well liked star. Ronald Reagan represented General Electric from 1954 through 1962, well before he entered politics (and well before you were born, I suspect).

[Lando Lincoln]

I’m fine. Thanks.

Hope you are well.

[Still Thinking]

I do believe that Sarah has that same optimism, along with the right amount of skepticism ("trust, but verify") that Reagan had, and if she can get herself heard, beyond the continual negative drumbeat of the MSM, people will respond positively to her.

There is one scary scenario in which Palin IS very much Reagan for the millennium, but we now lack the voters to appreciate Reaganism. I'm afraid (literally afraid) that so many of them have been so dumbed down, so beaten down, and so inculcated in the helplessness mentality that that kind of message won't resonate like it did in 80.

Even if that's the case, it's not an argument against nominating Palin (picking some appeasing RINO like Willard the Giant Rat is pretty much preemptively surrendering, and where did THAT ever get the GOP?), but it is a worry just the same.

[TheOldLady]

Donate Just One
Each Month if You Will

[Gargantua]

You do understand that when you switch from arguing the point to attacking me personally, you're ceding that you lost the actual debate, don't you?

Since you're so much smarter and wiser than me (by your own admission, no less!) then obviously you, too, are aware of this.

So, "Thank you" for the candor. You really are a bright one.

:^\

[Mr. Lucky]

I'm not sure that responding to a cutsey insult constitutes attacking you personally. You know, those little gems in your post #29: Busted. "pwned". Try again.

The fact is that however much you or I may wish Governor Palin were the Republican candidate for President, she has nowhere near the popular folowing Ronald Reagan had. Someone who was alive in the 1950's should recollect that.

[SuziQ]

Oh, but Sarah would be the PERFECT candidate to educate those who aren’t familiar with Reaganomics. She has the desire for people to have the opportunity to be the best they can be, and I believe folks will see that.

[SuziQ]

she has nowhere near the popular folowing Ronald Reagan had. Someone who was alive in the 1950's should recollect that.

It wasn't until just a couple of months before the election in 1980 that Reagan actually started getting real traction. He certainly wasn't a shoe-in when he started his campaign, or even really at the time of the convention. The MSM had savaged him all during the campaign, and went all out on him, when he won the nomination. He was helped by the fact that folks had just had enough of Carter, and the misery he caused.