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

[fantail 1952]

Amazing how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Thanks to O4P for bringing this 30+ year old story into focus!

[SoConPubbie]

Hey Guys, here is a rebuttal to your falacious use of current polling data to try and make the weak point that Palin won’t be running because of polling data right now.

[papasmurf]

Great post, thanks!

BTW, my Parents were staunch Dems, and Reagan was their very first, and only, vote for a Republican...ever!

[Huck]

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.

[Gargantua]

I've (we've!) been telling them this for months. They are so Anti-Palin (though surely God alone knows why) that they cannot see beyond their own pathetic and patently unjustifiable animus.

[rbmillerjr]

“National opinion polls continue to show Carter leading Reagan by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Ford would run better against the President.”

//////.......Sound familiar?

It’s always the same tune.

[Gargantua]

You won't think it's so much fun when you factor in what you left out.

~Palin is ten times the draw Reagan ever was.

~Reagan did not get paid mammoth amounts of money just to show up at events.

~Reagan could not draw tens-of-thousands of people at the drop of a hat to see him at a rally.

~Reagan was not quoted by the press in six-foot-tall headlines every time he mailed a letter.

Try Reagan times ten, then tell me how much fun you're having. Don't worry, we'll be having enough fun to make up for you bumming out.

8^D

[douginthearmy]

You are the devil! (ok that was fun!) I am joking, and you hit the nail on the head, but I hope you have asbestos underwear!

[Lando Lincoln]

Well... there you go again...
.
Using logic.
.
.
.
The faithful won’t like it.

[fantail 1952]

Published originally in March 1980. 3/80=3/12. Last I heard using this scale, it's still August of 1979. Reagan didn't officially declare until November....

Answering the rest of your crap would be a waste of perfectly good bandwidth.

[Interesting Times]

Despite the occasional shot at Reagan's imagined simple-mindedness, this is a far more balanced and informative article than TIME has published in many years.

One of his proposed cures for inflation is the notion that a huge tax cut will restore the productive vitality of the economy and control price rises. Most economists believe this approach is nonsense, that it would simply fuel more inflation.

Ha.

[Mr. Lucky]

You apparently don’t remember Ronald Reagan very well.

[fantail 1952]

You apparently don’t remember Ronald Reagan very well.

Gargantua maight not, but I do. Voted for him NINE TIMES.

[M. Thatcher]

Palin is ten times the draw Reagan ever was.

Don't be an idiot.

And I'm a Palin fan.

[Gargantua]

"You apparently don’t remember Ronald Reagan very well."

LOL

Ronnie grew up on the Rock River in Illinois in my family's town of "Dixon," and went to high school with my dad. He was a lifeguard in the summers at the local beach, and was a family friend until his death. Your luck just ran out.

[Gargantua]

Prior to his political rise, Ron was a classic "B List" actor who starred in movies with a chimp named "Bonzo." In Hollywood he was a fondly remembered dolt, and in America his "Walk oF Fame" star shone about as brightly as Rip Torn or Dom DeLuise.

By the '60's, Reagan could still draw a crowd of fifty to a couple hundred people if he showed up at a shopping mall, but he couldn't draw fifty-thousand. Grow a brain. Facts are facts.

And I love Ron Reagan.

[Still Thinking]

BTW, my Parents were staunch Dems, and Reagan was their very first, and only, vote for a Republican...ever!

80 or 84 or both? If 84 or both, it would be interesting because it would mean that they liked what they saw from 80-84, but never found another Pubbie inspiring enough to vote for. (I'm sure many of us can relate!)

[Lando Lincoln]

Yikes... you’re making stuff up, right?

[Gargantua]

Grow up.

[Still Thinking]

Despite the occasional shot at Reagan's imagined simple-mindedness, this is a far more balanced and informative article than TIME has published in many years.

That struck me as well. It's been so long, I'd forgotten that Time was once a real magazine written by real semi-objective journalists. I haven't bothered to crack the thing open in decades.