Replies

What was the revealing remark by the elitist, left-wing female magazine writer who exclaimed, "how did Ronald Reagan win, nobody I know voted for him?" Reagan won 49 states. We must guard against the same myopia which infects conservatism and which is reflected daily on these threads. The reality is the right has scant chance of winning in 2008 and this reality applies when election with or without Bitch Clinton.

First, most FReepers analyze election through the prism of their own reality. The center of America is no longer white. At least not when one subtracts lesbians and homosexuals, Jews and environmentalists, teachers and government unions, etc.

The appalling reality is that on election day Slick and the Bitch know that they will wake up that morning with at least 45% of all votes as secure as though they had cast them themselves. 93% or more of blacks, 60-70% of Hispanics, 90% of homosexuals, 18-90% of Jews, 90-100% of the environmentalists, she knows that she is assured of even carrying close to majority level of white females. How many Sentinent white males must Fred Thompson carry in compensation to win the day?

But let us analyze the election the way the professionals would do it: Geographically. That is after all the way it plays out in the electoral College and it is only in this framework that the ethnic breakdown should be understood. There is nothing good about the geographical breakdown that I have emphasized in those previous posts which I have republished this morning.

No matter how you slice it, Iraq, demographics, geography, 8 years in power, resistance by the media, everything points to a debacle. It is only the kind of new thinking now being expressed by Gingrich (and not, alas, by Thomson or Romney) which has a chance of kicking over the table and imposing a new game which we might have a chance of winning.

What was the revealing remark by the elitist, left-wing female magazine writer who exclaimed, "how did Ronald Reagan win, nobody I know voted for him?"

Are you thinking of Pauline Kael, who said the same thing but about Nixon?

I don't know how secure Hillary is. Her name recognition can't get any higher, but she has a lot of negatives. I've never heard any man go on about her as many women have--in the negative.

While of course I respect your thinking and writing, I'm just not convinced that the electorate sees things so linearly (8 years of Republicans, time for something new). Bush 41's victory was not the third Reagan term, no matter how many people try to tell me otherwise--he never came off as someone who was going to continue Reagan's reign in all but name. So when I look at the trends you note I am worried, but remain unconvinced.

I think people keep forgetting, ironically, 9-11. I work with young people, and you might be surprised how many of them claim to be liberals and Democrats but who see a strong defense as the #1 priority. These people were kids on 9-11 and will be voting for President in '08.

As always, you provide a lot to chew on, and thanks for posting it.

I believe we will have a demographic unknown with a potential female president who is a liberal. Some observers think she will bring out female voters who don’t usually vote. I think we have a number of females and liberal males who will be afraid to have a female president during war time, especially a liberal one.

In any case, the demographic history won’t be a reliable indicator.