Living in such a vastly different ‘information age’ compared to just two or three decades ago, I sometimes wonder how valid such analogies are, regardless of whether they portend either positive or negative outcomes.
It did not turn for Reagan until the weekend before the election.
I’ve been looking for these poll figures. I remember the shock on the Dems when Reagan won, as he was not the predicted winner, according to the polls.
I wasn’t even paying attention this in 1980. Not until I heard RWR at the convention. Then I was there at Liberty State Park in JC, NJ Sept. 1. But at 16 I was not even aware of the polls.
Pieces like this one are why Rush drives many liberals to distraction.
Back in 1980, there were cautious voices in the Conservative media (which consisted of National Review and Paul Harvey) expressing optimism for the upcoming election. One of them (I remember distinctly) was Grover Norquist, long before he picked up his current baggage. Norquist was very upbeat about RR’s chances, never wavered, and turned out to be right.
Todays Conservative Media is two or more orders of magnitude more powerful than it was back then, and the influence of the MSM punditry has lost much of its power.
That said, I’m not confident because I’m not confident in Romney. Why won’t he fight? President Lincoln had to go through a whole posse of generals before he found one that would fight. We only get to go through one general every four years. McCain wouldn’t fight. So far Romney is not showing me a single thing.
By this time in 1980, Reagan had already drawn Carter’s blood. Romney’s playing pitty-pat.
I mean, Rush puts the lie to himself! His Concern Trolling all day Monday means nothing in the context of "if the election were held today, I think that Romney would win in a landslide." -- if it's a tie game 47-47 from ABC's laughable Dem-jammed poll, where the hell does he think the 6% Undecided are going to break between now and then? The Incumbent Rule puts minimum 80% in Mitten's pocket!