Is defeat probable for GOP if Reagan wins nomination?

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | March 5, 1980 | Richard J. Cattani

[monkapotamus]

The nation's Republicans are working against the clock to answer two key questions: Can conservative Ronald Reagan possibly attract enough independent and Democratic votes to win in November?

"Reagan is the opponent of choice for Carter," says I. A. Lewis, director of the Los Angeles Times Poll, a point on which most analysts agree. "But Reagan can reach across and cause mischief in the Democratic constituency," Mr. Lewis says. "Reagan appeals to blue collar, working-class voters. He can win Democratic votes..."

[EDINVA]

Exactly. This election season, stop Trump, #neverTrump, reminds me of nothing so much as 1980.

[Crucial]

I just wish Trump had his class and his heart but Trump looks like the only one willing to salvage the idea that is “America”.

[ought-six]

“Did Reagan have the Republican party actively working against him at that time?”

Yes. Though it was not so obvious because the internet age was in its infancy, and 24-hour “news” channels had not been around. But the GOPe (in those days they were known as Rockefeller Republicans) hated Reagan.

[irishjuggler]

Reagan was loathed and mocked by people just like you.

People like me? I wore a Reagan-Bush button to school on election day 1980.

[rlmorel]

Regardless of if one thinks Cruz is the answer or a charlatan, or Trump is the right candidate for the times or a dangerous fake, the point I think everyone should keep forefront in their mind is the tactics of the Left which is inclusive of the Democrats, the media, and ostensible members of the GOP who are leftists, which many of us refer to as the GOPe.

The point is, these tactics are well known. Anyone who buys into the snake oil being sold by the Left here is simply playing into their hands. Because it isn't a case of "Democrats and the media are really right this time by referring to Trump as a dangerous, racist, lunatic."

It is simply a case of them trying to manipulate the voting patterns of conservative voters by painting the non-Democratic candidates in ways to divide the non-liberal vote and set them against each other. (Note that they aren't all that worried about liberals voting for people like Reagan or Trump, though they should be...if they chose to remember history past the last five minutes, they would remember that there were plenty of "liberal" votes that went to Reagan because of the quality of their candidate, Carter) Check out this cover of Time magazine that just came out, and was given to me by my Father-in-Law. (Note he isn't necessarily liberal, he is just passing on a magazine, he obviously didn't see it the way I did when I saw it.) I had an instant wave of revulsion, more than I normally do when I see the large-font title of TIME on the cover of the magazine. I have not read Time magazine since around 1996, if that. To put my views in perspective, I would reference the phrase from Star Wars about never finding "a more wretched hive of scum and villainy..."

But that said, I am sure most of us, supporters of Trump or supporters of Cruz, would look at this and say: "WTF?"

These are the very same people, THE SAME, who painted Reagan in EXACTLY the same light, using the same tactics. Would anyone have been surprised to see something like this back in 1980?

They despised Nixon with a white hot, burning passion, and they despised Reagan just the same. Don't get me wrong...I am not saying Trump is Reagan any more than I would have said Reagan was Nixon, or anything along those lines. I actually distrust and dislike Trump, but that doesn't mean I won't pull the lever for him. But I won't pull that lever on the basis of what Time magazine and their ilk are trying to get me to think, which is my point. That point is, we play into their hands when we adopt their tactics, precepts, and premises, even for ostensibly our own purposes, because that is exactly what they want us to do. The tactics of the Left don't change, and while they may have no use for history except to further their own goals, they are entirely predictable. One only has to look at the treatment of Whittaker Chambers and Joseph McCarthy to see the exact same tactics they use today against their opposition.

[enumerated]

Haha! Sorry, I didn’t mean you mocked and loathed Reagan, I meant back then people mocked and loathed Reagan, the same way you mock and loath Trump today.

[ecomcon]

How so? Do you have numbers? Trump is easily pulling more moderates/independents/democrats than Cruz or Kasich.

It’s obvious that he will do better with liberals than Cruz. That is why Kasich has gone left; that’s the only demographic he can compete in.

Trumps appeal is broad based.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/5-myths-about-trump-supporters-220158

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting this.

Those of us who were old enough to vote for and work for Ronald Reagan as governor and president remember the all out assault by the rats and our own GOPes

[Grampa Dave]

You are full of it!

How Governor Reagan dealt with the Berkeley protesters in 1969!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpg0UfpuUAs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCr3nL78qWs

Reagan handles a protester in 1980

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEXOpm0H7QA

[Grampa Dave]

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended.

We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support.

Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all."

President Ronald Reagan

[irishjuggler]

And yet Reagan was a candidate of whom his supporters could be proud. Most of us wouldn’t tolerate in our kids the sort of behavior that Trump exhibits daily (i.e., the petty feuds, the juvenile name-calling, the absurd boastfulness, etc.). With that said, I totally respect the posts in this thread that say things along the lines of ‘Yes, Trump is an obnoxious a-hole, but we need someone like that now to fight the Clintons and the MSM. It’s a trashier era and you have to fight fire with fire.’ I get that argument. But only the delusional here think that Trump is Reagan 2.0.

[edpc]

Reagan signed amnesty into law :-(

Yes, but he made a deal with a Dem Congress, expecting they would live up to their end of the bargain. They did not, giving us the current state of affairs. Based on his past statements and political contributions, you can expect a President Trump to make deals with Dems that will be equally disappointing.

[Flick Lives]

You detailed your observations on “Time” magazine’s cover perfectly. The MSM; revisionist bastards.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks. I had forgotten about this!

“My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

...and the MSM goes nuts

[MarvinStinson]

The Christian Science Monitor has always been leftwing slime.

They were major promoters of Arafat and the muslims.

[Grampa Dave]

Whine/cry, complain to the admin moderator or to Jim Rob!

Why is this posted in “Breaking News”? It does not fit the category.

[Personal Responsibility]

Yes, he sure did. Less media in those days but no difference in attitude or party elite beliefs.

[enumerated]

I don’t completely disagree, but I do partially.

Here’s my argument (more like an opinion):

First of all, I watch Trump’s speeches in their entirety, uninterrupted. I watch them on youtube live or soon thereafter, but always before I see all the selective sound bites being artfully sprinkled on the evening news or talk shows, out of context, often with false context, to make Trump look as bad as possible.

Second, although my children are all adults, even if I use my grandchildren as proxy, I am usually shocked by what they know, even before I know it. The days of protecting your kids from bad messages are long gone - there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in the fake horror over Trump’s mild response to Rubio’s hand size comment, when kids have to endure countless Viagra and condom commercials during a daytime football game.

Third, Trump is challenging a PC monopoly whereby the left gets to dictate what is OK to say out loud. If it’s generally accepted that it’s racist to say “all lives matter”, and xenophobic to enforce the border, and lacking compassion to suggest controlling any part of the budget, or monstrous to suggest water boarding for people that cut heads off, then we have been brainwashed. When we are offended by what Trump says, at least SOME of that is because of the brainwashing.

So I think there’s more going on here than “we need a tough guy to tap into the anger of low information voters and defeat Hillary”. I think it’s “we need a truth teller that is willing to take the bullet for us - with the courage to demonstrate on a daily basis - “Look folks, I can say these supposedly taboo things and I am still alive the next day! They call me a racist, a xenophobe, a brute, a moron, but they are liars and I’m still standing”.

I don’t know if Trump will win, or if he’ll defeat liberalism, or be a good president, but the “try to find a pure conservative, another RR” - that’s not working, so I want to give Trump a shot at it - that’s all.

[enumerated]

And another thing: Trump and Reagan are two different people, it’s silly to compare people, or call Trump Reagan 2.

But if you don’t think Trump supporters are proud if Trump, you are really missing the boat. See, you don’t like him, so you can’t understand why anyone could, at least any sane person. Since you can’t understand it, you say it’s not possible, it can’t be happening, there must be some other explanation. Trump supporters must be ashamed of their support but feel they have no choice...or something. Or they have drunk KoolAid and have become zombies.

You are in denial. Trump has real supporters, who are equipped with a brain, a heart, all 5 senses, can read and write - they just see something you don’t see.

[Democratic-Republican]

Hear, hear. Awesome post. Agreed with every single word of that comment.

Reagan's enemies were everywhere. This was an outsider who was eyeballing that office throughout the 1970's. I started getting his materials in 1973 or 1974 ( maybe earlier, I can't remember ) while he was gearing up for 1976. He was spending a lot of time moving 'right' with the abortion issue, and battled similar accusations that they now toss at Trump over racism and civil rights because of how the college campus and other protesters played out in California. I suspect Trump is carefully studying how Reagan did it and is executing a careful plan rather than just winging it like some people think.

He was attacked by the GOPe mercilessly, exactly like Trump, the similarity is indisputable. People must not remember or we're just the last old ones left. Thing is, most of the conservatives on the scene were blue dog (D)emocrats and we had very few if any to point to wearing the (R)epublican label. I guess you could say Goldwater was still active, and Connally and Wallace who had switched over by then. But nothing like today where everyone claims to be Ronaldus Magnus reincarnated and points their boney little fingers at everybody else and accuses them of not being perfect (C)onservatives! It never happened. All these pompous jackasses today don't realize how silly they look.

In 1976 the conservative was Jimmy Carter, yes I said it, because in 1975 and 1976 that's exactly what peanut boy was, backwood hick from Plains ( that is *not* meant as an insult by me, I'll take them every day of the week over insider bureaucrats ), whose wife and himself were NOT afraid to keep their real accents unlike everybody today, with a beer guzzling brother to boot. He was kind of a dark horse but he did effectively neutralize the maniacal northern liberal (D)emocrats. History has cast him as a liberal since, due to his ineptness, but believe me the liberals of both parties post-Watergate was a certifiable nightmare for America.

The GOPe establishment was Oh My God worthy to say the least! ... House-Minority-Leader-Hack Gerald Ford ( think of Bob Michel under Reagan, uggh ) ... becomes Vice-President-Select Ford ... promoted to President-Select Ford ... He gives us Vice-President-Select Nelson Rockefeller! ... and then wins the 1976 primary and rather than Reagan he takes Bob Dole, future GOPer as running mate! You cannot make this stuff up. Obviously Carter/Mondale beat Ford/Dole in a close one, but people need to realize it was best described as Outsider-Democrat-Conservative defeating Insider-Republican-Moderate.

Reagan was p!ssed-off about 1976 as he should have been and like the p!ssed-off Andrew Jackson in 1824 ( after being denied ), spent the next 4 years running for President. Carter meanwhile almost wrecked the chances for conservatives of either party for all time by being as inept and squishy and wishy-washy as was humanly possible. But the real truth of the matter is that a decade of inflation, interest rates, unemployment, gas lines and much more had run its course. Change was demanded.

Now this is where Reagan really shined. This guy was not afraid to wear a cowboy hat, ride a horse and get in the dirt and dig. Yes his speeches could be a bit sugar coated and long and boring ( like most really ), and I thought he went to far on a few things like blaming gas lines on Carter ( I remember the first lines definitely under Nixon ), but he deserved the criticism for so many things, especially Iran and the Shah, and the Hostages. Reagan very effectively tied it all around Carter's neck without any media help that I can recall. The people wanted change, even the media couldn't regulate that election, which is again a huge similarity to today.

Reagan's win was solid, but thanks to Anderson he just eked out a majority at 50.8% of the vote. The victories were in so many states though that the electoral vote was a landslide, but remember that all of those votes get distributed regardless of the closeness of the vote. An earlier election resulted in: 435-88-8, a huge electoral landslide, right? That was 1912 and the vote was 42%-27%-23% Wilson-Teddy-Taft. You can win a huge electoral victory with very little vote like Clinton at 43% but with 370 electoral votes.

So Reagan got a great win in 1980, I'm not downplaying it but it must be noted that 1984 was the 58.8% landslide when all the (I) and many (D) crossed-over. That is important to remember today, because that is how you win and change Romney's 47% and McCain's 46% into 50+% victories in a decreasingly favorable demographic as each day elapses. Reagan got those crossovers by speaking directly to the enemy strongholds, even Detroit and Chicago and NYC. Now I doubt Trump can get anywhere near those numbers considering the electorate has completely changed, but who else do we have who possibly can?

One more thing about 1980. People have got to stop talking about that one as a Conservative proof of anything. That's nonsense ( Rush, Mark, Sean ). As I said, Carter went in as an outsider and a conservative, Reagan ran pretty much on the same. The election was steered by current events, *not* ideology. [***] Reagan did run with a clear rah-rah pro-American apple pie image, certainly some nationalism and populism as well. This is another similar data point to Trump. I just hope we have enough people left who respect that who can get to the voting booth in November.

[***] Downplaying ideology in the Presidential election does NOT mean downplaying ideology in any other election. One does not follow the other. Levin worships "Conservatism" as a religion, makes it into a hammer and sees everything else as a nail. I'm saying that this office can no longer be viewed that way. Not with the demographics, and not with the massive stakes. Everybody so concerned about alleged abandoning of principles should get their butts out and run for or get other people elected into the House and Senate, where conservative ideology can make a difference. Or maybe we should just consider stopping the awesome conservatives in the House and Senate from leaving their jobs and running President?