REAGAN-LIKE LANDSLIDE EYED

New York Post ^ | 6/10/04 | DEBORAH ORIN

[kattracks]

June 10, 2004 -- NOW is a good time to look back at the landslide win that sent Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, because lots of analysts think 2004 could turn out the same way — close for a long time and then suddenly breaking wide open. In 1980, the break came just days before the vote, when Democrat Jimmy Carter finally agreed to debate. Reagan came off as sunny instead of scary and when he admonished Carter with a smile, "There you go again," it was all over.

Like President Bush, Carter faced voters nervous over both the economy and foreign policy and wondering whether it's time for a change — in Carter's case, skyrocketing inflation at home plus the endless Iran hostage crisis.

But there's a big difference, since Carter kept getting bad news on both fronts, while Bush is starting to get good news on both the economy, with a surge in new jobs, and Iraq, with international support for the June 30 transfer of power.

[The G Man]

Same here. I think this thing has "blow out" written all over it.

[PatrickHenry]

No big deal.

[LS]

That's the last thing I want. Look, it's gonna be hard enough for Bush if he wins another squeaker. Even if he wins a solid (300+ EV) victory in the EC, if Kerry and Nader TOGETHER out poll him, all we will hear from Tommie Daschle is "illegitimate."

IMHO, Bush needs 330 EVs and more pop. vote than Kerry and Nader combined to douse much of this talk.

[counterpunch]

What the declaration of independence says about God helps convey the point that human dignity and the human desire for freedom come from that which is beyond us, somewhere inexplicable, something sacred.
Exactly. It speaks to man's natural state of freedom, which came before society, government, and the unnatural burden which they create.

[risk]

Real conservatives know who they are!

[Jhensy]

The left are so deep into their own propaganda that they believe Bush literally cannot put two words together, much less debate an 'intellectual' from the Senate. With expectations lowered to such a ridiculous degree, Bush can only win.

As to the election, we've got to remember what's the real key: the women's vote. Men are going increasingly GOP, women Democrat. Is Bush gonna make inroads here?

[bad company]

As much fun as it is to see the rats mad, watching them get and stay unhinged. I have felt that more people have been paying attention since 9-11. those people have seen and heard what we have seen and heard. I really think Kerry will take N.Y. or california not both. Florida is out of the question. Mass for sure and maybe vermont. That's it. What company's stock will profit from higher prozac sales?

[IamConservative]

40% rabid Rats. 40% rabid Republicans. Dog fight over the 20% swing. I think is comes down to the so called soccer moms. That is really the only demographic that swings dramatically.

What is on their minds on election day will determine the winner.

[CasearianDaoist]

What the wag say? "one has to be an intellectual to believe in something that stupid? Shaw, wasn't it?

[Rebelbase]

"Too many voters who won't vote for one candidate or the other under any circumstances"

I'm starting to believe that line is complete horsechit unless those voters are suffering from cognative dissonance.

When the time comes to push the button the overwhelming choice will be GW Bush. There may be some nausea involved but they'll vote for him.

[ThanhPhero]

I could vote for an atheist who recognizes that Christianity is the foundation of the country and that without Christianitythere is no foundation left. One can be an atheist and understand that morality and ethics comes from religion and in America, specifically from Christianity. Morality as an emotional foundation cannot come out of atheism. An atheist has to develop logical reasons to support his ideas of right conduct and atheists can differ very much on the most basic concepts, like protection of life. Christians have that argument as certain of them deviate from their foundation. Ultimately an atheist must reason from what is good for himself in his immediate situation. Judaism and Christianity are what made capitalism and complex trade possible because the religion provides an emotional foundation for trust. No other major religion provides that. Other people, the pagans of India, the Buddhists of East Asia and the Daoists and Confucians learn Trade and Capitalism by example of the successful Christian and Jewish merchants and factors.

[InvisibleChurch]

i'd still like to see W win by one electoral vote, just to honk them off

[IamConservative]

I hope with all hope Kerry displays his arrogance. I really believe Gore's huffing in the microphone at the debates cost him the job. Arrogance is the most unseemly trait. Nobody on this earth wants to be made to feel beneath another.

[Dr.Deth]

Part of me wants a 2000-style squeaker victory, for the pure schadenfreude of watching the Democrats go completely psychotic. If it's a landslide, they'll merely be suicidal, like there were on Election Night 2002.

I want them mad.

By definition, they are mad.

[savedbygrace]

The reason I don't think it will be a landslide, electorally, is because demographics have changed since the 80s. States with major cities will vote Dim, because that's where most guvmint handouts go.

But I reserve the right to be wrong.

[counterpunch]

Real conservatives know who they are!
Yep. Real conservatives believe in limited government, reducing taxes, and protecting the nation from foreign threats. Real conservatives do not believe in using government to impose (or deny) religion or arbitrary religious codes on the people.

In my mind, a true conservative and patriot in the spirit of our founders seeks freedom from both the government and the church.

[USNFighting31st]

Don't forget, We still have the debates. With a little polishing Bush should be able to kill Learch in these. The RNC convetion will also boost Bush's numbers.

[risk]

Judaism and Christianity are what made capitalism and complex trade possible because the religion provides an emotional foundation for trust.

I think you are right on the money. The implications are astounding both because of what has happened, and what has yet to happen. The ghost of Christmas future is calling, and we can't see his face. He's carrying a scythe, I think.

[risk]

Eschatology is an interesting area to study, I wish I could pursue it more. What do you suppose the Aztecs thought would be their demise? Do you think they recognized it when it came? Some American Christians believe that when government and the Church become one, the end will be next. They're the staunchest advocates of separation of church and state of all.

[nathanbedford]

I can never get them to say exactly why they hate Bush -- they just do.

They themselves do not know why they hate Bush. Many of them do not even know that they hate Bush. Most of them would become offended if you told them that their hatred of Bush is beyond their control, akin to a possesion. Those who would acknowledge that they hate Bush would insist they hate Bush for rational reasons, policy reasons that they can articulate. If you were to tell them that their hatred has another source, beyond their cognition, they would be mightily offended.

They hate Bush because they are in bondage. They are in bondage to their own egos disguised as the intellectual flavor of the era. Post modernism has been descried on this thread, and rightly so, as the corrupting seeping spring of this condition. But in a greater sense, post modernism is only the latest intellectual hiding place where the leftist can enjoy his bondage. Breech this barrier with reason or experience and the Great Parasitic Ego will erect another.

They hate Bush because he is Billy Budd and, as an innocent, he is a figure of reproach which must be destroyed because he represents the truth which would destroy the Great EGO. The reaction is not cerebral but instinctual and it is disguised with all manner of clever rationalizations.