Althouse: "There are some who believe that a path to Republican victory is to run to the mushy middle, is to blur distinctions."

January 13, 2015

"There are some who believe that a path to Republican victory is to run to the mushy middle, is to blur distinctions."

"I think recent history has shown us, that’s not a path to success. It doesn’t work. It’s a failed electoral strategy. I very much agree with President Ronald Reagan that the way we win is by painting with bold colors and not pale pastels and I think that’s gonna be a debate Republicans are gonna have over the next two years. It is certainly a debate that I intend to participate in vigorously."

Ted talks.

112 comments:

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Reagan was a governor. Not a Senator. Go run something.; 1/13/15, 9:10 AM
Gahrie said...: John Bolton; 1/13/15, 9:14 AM
I Callahan said...: John Lynch,

What a copout. So what? He talks the talk AND walks the walk. Why should it matter whether he "ran something"?

Experience is overrated. What's more important is conviction.; 1/13/15, 9:20 AM
rehajm said...: The middle is on P90x and is going to kick your extreme flabby ass.; 1/13/15, 9:22 AM
Brando said...: Worked great for Goldwater. Nothing like the "make no compromises, make no deviations from orthodoxy" way of campaigning.

Obviously if you stand for nothing, your campaign will be mush--likewise if it's seen as overly calculating (Kerry and Romney are good examples of this failing). But there's a big difference between running as a pragmatist with an ideology versus running as an uncompromising ideologue (who will scare off most of the electorate) or a "mush" candidate (who will inspire no one).; 1/13/15, 9:22 AM
I Callahan said...: Brando,

Right now, we only have "mush" candidates. All Cruz says is that we need more than that.

The "uncompromising ideologue" mantra is what the media, and apparently you, have labeled him. That doesn't make it true.

If Reagan were running now, he'd be treated by the media exactly the same way as they treat Cruz.; 1/13/15, 9:25 AM
Brando said...: I'll note that there is something to the "don't pick moderates" strategy, but for another reason than the "it'll get conservative nonvoters to the polls!" theory. It's that candidates who are perceived as moderates by their party have to spend too much time and capital winning over the base, making it much harder to make a play for the middle in the general election. This happened to McCain, Romney, Dole and Bush II in '92. It didn't happen to Bush I (who was perceived as conservative, so very early did a lot of outreach to the middle with his "compassionate conservative" rhetoric) or Reagan (who already had the Right, and was also enough of a natural politician to make moderates want to give him a chance--though running in '80 against Carter helped).

But to suggest that a GOP candidate can win simply by throwing red meat at the base is folly, at least until the electorate shifts enough or some other hail mary (like Hillary being caught dragging a dead body across the National Mall) saves the day.; 1/13/15, 9:27 AM
campy said...: There are some who believe that a path to republican victory exists.; 1/13/15, 9:32 AM
Brando said...: "The "uncompromising ideologue" mantra is what the media, and apparently you, have labeled him. That doesn't make it true.

If Reagan were running now, he'd be treated by the media exactly the same way as they treat Cruz."

Cruz takes pride in his hostility to compromise. He was the biggest cheerleader of the shutdown. The media didn't have to do much to "paint" him that way.

As for Reagan, that's an apples to oranges comparison--Reagan had a two term track record governing the largest state, and while he was certainly conservative his track record was far more moderate. If Cruz became a governor and actually showed he could get things done (rather than making a big show of confrontation for its own sake) then it'd be a better comparison. Like Liz Warren, he has the luxury of making lofty speeches and criticizing those who try to accomplish anything.; 1/13/15, 9:33 AM
garage mahal said...: If Reagan were alive he would be a Reagan Democrat.; 1/13/15, 9:36 AM
Brando said...: "Experience is overrated. What's more important is conviction."

The Obama years have taught me not to undervalue experience.

Conviction is obviously important, but if we're ever to have a good president (and not just a long string of mediocrities, as things are starting to look) there has to be a pragmatic element. And pragmatism doesn't mean just rolling over for the opposition--it means getting a deal better for your side than the status quo.

Much as I liked Paul Ryan, it looks like he's passed on this round.; 1/13/15, 9:36 AM
Brando said...: "If Reagan were alive he would be a Reagan Democrat."

No one can know how a politician from another era would be today--we can all speculate how Teddy Roosevelt, Churchill, Lincoln or JFK would have turned out in this era. But it's as futile as wondering if Joe Di Maggio would have hit so well in the 1990s.; 1/13/15, 9:38 AM
I Callahan said...: The Obama years have taught me not to undervalue experience.

Of course, this assumes that Obama really doesn't know what he's doing, or that his closest aides don't know what they, or he, is doing. I think most things this president has done are exactly the things he's wanted.

In my opinion, Obama's inexperience has not hindered him in any way.

(PS: I'm not trying to be argumentative - just trying to understand).; 1/13/15, 9:40 AM
Larry J said...: Brando said...
Worked great for Goldwater. Nothing like the "make no compromises, make no deviations from orthodoxy" way of campaigning

And to your one example, I'll list these counter-examples:

- Ford
- Bush 41
- Dole
- McCain
- Romney

If you can't get your base to turn out, you're going to lose every single time. The base isn't squishy.; 1/13/15, 9:42 AM
I Callahan said...: What I always find ironic is the idea that people think politicians are dishonest and will screw you over to get what they want at any time. In Cruz you have honest politicians who are committed to what they say they'll do, and people reject them outright.

It seems people are more interested in being told what they want instead of being told the truth.; 1/13/15, 9:43 AM
Original Mike said...: "If Reagan were alive he would be a Reagan Democrat."

Garage claims Reagan. LOL.; 1/13/15, 9:44 AM
LYNNDH said...: Ah, welcome President Clinton, or President Warren.; 1/13/15, 9:49 AM
Tank said...: The problem is not that the mushy middle can't win, sometimes it does. The problem is that the "mushy middle" is more big gov't. Think GWB and his support for subprime lending and brand new drug entitlement plans.; 1/13/15, 9:50 AM
wendybar said...: Funny how "the establishment" whether Republican or Democrat are afraid of Ted. Maybe it's because he speaks the TRUTH??? That is what they are really afraid of.; 1/13/15, 9:50 AM
Brando said...: "In my opinion, Obama's inexperience has not hindered him in any way."

I try to look at it from the "what would I want if I were Obama" perspective, and can't really see his presidency as successful (despite the idiocy coming from Paul Krugman). I think when he first got elected he thought he truly would be and remain incredibly popular, like FDR.

Take his signature "achievement"--the ACA. It's a sad mess, and I'm not just saying that as someone who thinks it's bad policy even if it worked the way it should have. He's had to fend off court challenges (many of which could have been avoided if it were drafted properly), delay implementation repeatedly for some parts, the rollout was a mess, and the whole implementation exposed him as a liar and incompetent. Perhaps if he was more experienced or had a better team he might have gotten some bipartisan buy-in, spent the time necessary to make his reforms more popular, or even implemented it piecemeal to build political capital. As it was, even with a big congressional majority, it barely passed and only through reconciliation. He also ended up stripping out parts the Left wanted (single payer) with no real rise in support from the Right or middle. It remains unpopular, severely flawed, and a mess.

He never learned to cut deals with the opposition--so when he took over he just assumed his "soaring rhetoric" and reliance on Pelosi and Reid to manage their majorities would get the job done. That didn't pan out, and now he's reduced to some executive orders of dubious legality.; 1/13/15, 9:53 AM
I Callahan said...: wendybar,

Of course Cruz speaks the truth. But my problem is less with the establishment (which I do have my issues with), but the people who continue to vote in establishment politicians.

If people wanted change that much, they wouldn't vote for these clowns on either side of the aisle.; 1/13/15, 9:53 AM
Brando said...: "Funny how "the establishment" whether Republican or Democrat are afraid of Ted."

I wouldn't count myself as "establishment" (though who does?) but my "fear" of Ted isn't that he'd get into power but that he'll get Hillary into power.; 1/13/15, 9:54 AM
JHapp said...: He is wrong and could take a lesson from Walker. Our country is so far to the left, it would be difficult for anyone to envision good right wing policy anymore. And you can just forget about its implementation.; 1/13/15, 9:56 AM
Brando said...: "Of course Cruz speaks the truth. But my problem is less with the establishment (which I do have my issues with), but the people who continue to vote in establishment politicians."

That point is well made--it's not as though some shadowy cabal in the GOP is hand picking the nominees. It's the voters in primaries and caucuses that are doing this.

The key isn't getting some "mushy middle" or "hard right" candidate. It's getting someone who can appeal broadly enough to unite the party and focus early (and competently--the quality of the campaigner is essential) on winning over the attainable voters in the general.

The GOP has some natural disadvantages, particularly in the electoral college. They can't afford a few more cycles of topping out in the high 40s.; 1/13/15, 9:58 AM
I Callahan said...: Brando,

I don't disagree with anything you say in your last comment, per se. But this of course assumes the president's results are final. They are not.

Take the ACA, for instance: it IS a mess. But it is a foot in the door to a single-payer system, if you follow it to its logical conclusion. Which is what the president has always wanted. The LAST think he wanted was any GOP input on it; that would put controls on the long term effects of ACA.

Look at the way he's handled the Paris mess. In my opinion, it was bad optics. But that doesn't mean it was bad optics on purpose. Byron York has an article in the Examiner talking about how he believes it was a purposeful snub.

LINK

I'm still not convinced that his lack of experience is causing any of this.; 1/13/15, 9:59 AM
Matt Sablan said...: The truth is, since Bush, the strategy to a winning election is excite your base, depress the other side's base. Rove made it a strategy, Axelrod turned it into a science.; 1/13/15, 10:00 AM
Brando said...: "If you can't get your base to turn out, you're going to lose every single time. The base isn't squishy."

Can't write off the base any more than you can write off the moderates.

Though for your examples, I'd note that the more recent cases (Romney, McCain, Dole) involved candidates spending much of the primaries and early campaign tacking to their right precisely because they were already suspect in the eyes of the base. So in that sense, a candidate who already has cred with the base has an advantage. But sticking with just the base will give you a cieling far too low.; 1/13/15, 10:00 AM
I Callahan said...: But that doesn't mean it WASN'T bad optics on purpose. (That's what I meant); 1/13/15, 10:01 AM
Nonapod said...: Is it easier to start from the right and move to the center than it is to start from the center and move to the right? McCain and Romney both started from the center and attempted to appeal to the right I guess.; 1/13/15, 10:07 AM
viator said...: Lest we forget...

1980

1984; 1/13/15, 10:08 AM
Thorley Winston said...: So Ted Cruz has apparently adopted Obama’s rhetorical tactic of setting up a strawman argument (“there are those who say . . . .”) but answering it with “Reagan.”

I’m really not interested in listening to eight more years of this. Let’s see what the governors have to say.; 1/13/15, 10:09 AM
Jaq said...: I don't see Hillary as any kind of electoral steam roller to be feared.; 1/13/15, 10:09 AM
I Callahan said...: tim in vt,

Neither do I. I think there is a lot of unfounded fear over Hillary.

She has as much experience actually leading as Ted Cruz.; 1/13/15, 10:12 AM
Brando said...: "I don't see Hillary as any kind of electoral steam roller to be feared."

I don't think she's a good politician, and she has a weak record, but there are some advantages she has going into this:

1) The Democrats have been frozen out by the Clintons, so she won't spend much time or money in the primaries and can focus early on the general.

2) A lot of the voters in 2016 will not remember the more unsavory aspects of her character, and if her handlers play it smart they can keep her from making similar mistakes to remind them of such aspects.

3) The Democrrats start the election with most of the big states locked up, and only need a few of the swing states to pull off an electoral victory.

4) Never underestimate the GOP's ability to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.; 1/13/15, 10:14 AM
Brando said...: "So Ted Cruz has apparently adopted Obama’s rhetorical tactic of setting up a strawman argument (“there are those who say . . . .”)"

Both those guys stole it from Nixon! He was a master at starting with the premise that someone else said something he disagrees with: "Some say that hey, maybe we should cut and run from Vietnam, but..." Really? Did anyone actually say "we should cut and run!"?

I'm hoping we get more coverage for John Kasich.; 1/13/15, 10:17 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "3) The Democrrats start the election with most of the big states locked up, and only need a few of the swing states to pull off an electoral victory."

-- That's an electoral reality that, I wonder, if it would still be true if we made electoral votes split by district instead of having so many winner-takes-alls.; 1/13/15, 10:18 AM
cubanbob said...: John Lynch said...

Reagan was a governor. Not a Senator. Go run something.
1/13/15, 9:10 AM

Too bad you didn't give Obama the memo in 2007. As for Cruz, the only good thing about Obama is that it would be impossible for Cruz to be as bad as Obama.; 1/13/15, 10:19 AM
Brando said...: "-- That's an electoral reality that, I wonder, if it would still be true if we made electoral votes split by district instead of having so many winner-takes-alls."

A worthwhile reform--or even have percentage of the state equal percentage of the electoral votes won.; 1/13/15, 10:19 AM
lgv said...: Cruz may be correct, but it really depends on the players. Oddly, a plurality of voters believed Obama was more conservative than McCain. The perceived location of each on the liberal/conservative scale was very close.

What I think works best is someone who isn't from the middle, but talks middle during the campaign.; 1/13/15, 10:21 AM
cubanbob said...: Who wants another mushy Republican? Conservatives don't and Democrats would rather vote for a real Democrat.

Either a candidate wins or he doesn't. If a Conservative Republican loses he won't lose any worse than a mushy Republican loses. So why waste time on a fool's errand? Either the party has an ideology that a voter can rely on when making his or her choice or it doesn't so in that case what is the voter voting for?; 1/13/15, 10:25 AM
Brando said...: "Take the ACA, for instance: it IS a mess. But it is a foot in the door to a single-payer system, if you follow it to its logical conclusion. Which is what the president has always wanted. The LAST think he wanted was any GOP input on it; that would put controls on the long term effects of ACA."

I don't know--that argument sounds a lot like the Andrew Sullivan theories that Obama is always playing three dimensional chess, and rope a dope, and meep meep--the idea that his missteps are actually intentional and getting him ultimate victory.

I can't see a botched ACA making people MORE eager for government run healthcare--it's like your friend wrecking your bike in hoping that you'll then lend him your car so he can still get to work. Had the ACA been a very different bill, with bipartisan support (and not in the way its defenders say it was based on GOP ideas from the '90s), and actually acheived some of what it set out to do, the Dems (and the GOPers who supported it) would have been running on it instead of away from it, and he'd have moved on to some other major initiative. Instead, he not only lost his congressional majority, but has the shrunken agenda to match it.; 1/13/15, 10:25 AM
Sebastian said...: "What I think works best is someone who isn't from the middle, but talks middle during the campaign."

Ideally, yes. Someone conservative enough to earn the party's trust in the primaries, then moderate enough to earn the trust of married white women in battleground states to expand the too-small "base" and put them over the top.

Senators need not apply. Only some governors can.; 1/13/15, 10:31 AM
Thorley Winston said...: I'm hoping we get more coverage for John Kasich.

I was a big fan of his when he was in the House and as governor of Ohio who was just overwhelmingly reelected he brings a lot to the table. The problem I see with him getting the nomination is apparently he’s in favor of racial preferences and setasides. Much as Republicans are trying to make inroads among black and Latino voters, I don’t see that as going over well with the base. It would be one thing if he supported it reluctantly as part of some broader compromise (I tend to be forgiving of that kind of pragmatism) but judging by the way he just brought it up out of the blue, this seems to be something he actually believes in.

Of course it goes without saying, if he's the nominee, then he's got my vote. And maybe the prospect of Hillary Clinton being the Democratic nominee is enough to overcome this among the base. But I'd prefer not to have that kind of handicap going into the next election.; 1/13/15, 10:36 AM
D.E. Cloutier said...: Re: "If Reagan were running now, he's be treated by the media exactly the same way they treat Cruz."

Reagan didn't pay a lot of attention to national media during his 1980 campaign. He focused on less-aggressive local news media. As a result, he had more control over the Republican message that reached voters.

In my opinion the Republicans should launch a new "efficiency movement." Eliminate government waste. Implement best practices.

Some people want the government to do more. I and others want the government to do less. But before we continue that debate, we need to fix the bureaucracy.

Overhauling the bureaucracy would take about four years of hard work by skilled managers. And we would need a highly skilled manager at the top.

- DEC (Jungle Trader); 1/13/15, 10:40 AM
bbkingfish said...: He agrees with Reagan. Imagine that.

Clever of Cruz to separate himself from his GOP competitors.; 1/13/15, 10:40 AM
traditionalguy said...: The writer notes that Heritage Foundation leader extraordinary Jim DeMint echoed the populous message of Elizabeth Warren against Wall Street cronyism.; 1/13/15, 10:41 AM
I Callahan said...: I can't see a botched ACA making people MORE eager for government run healthcare--it's like your friend wrecking your bike in hoping that you'll then lend him your car so he can still get to work.

I'll posit that a different scenario is what was believed would be the belief: your friend really didn't wreck your bike; the bike company did. Therefore, in order for your friend to go after that bike company, you need to lend him your car.

But you have a good point in a convoluted way: I believe the president, and his underlings, thought the insurance companies would take the brunt of the blame for insurance rates going up, not the bill itself. And if that's the case, then the president really didn't understand the effects of his bill, which does prove your point to some extent.

That aside - as someone who's been in the health care finance business for 25 years (1 plan, 1 hospital, 2 physician groups), I can tell you that there is nothing conspiratorial about where some of us believe this plan is headed. If enough people see high enough rates to where they demand government step in, there will be a push for a single payer choice (not in this Congress, but a future one), and that will be the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.; 1/13/15, 10:47 AM
bleh said...: I don't think he should be president, but I hope Cruz runs so that a court can interpret the "natural-born citizen" clause. He's about as close to the line as possible.; 1/13/15, 10:49 AM
Dan Hossley said...: Ted Cruz rewrites history to his advantage, much like Obama. Reagan expanded the Republican party by appealing to "Reagan Democrats". He didn't divide the party.

The next Republican President will expand the party to include Democrats that are fed up with the progressives that have captured the Democratic party and offers a credible alternative to their mismanagement of just about everything.

That person is not Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. Senators are professional fund raisers. That's about the extent of their skill set.; 1/13/15, 10:59 AM
grackle said...: … an uncompromising ideologue …

I forget … did Obama run as a middle-of-the-road candidate? Now, I remember! No, he did not. It was Ms. Clinton that was the establishment candidate in that race. Obama ran as the far-left ideologue he is … but, guess what … he WON. Handily.

Cruz takes pride in his hostility to compromise. He was the biggest cheerleader of the shutdown. The media didn't have to do much to "paint" him that way.

Actually, Cruz, by opposing Obamacare in any way possible, is fulfilling a campaign promise he made to the voters when he was elected, which to my way of thinking is an endearing quality in a politician.

Furthermore, since its passage, all the polls indicate most Americans dislike Obamacare and wish it would go away. So Cruz, in opposing Obamacare, is right in line with a majority of Americans. Yet, Cruz is the "ideologue?!!"; 1/13/15, 11:06 AM
rehajm said...: If enough people see high enough rates to where they demand government step in, there will be a push for a single payer choice (not in this Congress, but a future one), and that will be the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.

As the residents there lectured with all their characteristic charm, Vermont's single payer health plan is the model for the nation.; 1/13/15, 11:14 AM
furious_a said...: ...if we made electoral votes split by district instead of having so many winner-takes-alls.

And leave the less-populated, resource-rich Big Sky states at the mercy of the big Coastal Blues.

Or, for that matter, leave the small Northeastern states and Hawai'i at the mercy of Texas, Georgia and, say, Florida.

That's precisely why the Founders made it winner-take-all.; 1/13/15, 11:16 AM
furious_a said...: I just want to be there in 2021 when the first veto of President Perry's second term is the party-line-vote California High-Speed-Rail Relief Act.; 1/13/15, 11:23 AM
Brando said...: "I forget … did Obama run as a middle-of-the-road candidate? Now, I remember! No, he did not. It was Ms. Clinton that was the establishment candidate in that race. Obama ran as the far-left ideologue he is … but, guess what … he WON. Handily."

Obama ran as a post-partisan pragmatist who would end the "red/blue" nonsense and work across the aisle on novel solutions with compromise or consensus. Obviously it didn't work out that way, but that's what he ran on--and that and his anti-war stance helped him surpass Hillary (who ran as a partisan who'd fight the GOP). The Dems haven't nominated anyone who ran as an unapologetic liberal since Dukakis. Mind you, that doesn't mean their later nominees WEREN'T liberal but that they didn't run on these themes (though Obama in 2012 came close with a number of policies he pushed--though as noted below, the fundamentals had a lot to do with that race).

The fundamentals also helped him in '08--the economy, and which party has been in charge for 8 years (giving scandals and voter fatigue time to set in, and time to forget how bad the last party was). Considering all that, and a tired McCain campaign, Obama may have won handily but not overwhelmingly.; 1/13/15, 11:32 AM
Jason said...: Garage: if Reagan were alive today, he'd be a Reagan Democrat.

Right. The pro-life man who rejected Keynesianism and worked with Volker to pull back on the money supply throttle to beat the inflation that years of libtard economics created while building up a strong defense, facing off with the USSR and actually being pro-American would be a Democrat today.

Go back to the kiddie-table in the basement dummy. Adults are talking.; 1/13/15, 11:34 AM
Brando said...: I Callahan--I think you give Obama credit for more competence than I do. If you're a champion of government programs, the one thing you want is for the government program you implemented to be successful. Maybe he was hoping the insurers would get the blame when things fouled up, but at the end of the day it's still a system that was named "Obamacare"--and he happily adopted that name in 2012 when he thought it would eventually become as popular as Medicare.; 1/13/15, 11:35 AM
Oso Negro said...: Here, courtesy of USA Today are Ted's 10 Point Plan. Is it enough? Probably not. But perhaps the enlightened among you will be able to find the hidden "extremism" for me. I keep looking at them and just cannot see it.

From USA Today:

Here are ten critical priorities for the 2015 Congress:

First, embrace a big pro-jobs, growth agenda. This means passing legislation to make it easier to build energy infrastructure, such as the Keystone pipeline. An effective energy plan would also protect innovative energy technology, such as hydraulic fracturing, from being handcuffed by the federal government. We can also open up land for exploration and ensure that American companies can export liquefied natural gas around the world. And, lastly, stop the EPA from implementing rules that will destroy coal jobs and drive up our electricity bills.

Second, pursue all means possible to repeal Obamacare. We should pass repeal legislation (forcing an Obama veto), and then pass bill after bill to mitigate the harms of Obamacare. Prevent people from having their healthcare plans cancelled, prohibit insurance company bailouts, eliminate the provisions forcing people into part-time work, and repeal the individual mandate.

Perhaps, President Obama vetoes every one. But each has powerful appeal with the electorate who are hurting under this law, and Democratic senators may not be quite so eager to join their 2014 colleagues in losing their jobs over Obama's refusal to listen to the people.

In 2017, I believe a Republican president will repeal Obamacare in its entirety. In the interim, we should pass positive healthcare reform to start over, allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines, expanding health savings accounts, and making health insurance, personal, portable, and affordable.

Third, secure the border and stop illegal amnesty.Today, we're facing a humanitarian crisis of 90,000 unaccompanied children at the border, along with growing national security threats. We should welcome and celebrate legal immigrants who follow the rules, and at the same time honor the will of the people and prevent any more illegal amnesty.

Fourth, hold government accountable and rein in judicial activism.We need real oversight of the administration's lawlessness and abuse of power. The IRS's illegal targeting of citizen groups, the wanton violation of religious liberty and privacy rights, the lawless implementation of Obamacare, the EPA's assault on manufacturing jobs and war on coal, and the debacle of Benghazi — all should be the subject of careful, sober Senate hearings.

And the Senate should stop confirming activist judges who will impose their own policy preferences, such as striking down state marriage laws. We must uphold the Constitution.

Fifth, stop the culture of corruption.Crony capitalists are standing in the way of commonsense reforms, whether it's abolishing the Export-Import Bank or keeping the Internet tax-free forever and unconstrained by job-killing regulations. We can stop the Washington corruption, in part, by reining in corporate welfare, imposing a lifetime ban on members of Congress becoming lobbyists, and fighting to pass a constitutional amendment to require term limits for Congress.; 1/13/15, 11:44 AM
Oso Negro said...: The remaining five points from Ted:

Sixth, pass fundamental tax reform, making taxes flatter, simpler, and fairer. Moving towards a simple flat tax would treat all Americans more fairly and end the massive time and costs wasted in dealing with the IRS; we should let taxes become so simple that they could be filled out on a postcard. Ultimately, with a Republican president, we should abolish the IRS and end its abuse of power and violation of Americans' constitutional rights.

Seventh, audit the Federal Reserve. Americans are seeing near-zero interest rates on their savings accounts while median incomes are falling, and millions of people are facing higher gas prices, food prices, electricity prices, health insurance prices. Enough is enough, the Federal Reserve needs to open its books — Americans deserve a sound and stable dollar.

Eighth, pass a strong balanced budget amendment. We should pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to stop out-of-control spending by Congress and the president. More than $17 trillion in national debt shows how badly we need structural reforms to stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids.

Ninth, repeal Common Core, so that local curriculum is not mandated by Washington bureaucrats. We should also do all we can to expand educational choices for parents and children and allow every child access to a quality education, regardless of race, class, or zip code.

Tenth, deal seriously with the twin threats of ISIL and a nuclear Iran, including passing legislation that strips American citizens who join ISIL of their U.S. passports so they cannot return home and wage jihad against innocent men and women. We must rebuild our military, protect our nation, and restore America's leadership in the world.; 1/13/15, 11:45 AM
Original Mike said...: There's plenty of time and I will give Cruz a fair hearing, but the government shutdown stunt is a mark against him for me.; 1/13/15, 11:56 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Brando The Silly talks like Romney didn't win the middle. He kicked ass in the middle. Independents loved him.

He lost.

Think. Use your brain.

Is 40% bigger than 20%?

If so, why spend your effort, successfully, to woo 20% in a losing effort as opposed to spending time and effort to woo the 40% who can give you Reagan-style landslides?

You do so because that's what you were told to argue, bereft of logic save that of the conman.; 1/13/15, 12:00 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Many people would rather win the middle in a losing effort than be associated with the likes of Ted Cruz.

If you bring up Barry Goldwater I get to slap you into 2015. It's the old "if you aren't 100% perfect nothing you say matters while I require 100% empathy and tenderness because I am decent and have good intentions" gambit.

Garage is correct that Reagan's War on Drugs has become a Democrat dream orgy of corruption and state-sanctioned violence culminating in facism, the Leftist/Democrat endgame.; 1/13/15, 12:09 PM
Anonymous said...: "There's plenty of time and I will give Cruz a fair hearing, but the government shutdown stunt is a mark against him for me."

As far as I can tell, the major effect of the shutdown was to display the profound disrespect Obama and civil servants have for the U.S. public. If I were Cruz, I would keep a list of what government officials did to try to make it seem bad, and every time the subject comes ups respond with something like "you mean my efforts to stop Obamacare?" followed by an example "Government shutdown, you mean that period when the State of Arizona wanted to provide support to keep the Grand Canyon open to the public and the National Park Service refused?"; 1/13/15, 12:13 PM
garage mahal said...: Go back to the kiddie-table in the basement dummy. Adults are talking.

Really strong burn there Jayson. Somebody get me a doctor!; 1/13/15, 12:18 PM
Oso Negro said...: And while we are at it, Barry Goldwater's campaign brochure form 1964 doesn't sound too unreasonable either.

http://www.4president.org/brochures/goldwater1964brochure.htm; 1/13/15, 12:24 PM
Revenant said...: It's a sad mess, and I'm not just saying that as someone who thinks it's bad policy even if it worked the way it should have.

In fairness, some of that is due to them losing their filibuster-proof majority midway through the process, when Ted Kennedy died.; 1/13/15, 12:31 PM
tim maguire said...: The Republican candidate who isn't embarrassed about being a conservative, who isn't timid or apologetic about defending conservative values, will do well.

Too bad the Republicans would never nominate someone like that.; 1/13/15, 12:34 PM
David said...: The mushy middle? Everyone's ganging up on poor Chris Christie.; 1/13/15, 12:39 PM
Quayle said...: Ted Cruz, anchoring the pharasee wing of the GOP.

Reagan was 35 years ago - half a man's life - during which the electorial landscape might have changed dramatically.

But Cruz is going to try to ride the Reagan horse all the way to the finish line - whipping it and whipping it until it drops (which in Cruz' mind will occur, no doubt, because the horse was too mushy.); 1/13/15, 12:41 PM
n.n said...: The mushy "middle" contains quicksand. It's better to save these people, than to join them in their mire. Either you are principled or pro-choice.; 1/13/15, 12:56 PM
Thorley Winston said...: Seventh, audit the Federal Reserve. Americans are seeing near-zero interest rates on their savings accounts while median incomes are falling, and millions of people are facing higher gas prices, food prices, electricity prices, health insurance prices. Enough is enough, the Federal Reserve needs to open its books — Americans deserve a sound and stable dollar.

The Federal Reserve’s finances are already audited on an annual basis.; 1/13/15, 1:01 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I am still amazed / amused that libs view Cruz as a nut whhen he is HARVARD educated and was known as a top scholar while he was there which contrasts with Obama whose grades we can't get a glimpse of.; 1/13/15, 1:03 PM
Gahrie said...: but the government shutdown stunt

The deficit for the year of the shutdown was half the deficit of every other year of Obama's presidency. (500 billion V 1 trillion); 1/13/15, 1:08 PM
I Callahan said...: Reagan expanded the Republican party by appealing to "Reagan Democrats". He didn't divide the party.

The only difference between Cruz and Reagan is their temperaments. Otherwise, their policies were the same. But like I said earlier - people don't want the unvarnished truth; they want to be wined and dined and told what they want to hear. Reagan was excellent at that.

The fact is this: the country isn't ready for what is necessary, and won't be until it's way too late to fix the problem. Cruz represents what's necessary.

But such is human nature. Humans fail miserable in the "learning their history" department.; 1/13/15, 1:14 PM
Brando said...: "If so, why spend your effort, successfully, to woo 20% in a losing effort as opposed to spending time and effort to woo the 40% who can give you Reagan-style landslides?"

First, "moderates" is not the same thing as "independents" particularly as many of the latter identify more with one of the two parties even while they consider themselves willing to vote the other party, and likewise both parties contain moderates who can do the same. Second, as well as you say Romney did among the "middle"--and surely he did better than a more Cruz-esque candidate would--you're assuming a far larger number of voters on the right decided to stay home and let Obama have another four years rather than have Romney win. Do you really believe that those numbers (the 40% who you assume are very conservative, though that number seems inflated) swamp the number of moderates by such a great degree that a Cruz could more than make up for the number of moderates he'd give up?

And, for that matter, a Cruz would certainly bring out the Democrats' base to vote against him. You're assuming the "conservatives who stayed home when squishy moderates were nominated" so greatly outnumbered the "leftists who stayed home because Romney didn't scare them enough" and the "moderates who could vote Republican" that Cruz would win handily. I would prefer not to see Clinton II, Electric Boogaloo, just to see your theory proven wrong.; 1/13/15, 1:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Look, Ted Cruz is the epitome of the conservative. He really can't be beaten to the right.

So I expect to see a lot of Republicans get in bed with the media to turn him into something be isn't. They will tell us, Ted Cruz means Hillary wins. Which, if anyone knows anything about the media, prophets they are not. But the point isn't an actual prediction, its to scare the squishes. Hillary! We can't have Hillary! Quick, who can beat Hillary? That's who I'm voting for, even if they vote just like Hillary!!

Then they wind up with no child left behind and ask, what happened?

I expect to hear more and more over the coming months, "Ted Cruz can't win." And to see polling that will back it up.

Those who believe it are suckers.; 1/13/15, 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: As an example of what I'm talking about, see Brando.

Brando won't be able to discuss, for the most part, any actual issues or disagreemtns with Ted Cruz or his ideology. Instead, Brando must become a prophet. And he must convince all of us that he is a certified pollster as well. Able to predict who can win and who can't win.

This is where the others must argue from. Ted can't win. Not, Ted would make a bad President. Because while they can certainly argue he would make a bad president, its not going to convince anyone. Ted is too smart, and holds the right views.

So he has to stick with, Ted can't win.; 1/13/15, 1:33 PM
Steven said...: Goldwater, Brando? Your argument is literally from more than half a century ago?

Here's my argument against running middle candidates: Ford, President Bush the tax-raising compromiser, Dole, Candidate W Bush running as a compassionate conservative and losing the popular vote, McCain, Romney.

Here's my argument for running solidly conservative candidates: Reagan, Reagan II, No-new-taxes VP Bush, President Iraq War W Bush.

Which is to say, every single Presidential election since Watergate.; 1/13/15, 1:35 PM
holdfast said...: A Republican can't win by just playing the center - he'll lose too much of the base and won't attract enough Dems and moderates.

People do admire conviction - they don't wanting raving lunatics, but they won't respect someone who seems to toss their values overboard based on a poll or two. Romney started in the middle, tacked right for the primary and tacked back to the middle for the general. That's a flip and a flop, a zig and a zag, and it doesn't work (unless you have a compliant press in your pocket - so it works for Dems but not Republicans).

Someone who is known as a strong conservative has room to compromise without freaking out the base - they'll think he's a reasonable guy who is compromising a little, or they'll think he's lying but they will approve of the lie - same difference.

Finally, to win as a conservative, you have to explain, show and demonstrate how your conservative primcipals are actually good for "regular voters", for "people like me". That's what Walker did, and that's what any GOP candidate must do. Because folks aren't taught in school the value of economic liberty, and pro-growth policies - they have to be educated, in the best sense of the word. School choice. Regulation streamlining for small business. Pro-growth tax policies. Personal freedom and responsibility. Local control of government. Those all have good effects which can appeal to moderate and cross-over voters, but they have to be explained in a non-condescending manner. You can't assume that the target audience already understands it the way a devotee of National Review or the Weekly Standard understand. You have to bring people to the light.; 1/13/15, 1:37 PM
Original Mike said...: "The deficit for the year of the shutdown was half the deficit of every other year of Obama's presidency. (500 billion V 1 trillion)"

This was due to the shutdown? If so, it would completely change my view of the episode. Can you defend the proposition?; 1/13/15, 1:43 PM
Brando said...: "This is where the others must argue from. Ted can't win. Not, Ted would make a bad President. Because while they can certainly argue he would make a bad president, its not going to convince anyone. Ted is too smart, and holds the right views."

Ok, fair enough--most of my argument on this thread had to do with what sort of candidate could win. Of course, that's also what the original post had to do with--who could win.

But let's say Cruz could win--say the economy tanks, Obama invades Greenland because he heard it is lush and vibrant, and the Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders. Cruz would still make a poor president, even from a conservative/libertarian standpoint, because nothing in his statements, record or attitude suggests he will actually get anything done. Oh, he'll veto a lot of legislation (probably a lot of things that should be vetoed anyway, but that even a President Mushy Middle might veto). But reform the tax code? Fix entitlements? No chance. He'd say to the Democrats and Mushy Middle Republicans "here's my plan, vote for it exactly the way it is or scram" and that would be that.

Maybe I'm assuming too much because the leftist media got to me--but if you have any counterexamples of Cruz showing he could work with those who are not already on his "team" as he defines it, I'm all ears. I've misjudged people before. But I have seen nothing about this man that indicates he can actually get anything done--a Republican Liz Warren.; 1/13/15, 2:03 PM
Revenant said...: Otherwise, their policies were the same.

Well, there was that bit about Reagan *supporting* Muslim extremists in Afghanistan...

But, in fairness, the USSR was a far worse threat than Islam will ever be.; 1/13/15, 2:04 PM
Brando said...: "This was due to the shutdown? If so, it would completely change my view of the episode. Can you defend the proposition?"

I recall reading that the shutdown ended up actually costing more money than leaving everything running.; 1/13/15, 2:05 PM
Brando said...: "Goldwater, Brando? Your argument is literally from more than half a century ago?"

Half a century ago, but it was the last time the party actually nominated someone who was well to the right of the party's mainstream. As for the "solidly conservative" candidates you've mentioned, none of them were "far right" candidates--they all had establishment backing.

A good candidate needs cred on both wings to unite his party, and to do so early, so that they can focus on picking off votes outside the party for the general. There just isn't some reservoir of super-conservative voters sitting on their hands and just waiting for the call, at least in numbers to make up for splitting the party.

I know you don't like the 1964 reference, but what made that loss painful was how much it split the party apart. As it happens, that was a year that LBJ was likely to win anyway, but the GOP might have kept it closer (and maybe saved some seats in Congress).; 1/13/15, 2:12 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: Ted Cruz, with his Hispanic heritage and Canadian birthright, will make a great first President of the North American Union.; 1/13/15, 2:25 PM
Revenant said...: Eighth, pass a strong balanced budget amendment.

If Cruz was interested in passing an amendment, he would stay in Congress instead of running for President. The President has no role in the amendment process.

Also, if Congress can't pass a balanced budget, why would it be able to pass an amendment that balances the budget? Amendments require more votes.

It would be one thing if we were currently running a surplus and were warding against possible future deficits. But we don't. We have huge deficits, because the parties have convinced the American people that we can have a huge military plus Social Security plus Medicare and not have to run high taxes to pay for them.

Cruz will predictably insist on tax cuts (which he will dishonestly claim will "pay for themselves"). He will further insist on tax increases. He will propose trivial cuts to entitlements for people who don't vote for Republicans anyway, but no real cuts to Medicare or Social Security. Whether he wins and loses, the country won't benefit financially.; 1/13/15, 2:33 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Brando is not silly.

I am silly.

I can't find my damn source and lost without it. I am sorry to have wasted your time as of now, but Ima gonna search search search, keep on searching everyday, until I find my source and can lead you all into the promissory land.; 1/13/15, 3:06 PM
Steven said...: Reagan was so upsetting to moderate Republicans that his nomination resulted in a third-party candidacy by a moderate Republican, a reaction that not even Goldwater managed. But please, Brando, go on and on about how Reagan didn't really upset the establishment.; 1/13/15, 3:14 PM
Brando said...: "Reagan was so upsetting to moderate Republicans that his nomination resulted in a third-party candidacy by a moderate Republican, a reaction that not even Goldwater managed. But please, Brando, go on and on about how Reagan didn't really upset the establishment."

So my referencing 1964 is ridiculously anachronistic, but 1980 is perfectly appropriate?

There's no convincing to be done here. Clearly you're excited about Cruz, think he'll be another Reagan, and win like Reagan did. And clearly I'm skeptical of that and would favor other options in the GOP field. We'll see how the primaries and teh general shake out, but I don't expect any result to change any minds here.; 1/13/15, 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe I'm assuming too much because the leftist media got to me--but if you have any counterexamples of Cruz showing he could work with those who are not already on his "team" as he defines it, I'm all ears. I've misjudged people before. But I have seen nothing about this man that indicates he can actually get anything done--a Republican Liz Warren.

That's going to be up to Ted Cruz, if he runs, to convince you and others that he isn't the bomb thrower others are labeling him, but a guy who fights, rather than retreats, from his principles.

Listening to Michael Medved today, I think there is a big misunderstanding among the differing branches of the Republican Party.

Some guy called in and said he doesn't like Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney and Huckabee. That he wants a real conservative. Medved pushed him, "On what issues aren't they conservative?" And he listed Immigration, National Defense and Gun Rights. Then Medved went on to argue that all three of those candidates are strong in all three of those areas. Actually, he argued they are mostly strong on the NRA and National Defense, he didn't really take up Immigration.

While I'm sure it's true that philosophically they are all the same on the NRA and National Security, that's not what is important to us on the right.

What's important is how they will fight for those issues. As an example, Mitt Romney didn't join the NRA until he started running for President. He doesn't hunt, and doesn't use guns on a normal basis. While he supports the 2nd amendment, he isn't a fighter for the 2nd amendment.

And this is what I think the caller meant.

The same is probably true about Immigration. While these guys may (Or more likely may not, but I won't go there at the moment) agree with us on immigration, they aren't fighters about it. They will seek compromise.

Paul Ryan once said while voting, "We have to betray our principles in order to uphold our principles." And while he was mocked by the media for this, we all do it.

The problem is, many of us believe that squishy Republicans have a higher principle of "working together" and "compromise" and being seen as non ideological than they do that we shouldn't have Amnesty, that Obamacare is a disaster, that taxes ought to be changed, etc.

And we want someone whose higher principles are almost always above that of compromise and working together and being seen as non ideological.; 1/13/15, 3:40 PM
garage mahal said...: Always wondered why conservatives worship the president that tripled the national debt, gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, and funded terrorists.; 1/13/15, 3:43 PM
Jason said...: Tax cuts don't have to be "paid for," any more than a decrease in bank robberies needs to be "paid for."

It's tax increases that have to be "paid for."; 1/13/15, 3:48 PM
Alex said...: garage... If Reagan were alive he would be a Reagan Democrat.

Seriously garage? Reagan of the voodoo economics, trickle-down, tax cuts for the rich?; 1/13/15, 4:05 PM
Alex said...: garage mahal said...
Always wondered why conservatives worship the president that tripled the national debt, gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, and funded terrorists.

The Democrats were in charge of the House from 1981-1989. Which means all appropriations began with Tip O'Neill and the Democrats!; 1/13/15, 4:06 PM
garage mahal said...: Still waiting for that tinkle!; 1/13/15, 4:19 PM
Jason said...: Reagan did not "give" amnesty for illegal aliens. Democrats in Congress did. Reagan opposed it, but was willing to compromise in it, in exchange for better border security and tougher enforcement on those not amnestied.

Democrats, true to form, didn't come through on their end of the bargain.

Don't try to slip your half-truths and half-lies by us. Not everyone is as dumb as your fellow liberals you hang out with. Don't project your ignorance onto the rest of us.; 1/13/15, 4:21 PM
The Godfather said...: 1. The most perceptive comments on this thread are by Brando -- by far.

2. I don't favor Cruz for the GOP nomination (although I agree with a lot of what he says).

3. I will fiercely oppose any prospective nominee who self-identifies as a moderate -- and I fear that this includes Jeb Bush, whom I otherwise like.

4. Reagan won in 1980 because he uncompromisingly opposed what Carter had done and was doing, and because he offered hope that better, smaller-government, policies could reverse the damage. Also, although he was as much an "extremist" as Goldwater, he managed to appear unthreatening.

5. If the Republicans win in 2106 -- as they MUST for the good of the country -- they need a candidate who will scare only the far left. So far, Gov. Walker is the only one who clearly fits the bill, but others will likely appear.

I am not a robot.; 1/13/15, 4:22 PM
Jason said...: Garage: The "tinkle," was 401(k) balances from 1982 to 2000 - at the time the greatest bull market in history. Translated into real growth (that is, growth over inflation, which Reagan beat, despite the howling and sniveling of libtards the whole time), the growth was huge, and lasted long after Reagan left office.

The IT innovation that began when Reagan was in office, encouraging entrepreneurship and business enterprise, was responsible for the 90s technology boom, as well. and massive improvements in productivity. Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Netscape and Cisco did not magically conjure themselves out of the ether when Clinton took office. There was a decade of innovation and growth before that that made it possible.; 1/13/15, 4:33 PM
garage mahal said...: Reagan seemed energized by the thought of granting legal status to 3 million people:

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," he said.

"I have suggested legalizing the entry of Mexican labor into this country on much the same basis you proposed, although I have not put it into the sense of restoring the bracero program.”

“Some months before I declared, I asked for a meeting and crossed the border to meet with the president of Mexico. I did not go with a plan. I went, as I said in my announcement address, to ask him his ideas — how we could make the border something other than a locale for a nine-foot fence.”

“For one, we very much need in any immigration bill — we need protection for people who are in this country and who have not become citizens, for example, that they are protected and legitimized and given permanent residency here."; 1/13/15, 4:34 PM
Jason said...: So why haven't Democrats lived up to their promises in that law?; 1/13/15, 4:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Reagan seemed energized by the thought of granting legal status to 3 million people:

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is, Republicans learn from their mistakes.

It didn't work? Maybe we need to try something else.

Democrats say, "It didn't work?" Let's do the same thing over and over and over again.

The issue of Immigration is a serious issue. I'm one of those people who feel we should compromise on the issue.

However, the compromise has to be specific and strong. We can't just legalize millions of people who are here and hope that it does anything other than delay a worse problem for later.

Here are my suggestions, without detailed explanation.

1) No citizenship. Anyone who immigrates through an amnesty program can never get citizenship. They can be here legally, fine. They can work, go to school, take part in our society, but they can never become US Citizens.

2) No criminals. This means no waivers for criminals either. We have lot's of waivers now, no more waivers. No misdemeanors as well as no felony convictions.

3) Must speak, read and write the English language fluently. If you're not coming here to melt into our pot, we don't want you.

4) Must wait five years from receiving any welfare. States must cooperate with the Federal government to show if an individual from that state has been receiving any state welfare, as well as federal. No one from a state who refuses to cooperate with the federal government can immigrate under this amnesty.

5) Cannot use their new legal status to immigrate anyone else. Only immigrants who came here by legal means can do that. Those who cheated, broke our laws, and came here illegally to begin with cannot use their new status to bring in their family, extended family, and friends.

6) Must pay a steep fine.; 1/13/15, 5:23 PM
Thorley Winston said...: Reagan did not "give" amnesty for illegal aliens. Democrats in Congress did. Reagan opposed it, but was willing to compromise in it, in exchange for better border security and tougher enforcement on those not amnestied.

If a President signs a bill into law, they’re responsible for all of it. Not just the parts that they like.

If they engaged in some sort of deal-making to get it passed, they have as much ownership of the parts that they agreed to reluctantly as the parts that they insisted on as a condition not to veto it.

And if it turns out poorly, they only get to say “I didn’t do it, Congress did it!” if it only became law because Congress overrode their veto.; 1/13/15, 5:37 PM
Anonymous said...: If a President signs a bill into law, they’re responsible for all of it. Not just the parts that they like.

No one is saying Reagan doesn't hold some responsibility for the Amnesty he signed into law.

Instead, what is being argued is that, contrary to the current Democrat position, Reagan wasn't just pro amnesty.

He was pro amnesty with some stipulations, like tougher border enforcement.

When people try to say, "But but Reagan!" they are skipping over the fact that Reagan got screwed on the border enforcement part of the agreement.

Why should Republicans allow themselves to be screwed again?; 1/13/15, 6:45 PM
Jaq said...: I wouldn't have nearly the problem with immigration that I do if there were some kind of boot straps rule that said, you come here to work, or go home. No collecting benefits for a living.

Such a rule is impossible, so I oppose massive immigration by third world peasants.; 1/13/15, 7:25 PM
Phil 314 said...: I wouldn't vote for Cruz.; 1/13/15, 8:09 PM
n.n said...: tim in vermont:

It's not impossible. It's just politically incorrect.

Our immigration was predicated on obtaining unpaid, private sponsorship. This arrangement has been replaced by government-paid managers who do not have the same incentive to promote quick assimilation and integration.

They actually created a perverse incentive to increase the rate and volume of immigration in order to increase political and financial returns. This harms both natives and immigrants alike.

The immigration "crisis" and the fact that a multi-trillion dollar welfare economy leaves Americans indigent, homeless, and unidentified, is evidence that their interests are less than virtuous. Well, that, and their effort to debase human life, especially through normalization of premeditated abortion.; 1/13/15, 8:38 PM
Revenant said...: Reagan won in 1980 because he uncompromisingly opposed what Carter had done and was doing, and because he offered hope that better, smaller-government, policies could reverse the damage. Also, although he was as much an "extremist" as Goldwater, he managed to appear unthreatening.

The bit after the "also" is the important part, and you're understating it.

Reagan had three things going for him:

1. The economy was the worst it had been in a generation.
2. He was far more charismatic than the Democratic candidate.
3. He was proposing a genuine alternative to both the Democratic AND prior Republican platforms.

And despite all that, he barely won in 1980.

Cruz has none of those advantages. The economy's mediocre but not nearly as bad as in the late 70s, he's not very charismatic, and he's got no new ideas. That's not to say all his ideas are *bad*, just that they aren't *new*. Voters rejected four of the last five Republican candidates who claimed to favor those ideas, and the fifth left office with a 37% approval rating.; 1/13/15, 10:15 PM
Jason said...: Yeah. Reagan "barely won" in 1980.

He only carried 44 states.; 1/14/15, 3:19 AM
Jason said...: 1980 Electoral college count:

Carter: 49
Reagan: 489

Revenant: "He barely won in 1980."

Go over and sit in the Dunce Corner next to garage, Rev.; 1/14/15, 3:22 AM
I Callahan said...: Jason / Revenant,

50.8% to 41.0% with 6.6% going to Anderson.

I wouldn't say that's just barely.; 1/14/15, 9:01 AM
Revenant said...: I'm not talking about the vote totals, I'm talking about Reagan's chances of winning.

If you look at the polls from back in 1980, you see that Carter started out vastly most popular than Reagan, only to have his popularity crater by midyear because of the hostage crisis. It then started recovering.

In essence, Reagan got lucky. A problem that played to his strengths and against Carter's fell into Carter's lap. Absent that we'd have been stuck with two Carter terms.; 1/14/15, 11:52 AM
Jason said...: This just in: Incumbent President starts election cycle more popular than a west coast former governor.; 1/14/15, 11:59 AM
Jason said...: Rev's analysis is like "Well, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers could totally have kicked Patriot ass this year. The Patriots just got lucky that they were playing football."; 1/14/15, 12:02 PM