Posted on 11/19/2010 8:13:40 AM PST by t-dude
Ronald Reagan.
His name calls to mind the image of an almost invincible political force. His 1984 re-election over Walter Mondale ranks 5th all time in electoral college margin of victory at 525 – 13. That year, the entire map, save for Mondale’s home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia were Reagan red.
It’s all too easy to forget that only 6 years earlier, such a thing was seen as unthinkable. In fact, Reagan was totally dismissed by most of the punditry. (Sound familiar???)
Most people “in the know” seem to think the same thing about Ms. Sarah Palin, and I wonder if these people are oblivious to US political history.
Here are just a few samples of the consensus opinion regarding Reagan in 1978 and 1979, before he defeated Carter in 1980.
A Full Republican Field The Sumpter Daily Item May 12, 1979
“Indeed, once Reagan enters the race – and those who claim to know about such things are sure he will – even the right wing will be shattered beyond recognition.”
Nations Capital Fearful of Jordan Prime Minster Role Robert L. Rose The Spokesman-Review Aug 9, 1979
Congressman Thomas Foley – D-Ill. Quoted as follows:
“And if the nominee of the Republicans is Ronald Reagan, now clearly the front-runner, that will polarize a lot of voters. People who might otherwise be counted as soft for Carter could turn out to be very forceful for him.”
Carter Still the Man to Beat Joseph Kraft Sarasota Hearald-Tribune Sept 7 1979
“But Reagan is known to the country more as a former actor than a former governor of California. His amateur status in political life unsays the major issue against Carter – competence. So Carter has probably a better chance of beating Reagan than any other Republican likely to win the nomination. which is why, if you had to bet now, the favorite would be Jimmy Carter.”
And my personal favorite:
Bush Could Make a Viable Candidate George Will Sarasota Herald Tribune Oct 23, 1978
“The Reagan Problem Bush’s principal problem is Ronald Reagan. And it’s possible that Ronald Reagan’s support today is…like a piece of Steuben crystal, impressive but fragile, and vulnerable to one knock.
Many Republicans who feel deep affection and respect for Reagan also feel a vague sense of regret, or at least dampened spirits, when they conclude that they are duty bound to support him again.”
I may be wrong, but wasn’t it “Reagan Blue” back then?
I don’t think anyone even noticed. it was such a blow out.
How did this country get so divided between 1984 and 2008 ?
the idea of winning 49 states is pie in the sky now. but im not saying it will never happen again..just how could it
The main difference is, now there’s a 24 hour news cycle along with the internet full of bloggers. Lies and hate can be spread a lot easier now than they could be then.
If by 'Blue' you mean liberal, yes you are 100% wrong.
His staunch conservatism was very threatening to the beltway insiders, much like Sarah Palin's is today.
He was the greatest President in my lifetime, and the most conservative.
Just as they are now saying about Obama, that the job is too big for one man...Reagan came in and turned around the economy, won the cold war, and made it look easy - even taking naps.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed the one candidate who has excelled in the new media with her every Facebook post and tweeter making national news? She can handle it.
LOL
This is going to be fun to watch...
Oh I see...you’re commenting on the map color.
Yes, the media changed the republicans to red after that, as Reagan had so identified the Democrats as the Reds they were that was a little to revealing...
As they say, the truth hurts. So in typical liberal dishonesty, they changed the election maps to show Republicans as red to try to camouflage their commie tendencies
I believe that without Sarah Palin running with McCain you would have seen Obamao with a landslide of biblical proportions that would have come close to a 49 state win.
And everyone tends to forget the past of 1980 - President Ronald Reagan was the underdog, who was not electable, too extreme, an actor - and the 'sensible' George H.W. Bush was the right candidate. If not for one pivotal evening in New Hampshire, Ronald Reagan may not have won the nomination.
EXACTLY correct!
Yep, and then the lefties began to realize that red was the color and the knickname of the communist party, and overnight, with no fanfare, the colors changed.
Pubbies became the reds and demonRATs became the blues...just magic...poof.
The reason we are divided is because of people like Rove who think elections are about winning and not governing. in that POV winning with 50+1 is the same as winning with 65% but the ability to govern and unite is way different
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.