Skip to comments.Who Can Beat Hillary? (Don't drink the Gallup and MSM "electability" Kool-Aid)
Posted on 09/22/2007 12:23:06 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
One GOP campaigner reminds me that a Jan. 10, 1980 Gallup Poll had Reagan trailing Carter 63 percent to 32 percent.
March 1980 analysis from a columnist at the Globe and Mail:
THE PRESIDENT of the United States from 1980 to 1984 will be one of the following three people: Jimmy Carter, Howard Baker or Gerald Ford.
It's rather early in the election season for such pointed speculation. But a look at the situation reveals that the prediction is not all that chancy.
It is now almost certain that Mr. Carter is going to be the Democratic nominee. Ronald Reagan is the most likely choice for the Republican nomination, but he could not beat Jimmy Carter in the fall. Nor could George Bush.
Mr. Baker and Mr. Ford are the only two Republicans with a shot at the nomination who could defeat the incumbent President.
Republican candidate John Anderson, a dark horse, said the other day that if the Republicans nominate Mr. Reagan it's political suicide. He's right. Most polls show that, going head-to-head against Mr. Carter, Mr. Reagan would lose by 2-1. The former California governor would be the Barry Goldwater of 1980. He is too right-wing to appeal to enough moderates to win and he is too prone to incredible gaffes.
John Anderson: "If the Republicans nominate Mr. Reagan, it's political suicide."
Anderson would like to amend his statement to say that if the Republicans nominated Reagan, it would be political homicide (of the Democrats), which it was. 44 states, 12 Senate seat pickups.
"He is too right wing and makes too many incredible gaffes".
The MSM is busy cutting and pasting that line into every story on Fred Thompson even as we speak. Sorry, fellas. It didn't work then and won't work now.
Or they could turn out to be absolutely right. Ask President Goldwater. President Reagan defeated an immensely unpopular and incompetent president of the opposite party. Reagan also possessed immense (and genuine) personal charm. Fred Thompson's bounce in the polls was no surprise. He may lose it, and I am guessing he will. Actually, good polls are not usually wrong about who will win. Both Reagan's and Carter's campaign polls showed a huge landslide for Reagan in the last week before the election. They were correct, but remained unpublicized until much later. So the voting public was taken by surprise (I know, I was one of 'em). But the polls were not wrong; they were right, and the better ones continue to be largely correct. The rise in cellphone use and caller ID may or may not prove to be a problem for accurate polling. We don't know yet, but this election will probably tell quite a lot about that.
And Howard Baker, (to be kind) moderate Rockefeller Republican, remains FDT’s mentor and advisor to this day.
I would say that Duncan Hunter is the right winger MSM and company don’t want in office, just as they ‘warned’ about Ronald Reagan. IM0 the American people want the most conservative possible Republican to win.
Provided the poll was reasonably accurate, Carter beat Reagan in the poll because nationwide, people did not really know Reagan yet. Then during the runup to the election they got to know him, and compared him to Carter, and Carter suffered a humiliating defeat which he still to this day has not gotten over.
Fred will do same to Hillary. It might even be worse than the Reagan landslide. Everyone hates hillary, even her supporters. Everyone likes Fred even his enemies.
I'm betting that Hillary go the way of the Wicked Witch and pretty boy Edwards will be the Democrat nominee.
No. The polls are wrong about Rudy, because they are based on a false premise. If Rudy is the republican nominee, it will not be a one on one race. There is no way the American electorate is going to swallow 2 socially liberal New Yorkers as their choice. There will be a socially conservative third party that will split the Republican vote and deliver the White House to Hillary Clinton. It is her only sure path to victory.
You say that Reagan faced an enormously unpopular President. Hillary’s negatives are close to or above 50%. Is that what you would call “popular”?
As far as the polls being right, most of them showed a dead heat right up until election day. They were not wrong. Carter’s internal polls the weekend before the election showed the bottom had dropped out, but the MSM polls did not reflect this. Harris had the widest lead, I believe, which was Reagan ahead by 5 but within the MOE. The rest were dead even and one even had Carter up by a point or 2. None of them predicted the Blowout that occurred.
Your take on it is correct IMHO.
It seems to me that it would be much more difficult for the Hillary supporters to portray Thompson as the bully who is “hitting the girl”. His quiet gentlemanly yet very strong and pointed demeanor are a direct contrast to Hillary’s shrill persona. Thompson seems positioned, much more so than Guliani, to pick up a lot of the womens’ votes.
Yes, that's probably right, but they don't have to worry about Duncan Who?
I agree. Thompson does not inspire fear in anyone. No one thinks of reckless or mean as an adjective to describe Fred. Some wag once said that the candidate for President who wins is the one you want to see on the morning news for 4 years. Non political types will eschew the shrillness of Hillary and the jumpiness (for lack of a better word) of Rudy. I think they will achieve the same comfort level with Fred that they had with Reagan.
I agree. I want Hunter for prez, and Cheney for veep. I know, I know, he’s not running. But that’s what I want anyway.
I’m not so sure about your last line, but I think FDT will come close to approaching Reagan’s magnetism.
And you’ve nailed it on the voice - it REALLY matters in politicans on this level - listen to FDT talk about anything, can’t get enough. Listen to Hillary talk about anything, can’t wait to get away.
And I don’t think the nominee will be Rudy either, that’s the MSM hedging their bets.
Polls before the 2006 congressional elections kept telling us that the Republicans were going to lose (or at least pretty close) yet there were many here who refused to believe them. In 2004 we knew it would be close, yet some here refused to believe that Kerry could attract a "mainstream" following. So I think we should look at trends, across the boards, and if we must look at polls this early, average them out.
Fred has come on strong in the past few weeks, and at this point I see a two way race with him and Rudy. I think it may go back and forth for months, until the primaries begin. With the way the primaries will be scheduled this time around it is anybodies guess on who comes out on top.
Now, for just a moment I would ask for you to take off your "Fred colored glasses", and tell me which States that you think Fred could win that President Bush lost in the past election? I really think that Ohio is turning on us, and if Richardson would be named the VP choice (which I think is a very strong possibility) New Mexico, and maybe a few other Western states are gone also. So where is Freds strength in the electoral votes? Will he be seen as the new strong leader, ie... a change that voters are looking for, or will he be seen as same old, same old southern white guy President.
Please explain how Fred mania sweeps the Country like Reagan did. Remember in the end Reagan was against Carter, and the people wanted a change. The wanted a change to the economy, they wanted a change to the enabler mentality of foreign security, they just plain wanted a change. If the voters feel the same way this time, their idea of a change will not be Fred.
A war with Iran will change all your ideas about “change”, and probably most of the rest of the country as well.
My point (no matter how badly I stated it in my first post) was that the country is at a different place than it was 30 years ago when Reagan was running. He was running against an incompetent President, who almost ruined our nation. Reagan revitalized patriotism, not only because of who he was, but because of who he was running against. I just do not see Fred as that much different from President Bush (who I love, and respect), but that may be a detriment. I may not be the most articulate person, but what I am trying to ask is, how can Fred succeed? We can not compare him to Reagan because Reagan was running under totally different circumstances. I also want to find out what States Fred can secure, that President Bush was unable to.
After eight years of one party in office, though, the odds are on the side of the opposition.
If you want to see parallels to this election. Consider 1976, 1988, and 2000, not 1980.
George H.W. Bush was able to overcome the "curse" of eight years in and eight years out. Gerry Ford wasn't. And then there's 2000 ...
I understand your post perfectly and I think you have a point. What I am saying, is if war breaks out before the election, people will forget all about a “change” and hillary won’t have a prayer. It’s over a year away. Alot could happen.
BTW, the economy isn’t in the crapper yet, so the carter analogy isn’t quite there yet.
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.