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.
Their idea of a change will even MORE certainly not be Hillary Clinton. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. She is more like a rerun, especially if she claims her White House experience as part of her Presidential resume.
Polls are used to influence public opinion - not to guage public opinion. Look at who commissions/pays for the polls. The MSM. Do you think for one minute, if the results were not what the MSM wants, the polling companies would get repeat business? This is the true Clinton legacy. In 1990 the Clintons taught the MSM how to manipulate public opinion. The MSM is now truely the propoganda wing of the Democrat party - (little Goebels).
Your irony is not lost on me, but I will continue to work hard for Duncan Hunter. He is the only candidate who knows how to run a government like it should to be run - united, healthy, patriotic, sovereign and FREE. Out with the RINOs and DINOs in Congress, too! It’s up to us!
The MSM reports left wingers ahead and shows conservatives with a HUGE time lag to show them in the lead.
This is like the Fox News Dynamics polls which are ALWAYS inaccurate.
I agree. This is a change election, and if it is Fred versus Clinton, it will be a change from 20 years of Bush-Clinton, which has driven the taxes up from 28% to 35%, and has exploded the size of the federal government, infringing on states’ rights. These are the two themes that separate Fred, on the one hand, from Bush-Clinton, on the other. As Reagan said in 1984, when the Democrats were clamoring for change, “We ARE the change.” Fred IS the change.
On the states that Fred could flip, I happen to disagree with you on Ohio. I think it is only gone if the GOP continues down the domestic path Bush has led. That said, there are a number of targets of opportunity in the upper Midwest. Bush only lost Wisconsin (10EV) by 10,000 votes out of 3 million cast. He lost Michigan(17 EV) 51-48 by 165,000 votes out of 5 million cast. He lost Minnesota(10 EV) by 51-48, 99,000 votes out of 3 million cast. He lost Pennsylvania(21 EV) by 51-49, 140,000 votes out of 6 million. He lost New Hampshire(4 EV) by a fraction of a percent, only 9000 votes out of 700,000 cast.
Of these states, Fred will appeal to blue collar workers in Michigan and NRA members there as well, because he comes from humble beginnings and is the most prominent NRA supporter to run for President. Ditto Pennsylvania. I think his low tax reputation will carry the day in New Hampshire. As for Minnesota and Wisconsin, these are rural states that have been trending Republican in Presidential elections. Fred’s rural roots will be a very good fit there.
Also, I think Clinton will have to devote more resources to defend California. With Fred’s celebrity and personality, it cannot be taken for granted by the Dems the way it could when the Bushes and Dole were at the top of the ticket. Reagan won there consistently, in spite of the fact that the state was electing far left Democrat senators in the 1960s and early 1970s like Alan Cranston and John Tunney (who were every bit as left wing as Boxer and Feinstein). California does not necessarily vote ideologically. It can be swayed by the right candidate.
only Rudy can beat the beast
You are right about parts of the State. We are very conservative, but we are also pretty independent. We also have two extremely liberal parts of the State that dominate the elections (even if some of it is through fraud).
I am sorry to say that a southern conservative wont do it here. I could possibly see Rudy taking that State because we have a strong independent streak in us. In 2006 the Republicans lost the assembly. We retained the senate by only a one vote majority. We reelected (by a healthy margin) a democratic crook. I just do not see Wisconsin going red again, with the exception of a Rudy nomination. Although we do have a strong social conservative streak, it just isn't that dominate in places outside the very rural areas.
If Wisconsin is out of reach for Fred, how do you explain the fact that Bush very nearly carried it with all his baggage 4 years ago? Bush was nowhere near as good a candidate as Fred. I do not live there so I will not presume to predict. I know some people who recently moved there. They are hard core conservatives and feel right at home. They would never vote for Rudy.
I will tell you that Rudy is a sure loser in a general election. He will blow the Republican party completely apart. Most of the Right to Lifers and Second Amendment aficionados will not tolerate a Rudy nomination. If he wins the nomination, which I doubt, he will spawn a third party that will cost him a number of states that Bush narrowly carried with the help of a huge social con turnout in 2004.
There are some cold hard facts we must face. Don’t get mad at the messanger for bringing this up.
Like Jimmy Carter in 1980, the country today sees George W. Bush as incompotent. With Carter it was Iran and the economy. With Bush it’s Iraq and Katrina. So any GOP nominee who’s closely associated with Bush will be a loser in 2008. That’s why I don’t think Fred Thompson has a chance.
It’s moderates who determine who wins the presidency. W. NEEDED Rudy (and Arnold) to win the election in 2004. In this election, Hillary’s going to appeal to those moderates, by reminding them of how wonderful things were under her husband’s administration. Now you and I know that’s BS, but I’m afraid moderates will disagree - simply because they’re fed up with Bush.
Fred Thompson has charisma and reflects the core values of his party’s base. So does Barak Obama. But the Dems won’t nominate him because they’re afraid he won’t appeal to moderates. Hillary Clinton’s entire schtick as a Senator has been to ‘appear’ to be a moderate. She’s despised our presence in Iraq as much as any Left Wing kook out there. But she voted for it, because she knows her party is seen as weak on defense.
Hillary’s weakness, as we all know, is that she’s not well-liked. She’s polarizing. Those are big negatives to moderates. I think Rudy is the best candidate to exploit that weakness. Rudy has a chance to win big states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Fred has no chance.
I’m going to vote for Rudy, even if I don’t agree with a lot of his social positions. I do believe Rudy is committed to carrying on the War on Terror. I do believe he’ll cut taxes.
The Dems are going to hold on the House next year, and probably pick up a few more Congressional seats. If they win the WH too, the War on Terror will be a memory, taxes will go up. They’ll care out their Left Wing agenda, and do as much damage to this country as Jimmy Carter did. In other words, we conservatives simply can’t afford to sit this election out.
Remember, in 1976, Gerald Ford was far more to the left than Rudy was. Would you have sat out that election, and allowed Jimmy Carter to win?
Whether people on this site want to believe it or not, the middle of the roaders will control this election, and I think Rudy fits the bill the best.
In 2000 there is no way in h*ll I would have considered Rudy, but today is a whole different ball game. Although the country may have soured on Iraq (although if push came to shove I think they would still prefer President Bushs approach over the surrender approach of the Dems), I think we as a country still know that the war against Islamic Fascism is the issue of the day. I think Rudy is the best, so far, on that subject. Fred may change my mind, but as of today I am frankly unimpressed with his approach. And I don't see him as the "change" the country is looking for.
A lot of Freepers believe if Rudy’s nominated, conservatives will lose control of the party. But the party had two ‘liberal’ presidents in Nixon and Ford, and still managed to turn to Reagan in 1980.
Rudy will fight the war on terror and Democrats. Bush has been wonderful at the former, lousy at the latter - and I think that’s a major reason for his unpopularity. But Rudy stood up to liberals in NYC. After that, Congress will be a piece of cake.
My idea of a Republican is a guy who will have our nation stand against more than Middle Eastern terrorism. My idea of a Republican is a guy who make ours the party that stands against the global warming hoax, the party that promotes economic, private business, and personal freedom and views higher taxes and government programs as the enemies of those freedoms (not to mention as the root causes of problems ranging from illegal immigration to a piss-poor education system). My idea of a Republican is a guy who more or less figures, "When in doubt, give it back to the states." And my idea of a Republican is someone who doesn't even have to explain his support of the 2nd Amendment beyond, "It's an American's right to keep and bear arms, period."
Further my idea of a Republican is a guy who will make ours the party that sees the handwriting on the wall with regard to future wars and clears the path to win them (space and China, anyone?). The nation that has the best space technology is the nation that will determine how this world is run.
That's what I think.
Your sobering post on the wisdom of going with a moderate is distressing. Not because I don't agree -- you may very well be right -- but if you're right, we're screwed for the forseeable future.
Is "It is written ..." real?
There is no wisdom associated with “going with a moderate”.
The party went with a moderate in 1976 (Ford) and lost. We went with a moderate in 1988 (Bush 41) who was elected only because of the coattails of the “unelectable right winger Reagan”. He promptly raised taxes and gave us Billy Jeff Clinton for 8 years. (If the party had gone with Jack Kemp, who was the conservative alternative in 1988, he never would have hiked taxes and would have easily been reelected in 1992). But the GOP went with the moderate, because he was “electable”. The polls said so.
Now people are allegedly lining up to vote for Rudy because he is electable. The polls all say so. I doubt if he will win the nomination, but if he does, the GOP will once again deserve the moniker “the Stupid Party” because Rudy will take the party down to a crashing defeat. It is so obvious that I cannot believe there are people who do not see it.
That is hilarious!
I agree 100 percent with that post. Jaguar may very well be right, however, in that the Sheeple who vote will behave as he describes. In that only I “agree” with him, admittedly a poor word choice, but I’m writing quick. You’re right, though, going with a moderate may be the way it’s going to play out, but it wouldn’t be wise.
Actually, it's quite possible for the 3rd party conservative candidate to win. In the 1970 NY Senate race, Conservative Party candidate James Buckley beat both the RINO and the Rat.
Liberals will not vote for Rudy, because they hate his pro-war stand and his authoritarian views. Obviously conservatives aren't going to vote for him because of his social liberalism. Rudy would come in a dismal 3rd and the conservative candidate will edge out Hillary in the election.
LOLOL - You still shilling for this metrosexual lisping gun-grabbing authoritarian? Get real. Rudy is a joke. I bet that was probably one of his homosexual friends on the other line from that phone call he took at the NRA.
Finny, though Rudy and Arnold are socially liberal, what I’ve noticed is that Arnold would rather give in to his opponents than confront them. He’s definitely a Hollywood actor in that he has a strong desire to be universally loved. I honestly believe Rudy’s much different in that regard. People forget that before 9/11, New Yorkers hated Mayor Rudy - because of his tough stance on crime, his insistence that welfare recipients go to work. And I remember his very vocal opposition to using public funds to show the ‘Piss Christ’ exhibit at a NY public museum. (Hillary challenged him on that one when they were running for the Senate - she wouldn’t dare do that today.)
Rudy has said he’s against Roe v. Wade because he believes the states should decide the abortion issue. He’s promised to appoint SCOTUS justices who will overturn it. Is he lying to get elected? I don’t know. What I do know is that even the ‘Democrat Rudy’ of your nightmares will be a much better president than Hillary Clinton. The idea of Hillary Clinton as Commander in Chief is galling. And the Democrats controlling all three branches of government would simply be horrific for this country. They would have free reign to impose their failed social experiments on us all.
Conservatives will not vote for a gun grabbing, and especially a “sanctuary city” Republican. Rudy would lose,
“I doubt if he will win the nomination, but if he does, the GOP will once again deserve the moniker the Stupid Party because Rudy will take the party down to a crashing defeat. It is so obvious that I cannot believe there are people who do not see it.”
Neither can I.
Correction - Ford didn’t lose to Carter because he was a moderate. He lost MODERATE VOTERS because he pardoned Nixon -plain and simple. And even then he lost by a narrow margin.
George Bush 41 lost because of the downturn in the economy and Ross Perot - not because of his moderate views. He lost moderates in 1992. But he had them in 1988, when he won by a landslide. That’s because compared to Michael Dukakis, 41 looked like a conservative.
Hillary Clinton will make Michael Dukakis look like a conservative, I promise you that. She hasn’t changed an iota since her radical days back in the 1960’s....she’s only repackaged herself to appeal to moderates.
In 2008, the country is going to choose a moderate president.
LOL! Like the comments to the vid too.
You are wrong. Rudy never said he was against Roe v. Wade. And he never promised to appoint SCOTUS justices who will overturn it. He promised to appoint “strict constructionists” and went on to say that a strict constructionist Justice could either overturn Roe or retain it as a precedent and he would consider either course to be a “strict constructionist” result. That is exactly what he said.
“Conservatives will not vote for a gun grabbing, and especially a sanctuary city Republican. Rudy would lose, period.”
Yes they would. By nominating someone who can’t win the general election or by sitting out of the general election, those conservatives you speak of will be handing the election to Hillary Clinton.
He said he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court “in the mold of current justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.”
I could live with that. You know, Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’ Conner, and SHE was no friend of the pro-life movement. Why is Reagan so beloved by all of us? Probably because of what he did to end the Cold War, to lower taxes.
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.