Skip to comments.Poll: Carter 63%, Reagan 32%
Posted on 02/21/2012 7:06:41 AM PST by Mustang Driver
As I look at the Real Clear Politics averages of the polls of the various match-ups between President Obama and the various Republican candidates, I know I am supposed to feel impending doom. But I dont. Lets see, the numbers this morning are:
Obama 49.0% Romney 43.3%
Obama 50.0% Santorum 42.5%
Obama 53.0% Gingrich 39.1%
Obama 48.6 % Paul 40.4%
But I dont feel doom. Here are 9 reasons why: February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September and October.
A couple could copulate today and still have a baby by Election Day.
President Obamas leads of 5.7% to 13.9% over each candidate do not scare me. In fact, they are rather puny.
At this point 8 years ago this month, John Kerry was ahead of Bush by 12 points in the Gallup Poll: 55%-43%.
And in January 1980, the Gallup Poll showed:
Carter 63% Reagan 32%
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.dailymail.com ...
All Republicans need to get behind the candidate who can win, hold their noses as necessasry, and back that candidate. Divided we fall.
Repubs aren’t attacking Obama right now (HUGE MISTAKE in my mind), while both Repubs and Democrats are driving Republican Negatives up.
BHO is in political trouble. The question is whether he will lose the election or not.
You have a different electorate today than in 1980
Right now in the primaries, I am in "anybody but Romney (and Paul)" mode. After the primaries, I will revert to "anybody but Obama" mode.
Not ONLY that BUT.............
ALL POLLs are simply propaganda, even if they go in the favor of what you want to happen..
Propaganda for weak minds.. stronger constitutions have already made their decisions..
Polls manipulate weak minds.. or people stuck on stupid..
I agree with this, but the American electorate has an extremely short attention span. Waiting to pound him until after the Repub candidate is fine.
I’m hopeful that whoever the nominee is, the party will be united come election time.
Getting Obama out is paramount to the survival of this country and all resources need to be pooled together after the nominee is selected.
At or below 50% is bad for an incumbent.
That is me to a "T". I am not over joyed with our selections, but I will get behind whoever gets it even if its the nut case (Paul)
Reagan was able to throttle and totally overcome Carter in the debates. Romney can’t do that.
As Mark Steyn said on Rush, we’re going to have a flawed candidate, and it’s up to us to drag him across the finish line a winner.
At this point, I'm almost in the "anybody but Romney, Paul Santorum, or Gingrich" mode, though I lean Newt. But as you said, when it comes time for the general, it will be anybody but Obama.
It would have been nice to have someone to really vote for rather than just voting against Obama, but in the end, my vote will go the same way anyway.
No matter what anyone thinks about any of these four candidates, all of them have at least a chance to be better than Obama, and I don't see any of them as being worse. And no matter who we elect will still need the GOP for support, which will pull them further to the right than they might be otherwise.
We must beat Obama.
Wrong. All conservatives need to get behind the candidate that most closely represents conservatism and back that candidate.
This arbritrary "candidate who can win" nonsense is just that, arbritrary and nonsense. And which is fomented by the GOP-e who is actually making war on conservatism in America in conjunction with the left.
Your right on target. How soon the public forgets and the media continues to cover the facts with garbage. I’ve bet a lot of people just what you have researched. I knew it to be true without researching the fact that back when Reagan was going to run Carter was so far ahead of the opposition it stuck in my head that it was impossible. Inflation was 18% interest rates were 20+% and Carter was leading??? Today all numbers are rigged to explode later in time so it doesn’t look as bad, but what this idiot in the WH has done is enough to be able to predict it is impossible for him to win. God hear my prayer!!!
And for the past months, this site has been leading the charge - much to my dismay.
——And in January 1980, the Gallup Poll showed:
Carter 63% Reagan 32%——
Most excellent, Grasshopper.
I was blessed to be 18 in 1980, and able to vote for Ronaldus Magnus, but I don’t remember these polls. But I remember gas lines, stagnation, and The Kinks, “Low Budget.”
I also supported Jack Kemp in the primary, which is embarrassing in retrospect. I also remember the “I paid for this microphone,” moment, which was the first time Reagan caught my attention.
Republicans are committing political suicide if they nominate that Ronald Reagan guy. He is WAY too conservative. Women and moderates will NEVER vote for him. It’s going to be a landslide win for Carter, unless Republicans settle on someone more electable like George H.W. Bush or John Anderson.
An average of bad polls is going to be just as bad.
The problem is that there is not agreement as to who that is, because conservatism isn't a monolith. In particular, you have the tension between social conservatives and libertarians. Santorum is the strongest social conservative, but is also not as much a small government guy as some of the others. Gingrich kind of pitches and yaws between small government conservativism with occasional grandiose ideas. Paul is probably the most small government of the bunch, but has weird ideas on national security and no social conservatism. And Romney, for all his flaws, may be the biggest free market proponent of the bunch (other than on health care) except for Paul, but without Paul's nutty foreign policy.
In any case, I think "conservatives", however you might define that, should get behind the person they think is the most conservative candidate who they also believe can win. Ignoring the ability to win the general election is foolish, in my opinion, unless symbolic votes are your thing.
Averages of the Polls
Anybody but Obama 70%
Just being realistic.
Santorum is talking about gaming the tax rates to give preferences, and supports more government intervention in the economy, and Newt angered a lot of conservatives with his attacks on Bain Capital. By default, they've left Romney as the rhetorical defender of capitalism, except for his stance on RomneyCare.
That's more of a pathetic commentary on the stupid things said by Newt and Santorum than it is anything good about Romney.
Romney remains the same slimy gameshow host he's always been, but these other guys aren't helping themselves in taking advantage of that. I'm still pulling for Newt, though, because I think he is the only one of the three serious contenders capable of framing the free market v. socialism debate in a manner appealing to swing voters.
And the other elephant in the room is that culturally conservative Americans were still the silent majority. His views on issues like abortion/prayer in school helped him b/c that was where 70% of the country was.
January 1980 was well before Reagan was the presumptive nominee. After he was I believe a close race was expected.
And I still remember that Kerry 55% Bush 43% poll. That thing was an outlier if memory serves.
Obama’s numbers do not impress me.
I know you say that with a certain amount of pride, however, all you have proven is that you are a willing and useful tool of Obama.
Kemp didn’t run until ‘88.
‘80 was Reagan, Bush, Anderson, Baker.
Connolly, Crane, and Dole dropped out early.
My mind is going....
Well, what you personally should do since you are confused about which canddidate is the least or most conservative (because you really are a conservative and not a left-wing operative trying to sew confusion), would be to look at the situation like this. First, look at the public records of the all the candidates and acertain which one has accomplished the MOST for conservative ideals, i.e, limited government, adherance to Constitutional principles, considerations of Christian morality, etc. Then, look and acertain which candidate has done the most that is contrary to those conservative ideals.
For example, take Mitt Romney's disasterous state mandated health care law in Mass. that he just didn't TALK about implementing, but actually implimented and which is now law in Mass., and which is the primary gateway to huge unconstitutional governmental tyranny. Not only this, but Mittens signing into law gay marriage (which is very contrary to not only Christian morality but to the laws of nature), should preclude him from consideration by any self professed conservative.
I would have to say that if you are confused about what constitutes conservatism, then more than likely you are not a conservative. But rather a libertarian or maybe even a progressive liberal. Othewise, the process of elimiation works very well in helping one to identify the least conservative candidate, if you are indeed a conservative.
"Ignoring the ability to win the general election is foolish, in my opinion, unless symbolic votes are your thing."
There's that arbritray phrase "ability to win" again. What actually constitutes a candidates ability to win? Polling data? Really? Have you even read the other posts on this thread that showed Jimmy Crack-Corn Carter WAY out ahead in the polls against Ronald Regan back before the 1980 election? Isn't an arbritray concept like "ability to win" really kind of a foolish predication?
Yes, that's good counsel...
so long as it is not Bishop Mitt Romney whom I will NEVER vote for!!
Carter had a primary challenge, Obama will not. He has been able to spend the last year or so rallying Dems behind him as the GOP (Republicans in Congress) master making them dance to his tune. Alternately Democrats were fighting with Carter for his four years and divided, and he had his own Dem congress, the kiss of death.
If the election was held today, which it is not, things would look pretty grim for the GOP. But things can happen outside of his control between now and then so it is not over.
I don't see a Reagan in the field.
That kind of thinking got us McCain last time.
How do Newt's attacks on Bain Capital figure into your analysis?
It is a cheap convenience to dismiss dissenting opinions by asserting they're just based on beltway (or "Establishment") propaganda. As I said, I've supported Newt for this primary season, and still do despite his attacks on bain Capital and the ridiculous moon colony promise. But I nevertheless cringed when he started going after Bain Capital. That attack hurt him among a lot of legitimate conservatives because he was using the rhetoric of the left. And I didn't need any beltway insiders or "Establishment" figures in the GOP to tell me that.
But that doesn't fit within the overly-simplistic narrative you wish to construct, so you dismiss it. The truth is that admitting that a candidate you like screwed up doesn't mean you don't still support him. It just means you're not blind and deaf.
When all else fails, invent a strawman, eh? I never said that I could not make that determination. I said that different self-described conservatives see some issues differently. A Burkean conservative is not the same as a libertarian conservative, who is not the same as a social conservative. There are many overlapping principles, but some differences. Telling all "conservatives" that they should back the "most conservative" candidate, as if that would magically result in us all backing the same person, ignores that reality. Particularly in a field this flawed. My personal "most conservative" pick would be Gingrich, but I'm sure there are other conservatives who might disagree. Isn't an arbritray concept like "ability to win" really kind of a foolish predication?
No, because it is not arbitrary, any more than it is "arbitrary" for conservatives to recognize when a liberal has made a statement that will not play well to the electorate. The alternative POV, that all candidates are so equally likely to win that making any judgment on that score is impossible, is ridiculous. It amounts to saying that all gaffes and policy positions are meaningless, and don't affect voter opinions. It's saying that calling Obama more electable than Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore, or John Edwards, is "arbitrary". You can subscribe to that kind of blindness, but I don't.
Man, Reagan’s toast. I sure hope we don’t nominate him. HE’S UNELECTABLE!!!