Cruz: 'Where We Are Today Reminds Me a Great Deal of the Late 1970s' & Carter

CNS News ^ | April 30, 2014 - 2:42 PM | Michael W. Chapman

[left that other site]

Oh Noes.............

[ballplayer]

I was the one who asked the question about Benghazi,I wanted to know why no one seems interested in the gun running that was going on from Benghazi and that Rand Paul had asked Hillary about it when she testified before Congress and she just deflected the question,she remarked,running guns through Turkey!you have to ask someone else about that

[Spirochete]

but he nevertheless proudly called himself a Born Again Christian.

Underneath his folksy demeanor and born-again facade is an atheistic, treasonous Bolshevik sympathizer. Nothing he has said or done since he left office indicates otherwise.

[Pollster1]

I never thought I’d say this, but if we could bring back Jimmy Carter, just as inept and antisemitic as ever but now senile and bitter too, I’d consider that a great improvement. The question today is whether Obama will end up as bad as James Buchanan or even worse than Buchanan.

[SoConPubbie]

There was no grassroots rising in 1980, as polls were tight going into the last week of the election. Polls had even shown Reagan in 3rd place at one point in the early Summer.

And you can prove this how?

That's your opinion using a set of loosely coupled together observations on your part. Then you go about using that weak argument of yours to pretend that Senator Cruz is attempting to re-write history.

Once again, how do you prove this analytically, and not just with the loosely coupled information that you provided?

[SoConPubbie]

And you can prove this how?

I question your statement, because I was there and I know that before the campaign even started, essentially from the point where Reagan lost to Ford at the convention, Ronald Reagan hit the road and communicated his small-government conservative message to anyone and everyone who would listen to him. He united and energized the grass-roots by doing this.

Pretending that this was not a component of his two POTUS wins is simply wrong.

[research99]

Pull up some old AP newspaper reports from June-July 1980.

Reagan was running behind both Carter and Anderson at the time. Revisionist history serves no one when it is so easily disproved.

[SoConPubbie]

Reagan was running behind both Carter and Anderson at the time. Revisionist history serves no one when it is so easily disproved.

What does his standing in the polls have to do with the Grassroots?

This is YOUR fallacy that you are presenting.

He won over Carter precisely because he had a base of Grassroots supporters. He was not relying on the normal Moderate approach, but had already lined up the grassroot support exactly as I stated in my earlier approach. Because he had done the groundwork criss-crossing the country and talking to every conservative mom-and-pop organization he could speaking up his limited government, conservative social policy, and strong military agenda.

Don't believe me, try looking up what his son Michael has said about this. He's the one that has publically made this point.

Your stated position is the Revisionist history.

[research99]

Post-election studies show that the uncommitted vote moved to Reagan on the weekend before the election, more as an anti-Carter vote than a pro-Reagan endorsement, and that’s what made up the landslide margin in 1980.

Reagan was also very unpopular in his first term due to a stagnant economy and foreign policy tragedies throughout 1983 (remember, Beirut?), and as late as after the first debate he was running even with Mondale in 1984. Those who cite economic recovery as the basis of his support in 1984 are implicitly endorsing the same federal reserve policies which are being criticized today, as they opened the M2 spigot in Spring 1984.

[SoConPubbie]

Post-election studies show that the uncommitted vote moved to Reagan on the weekend before the election, more as an anti-Carter vote than a pro-Reagan endorsement, and that’s what made up the landslide margin in 1980.

Reagan was also very unpopular in his first term due to a stagnant economy and foreign policy tragedies throughout 1983 (remember, Beirut?), and as late as after the first debate he was running even with Mondale in 1984. Those who cite economic recovery as the basis of his support in 1984 are implicitly endorsing the same federal reserve policies which are being criticized today, as they opened the M2 spigot in Spring 1984.

None of that proves that the grass-roots was not heavily involved with supporting Reagan all along from the start of his candidacy.

For all you know, his debate performance swung more establishment and independent voters his way vs. the grass-roots.

In fact, this is a more plausible position because it is exactly those type of people who are more emotional and would be swung by a win in a debate performance because they want to back a winner vs. the grass-roots who have a tendency to be better informed and make decisions based on principles vs. emotion.

Your logic is flawed.

[research99]

The point is that it wasn’t the grassroots that elected Reagan per Cruz’s current rhetoric, but it was in fact an anti-incumbent vote among swing voters in 1980 that removed Carter from office.

[SoConPubbie]

The point is that it wasn’t the grassroots that elected Reagan per Cruz’s current rhetoric, but it was in fact an anti-incumbent vote among swing voters in 1980 that removed Carter from office.

All speculation on your point with no support in facts on the ground.

I was there, and everyone I know, conservatives and people who would be considered traditional social conservatives and those who understood what the constitution was all about were as excited as hell to be able to vote for Ronald Reagan.

My experience tells me it was a grassroots tsunami that swept Ronald Reagan into office, your theory not withstanding.

[Lakeshark]

The grassroots groups energized Reagan's election. The rejection of Carter's weakness and incompetence with the Iran crisis and the poor economy was far more important than any "anti-incumbent" movement.

The American people knew Carter was wrong, and threw him out in spite of the media's insistence that Reagan was an "extremist". The more people heard from Reagan themselves, the more they liked him. The more they saw of Carter, the more they disliked him.

[catfish1957]

I have said on many threads that the circumstances around 2012 election was very similar to 1980. Two big differences though:

(1) And biggest reason. We have grown an electorate that is addicted to stuff and entitlements. The percentage of slugs sucking on the left hind teat of the government is much higher, and they sure didn't want to give up that gravy train. A real good 3 minute capsule which sums up the election is the film about the lady talking about her Obamaphone.

(2)Romney was a much weaker leader and candidate than RWR.