Trump’s win vs. Reagan’s blowout: Why 2016 is NOT 1980 (Endorsed by Mark Levin)

Conservative Review ^ | November 18, 2016 | Paul Kengor

[zeestephen]

Re: “Trump deliberately choose a strategy that had a 100% success rate: winning the Electoral College.”

Rhetorically - congratulations on your clever answer.

Substantively - I read hundreds of Comments at Free Republic that predicted a Trump landslide victory.

I read no Comments at Free Republic that predicted massive voter fraud would cause Trump to lose the Popular Vote by 1.5 million, but that Trump would still win the Electoral Vote.

[upsdriver]

When everything is said and done, I believe Trump’s presidency will out conservative Reagan’s by a wide margin.

[FredZarguna]

No, it's a way of saying that you understand that the Democrats start with a 100 vote EV advantage and a solid 47% of the popular vote, and only dumbasses deliberately rub the noses of their natural allies in their victories.

If you are paying attention, you will notice that Trump himself IS NOT doing that.

This isn't a one-time thing. If you want to roll back eight decades of leftward direction in our institutions and political culture, you'd better start thinking long term, and you'd better stop pretending that all of our demographic problems are the result of illegals and fraud that we can blithely ignore.

[Gene Eric]

You’re not going to win this argument with an opinion.

But we all know for a fact that the “conservative” #NeverTrump brigade hammered Trump until the bitter end, and that includes Levin, the moron you seem to be defending.

[FredZarguna]

Nonsense. Reagan had a Republican challenger who formed a third party who was far more consequential than the miniscule #NeverTrumpers.

[ek_hornbeck]

It's Kengor (and Levin) who is comparing apples and oranges here.

Yes, obviously Trump's win isn't Reagan's 1984 or even his 1980 landslide. But 2016 America is not 1980 America. Our demographics, combined with an ideologically polarized group of voters have made a Reagan-style landslide by a conservative candidate basically impossible. Reagan won in liberal states like NY and CA because a "liberal Democrat" in the 1980's was more like a Romney-Bush Republican today. Today's Democrats are to the Left of Abbie Hoffman.

Furthermore, Kengor tries to make the case that while Trump was up against one of the Democrats' weakest candidates, Reagan was up against powerhouses. False as well. Carter had become a laughing stock and Mondale ran knowing he would lose by a landslide. Reagan would have won against stronger candidates, but he wouldn't have gotten these landslides against stronger opponents. And unlike Trump, Reagan could count on the support of at least some of the mainstream media at the time because (again) our culture was much more conservative and less polarized.

All this would be forgivable, if he didn't close with the condescending:

The Trump cheerleader who yelled at me in Cleveland in July (a national figure who I’ll keep anonymous) that Trump would win in a “landslide” should be eating humble pie right now rather than crowing about how wrong the Never Trumpers allegedly were. He and others should be apologizing to all of us for nominating a guy who almost got Hillary elected president

Does Kengor really think that the anemic, entitled Jeb Bush or the self-righteous, smarmy Cruz would have done much better? It's true that other Republicans would have probably also defeated Hillary, but not by a much larger margin, for the reasons I give above. The nation is just too divided to ever coalesce around a candidate like Reagan again by such huge margins.

[nathanbedford]

Of course Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan, is not like Ronald Reagan in demeanor, philosophy, presence or in vote tallies.

So what? The important thing is that by the skin of his teeth, indeed with a 1 1/2 million votes deficit, Trump has managed to buy himself a chance to prove himself and he has bought the nation a second chance at survival.

The point of the narrow escape, factually described so accurately by Levin and echoed by many on this thread, Trump must now perform up to the level at least of George W Bush to overcome his numerical deficit and be reelected. We all pray that Trump can perform up to the level of Ronald Reagan and sweep both the electoral college and the popular vote in 49 states.

As I understand it, Trump's favorability has already risen eight points since the election. In other words, a good part of the nation has wiped the slate clean, or nearly so, and will now judge the man on his performance in office. It is high time that the Trump supporters understand the narrowness of the victory and the vulnerabilities Trump now faces as a minority elected president. But more important they must understand the limitations on his power to effect lasting change.

Therefore, when we speak of Trump "dismantling the machine" we must acknowledge the impediments to that most important goal. If the machine is not dismantled, the left will be back at our throats stronger than before in four or at most eight years. The country will almost immediately grow weaker, the debt will be greater, our enemies more aggressive, our national unity disintegrating. Even if Trump can make significant strides, as I pray he will, his time in office is finite but the persistence of the left is timeless. Just consider what they had done to us since the progressive era of over a century ago.

No one man, not Donald Trump, not even Ronald Reagan can dismantle the machine or kill the Leviathan. "Dismantling the machine," your phrase, is an apt expression for structural reform. Without structural reform the most prodigious efforts of Donald Trump will over time come to naught but a passing whistle stop on an express ride to national implosion.

Dismantling the machine or structural reform must be accomplished in tandem with the truck administration by a concerted commitment to real, permanent reform achieved through Article V. To believe that Donald Trump can work a miracle that no man can achieve at the cost of a parallel effort at real structural reform through the amendment process is vain.

Once again, Mark Levin is right and he is right on both subjects.

[FredZarguna]

It's not an opinion. The exit polls clearly showed that none of the issues raised by #NeverTrump'ers were important to voters. The crossover vote is also well documented: it was no worse for Trump than for any other prior Republican. The post election polls of non-voters also show it was not a significant factor in voter suppression. The overwhelming reason given by non-voters in this election was the same, and by the roughly the same percentage it always is: "voting makes no difference."

#NeverTrump meant nothing more than the "Hillary Pumas" that were supposed to bring down Barack 0bama did. [I read a prediction on FR in 2008 that there were "millions" of them. Nope. There Weren't. And #NeverTrump thought they were a Real Thing. But they weren't, either.]

As for Levin hammering Trump until "the bitter end," you obviously didn't listen to his program during September and October, so your opinion is of no value whatsoever.

[FredZarguna]

A "liberal Democrat" in the 1980's was more like a Romney-Bush Republican today.

This statement is false, but can be made true by removing the word "liberal."

By 1980, liberal Democrats were McGovernite Democrats, and they were every bit as pernicious as they are today. Ordinary Democrats were not as radicalized as they are now. That is the whole difference.

[FredZarguna]

And unlike Trump, Reagan could count on the support of at least some of the mainstream media at the time because (again) our culture was much more conservative and less polarized.

This statement is also false. I want you to name for me one major media outlet that supported Reagan to any degree. I'll wait as long as it takes...

[Enduro Guy]

I politely endured a boatload of vulgar shit from NeverTrumpers for 1-1/2 years and I knew they were wrong from the get-go. So far, I haven’t received one single apology from any of them. That said, they’ll have to pardon me while I watch them squirm with a smile on my face.

[enumerated]

“Donald Trump.... damned lucky.....could have very, very easily lost....”

I agree it was no Reagan landslide - it was close, and it took luck. But it’s America that was lucky, not Trump. America dodged a bullet.

The most obnoxious thing about this article and Mark Levin’s latest “I told you so” remarks is the condescending implication that Trump supporters need to realize the #nevertrumpers were right and we better quick find a better non-Trump candidate before the next election - because we won’t be so lucky a second time.

Look a-holes, we know how close it was - we don’t need you to tell us. But why was it so close?

Are you sure it was because Trump is such a flawed candidate?

Or could it have something to do with your constant sabotage every step of the way? Maybe it was because Trump had to fight the Democrats and the press like Reagan, but also (thanks to you, the Republicans and “conservatives” as well, and even all the Republican ex presidents and ex candidates were lined up against him. Maybe if you’d had a little faith instead of preaching doom and gloom like you’re doing right now.

It seems like the #neverTrumps are embarrassed that Trump won without them, because it proved how wrong they were about everything. So now they have to diminish his victory - pathetic.

Damn, I keep trying to give Mark Levin another chance to redeem himself but I guess he really is stuck on stupid.

He has nothing better to do than go around saying “Trump is no Reagan”. Sheesh. He’s like a little brat at a birthday party going around popping balloons.

[nathanbedford]

Levin can stick his ideological purity where the Sun don’t shine - it has gotten us NOTHING at best, and gotten us both ignored and slaughtered in reality.

Levin and his philosophy, his support of the tea party movement, his relentless pursuit of truth and logic wherever it leads, his published works on the Supreme Court, on the debt, on Article V, have helped gain us the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, 32 or 33 statehouses, 66 of 99 state legislative assemblies, more governorships, a domination of state government and federal government not known since the 1920s before the Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt.

No, I do not say that Mark Levin is responsible for all of these wonderful developments, but his philosophy, steadfast in its constancy in the face of opposition of sunshine soldiers not a few on this thread and on this forum who blow with the wind, has undeniably had considerable influence on events.

[ManHunter]

Have you seen the electoral map, Mark?

Geez, and to think I used to like this guy...

[nathanbedford]

You got that wrong.

Levin announced his intention to vote for Trump before that and was very active always in denouncing Hillary. He even advocated the impeachment of Hillary should she be elected, for which, believe it or not, he was criticized in this forum, evidently, as too little too late.

Those who are familiar with the content of his broadcasts and telecasts are fully aware that he was steadfastly against Hillary all along. It was Levin who claims to have been the first to have demanded the indictment of Hillary under the statute criminalizing gross negligence in not requiring mens rea. He never varied from his unremitting opposition to Hillary Clinton as a criminal and a moral disgrace.

All along he noted this was a binary election and that the nation could not afford the election of Hillary Clinton. He allowed that an individual voter still had the right and the power to vote his conscience. He ultimately announced his intention to vote for Trump.

[nathanbedford]

This isn't a one-time thing. If you want to roll back eight decades of leftward direction in our institutions and political culture, you'd better start thinking long term, and you'd better stop pretending that all of our demographic problems are the result of illegals and fraud that we can blithely ignore.

You just stated the root of the matter and I can only add that we ought to stop pretending that our electoral problems are caused by Mark Levin.

Mark Levin has performed a very great service to the survival of conservatism by administering a dose of reality. We have four years to take his advice and get it right.

[JimRed]

Definitely not a Reagan, but as close as we could come this time ‘round.

[Gene Eric]

Levin along with the #NeverTrump clowns undermined Trump’s candidacy with contempt for him and his supporters. Levin’s eleventh-hour support was flaccid at best.

Your loyalty to Levin is admirable, but as far as I’m concerned, 770 AM New York, 6-9 PM is dead air.

[The Truth Will Make You Free]

"The numbers are serving to show how fragile Trump’s victory was"

Trump's margin of victory in the 4 states of FL, MI, WI, PA combined as 0.1% of the total popular vote. That's 1mm compared to 1 meter. A swing of 1/2 that would have changed the election results.

This shows that his team had superior information, analysis, strategy, and implementation, which combined with an amazing work effort brought victory. These are all things that we want in a President.

We're going to win!

[Gene Eric]

>> Mark Levin has performed a very great service to the survival of conservatism

Not by discouraging the vote. He was out of control. Poor temperament.