Ted Cruz: 'Reassemble the Reagan Coalition' and Fight for Conservatives

Newsmax ^ | Thursday, 26 Feb 2015 03:58 PM | Courtney Coren

[Drew68]

There are no “Reagan Democrats” these days. The white, blue-collar voters who switched parties in 1980 and put Reagan in the White House have voted solidly Republican ever since.

[nascarnation]

I believe you are correct.
It’s the demographic “bulge” of non whites that is the long term problem for Republicans.

Every year 2.48m (approx) mostly white, majority R voting people die and are replaced by 2.52m majority non-white, HEAVILY D voting people.

[Drew68]

Every year 2.48m (approx) mostly white, majority R voting people die and are replaced by 2.52m majority non-white, HEAVILY D voting people.

Exactly. Many here do not seem to comprehend the massive demographic change that has happened in this country. In 1988, George H.W. Bush captured 60% of the white vote and absolutely trounced Dukakis. In 2012, Mitt Romney captured 60% of the white vote and we all know how that turned out.

People who think that all we need to do is reassemble the "Reagan Coalition" as a sure path to victory don't seem to realize that these voters don't exist anymore. It's not 1980. The country has changed. Values have changed. Demographics have changed. I'm not sure Reagan himself could get elected today.

[bonehead4freedom]

The more I hear from this guy the more I like!

[nascarnation]

Reagan certainly would have no hope at all of being elected in California today.

Nationally, it’s tough to tell. Right now it all comes down to Ohio and Florida.

Those are key to any aspiring Republican.

[SoConPubbie]

Exactly. Many here do not seem to comprehend the massive demographic change that has happened in this country. In 1988, George H.W. Bush captured 60% of the white vote and absolutely trounced Dukakis. In 2012, Mitt Romney captured 60% of the white vote and we all know how that turned out.

And every year more and more people drop out from voting. Roughly 50% of eligible voters have not been voting, which means, your opinion is impossible to verify.

[SoConPubbie]

BTW, one reason those voters are dropping out, are candidates like Romney, McCain, and Dole that do not inspire the base or inspire any sort of confidence whatsoever that they will do anything to help this country.

[SoConPubbie]

BTW, one reason those voters are dropping out, are candidates like Romney, McCain, and Dole that do not inspire the base or inspire any sort of confidence whatsoever that they will do anything to help this country.

[trisham]

I couldn't agree more!

[nascarnation]

The years Reagan won, the national % voter turnout was 52.8 and 53.3

The years Baraq won, the % voter turnout was 57.1 and 54.9

Perhaps we want LESS turnout.

[SoConPubbie]

Perhaps we want LESS turnout.

Neither you, nor I can be sure. However, trying to make some sort of definitive statement without taking into consideration those that do not vote, is ridiculous.

Furthermore, I would submit that the increase in the years that Obolo won was probably due to the young and clueless vote.

[Drew68]

And every year more and more people drop out from voting. Roughly 50% of eligible voters have not been voting, which means, your opinion is impossible to verify.

This hasn't changed much since Nixon was re-elected. According to the Federal Election Commission in 2012, 54.87% of the voting age population voted, down from 58.23% in 2008. In 1980, it was 52.56%, 53.27% in 1984 and 50.15% in 1988.

[SoConPubbie]

This hasn't changed much since Nixon was re-elected. According to the Federal Election Commission in 2012, 54.87% of the voting age population voted, down from 58.23% in 2008. In 1980, it was 52.56%, 53.27% in 1984 and 50.15% in 1988.

That's an awful lot of voters. Trying to make a definitive statement about voting patterns without taking these voters into consideration is simply folly. Furthermore, that group of voters, for any given election, might, and probably do, have different reasons for not voting.