Skip to main content

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney addresses supporters at the InPro Corporation in Muskego, Wisconsin, March 31, 2012. REUTERS/Darren Hauck
Not Reagan.
The Romney campaign and Republicans have had to acknowledge the cold reality—they are losing. But they have to rally the troops and keep them engaged and motivated, so they have to spin it somehow. And nothing motivates the wingnuts more than zombie Reagan.
Romney aides believe strongly that this race will play out like the 1980 campaign, in which President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan for much of the race until Reagan broke through just before the election.
There are lots of reasons the analogy won't work, though perhaps Mitt Romney will ship off some Bain laid-off workers to Iran to try and relive that bit of history.

The reason it doesn't work is because it's not true. Pres. Carter did not lead Reagan for much of the race until a final break through just before the election. Here's polling composite trendlines from that race, compiled by GWU political scientist John Sides:

Trendlines of Reagan-Carter polling in 1980
As you can see, Reagan took the lead in late May/early June. He got a massive bump out of his convention, with Carter languishing in the mid- to high-20s. Ouch! Then Reagan let his big lead slip away, but he held a narrow one all the way until the end, when his final-week debate victory (among other things) sealed his victory.

Obviously, Romney hasn't enjoyed any leads, nor is Obama stuck in the 30s. Instead, we have this:

There's one last point. Reagan was able to overcome Carter because people liked him. Mitt Romney is the first GOP nominee in modern history to have underwater approval ratings. And the fact that he's a dick without a compelling personal story to inspire people ensures that he'll stay unpopular.

Of course, this isn't the first time that a foundering GOP campaign has looked to Reagan's bid for inspiration. The last one to do so? The McCain campaign.

We all know how that turned out.

Originally posted to kos on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:44 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Memories (9+ / 0-)

    Interesting how people generally remember the race as being close and Reagans big win as shock. Its probably because back then as now, the media kept saying over and over how close it was when any professional analysis would have shown otherwise.

    •  I've heard the expression "If you remember the (7+ / 0-)

      60's then you didn't really experience the 60's" Something like that could be said for the 80's "If you remember the 80's you want to forget them". The recessions, high unemployment, SNL scandal, stock market craziness, housing bubble, tax hikes (unless you were rich), did I mention unemployment? It's like the last 10 years, only without the internet and smart phones to distract us.

      Romney's religion is only an issue because he's a high priest in the Church of Mammon.

      by ontheleftcoast on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:57:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And you forgot (11+ / 0-)

        the Iran hostage crisis.

        What killed Carter's chances was that failed rescue attempt. See that huge drop? That's what caused it.

        He never recovered.

        If that rescue had succeeded, Reagan never would have become President. Never.

        •  Talk about making the call and paying the price (15+ / 0-)

          for it when it failed. Carter made the hard call and paid the price for it. What pisses me off is you know every fucking Republican from coast to coast would be on 24/7 talking about "Obama's failure" had the Osama bin Laden raid failed gone like the hostage rescue attempt. Spiking the football? Fuck you, reality distorting, lying sacks of shits. Fuck you. OBL is dead. GM is alive. Obama deserves credit for it.

          Romney's religion is only an issue because he's a high priest in the Church of Mammon.

          by ontheleftcoast on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:13:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama better ram bin Laden down theirs throats (0+ / 0-)

            at the Democratic convention.

            If a Republican president had killed the "mastermind of 9/11," we'd be talking landslide. Look at how Bush and the pukes ran on their failures in 2002 and 2004. Imagine if they'd actually accomplished something in their 'hunt' for bin Laden .

        •  The failure of Desert One... (4+ / 0-)

          And subsequent failure to get a pre-election release of the hostages were two of the most important reasons Jimmy Carter lost. Personalities were a big part of it, too. Another part? John Anderson. Let us remember that it was a three-man race. Anderson didn't carry any states, but it was clear that he made the difference for Reagan in at least eight to ten. And just as importantly, helped to make the race a ten-point Reagan win where the lack of his presence would have made it much closer. Allowing Reagan's supporters to frame it as "The Reagan Landslide".  I never bought that (now, '84 was CLEARLY "the Reagan landslide") but it did allow them to say Ronnie had a "mandate" (which of course Dub's supporters never could say with any sense of legitimacy about his first term).

          But this year, the "personality" roles are, indeed, reversed. Barrack Obama is clearly the "likeable" one, and Mitt clearly isn't. And John Boehner's "you don't have to like him" comment rings especially hollow, since that was the argument Repubs used in behalf of Reagan in '80 and '84 and Dub in 2004.

          "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."--George Santayana

          by GainesT1958 on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 02:01:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Very high inflation; 18% interest rates (3+ / 0-)

          People  also forget that we had very high inflation in 1979 and 1980 that ultimately hit 18%.  Unemployment is really terrible for those who experience it, but inflation hits everyone, especially elderly people and others on fixed incomes.  They were getting 5% on their savings and prices went through the roof.  People bought huge amounts of staples like paper products at Costco as a hedge against inflation.

          The two periods are in no way comparable economically and especially not in terms of foreign policy.  T!he hostage situation was critical.  and of course Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Not even close.

          The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

          by Mimikatz on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 02:03:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are confusing the interest rates ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... that the Fed was using to hammer the economy into recession to fight the inflation and the oil price shock inflation rates that they were responding to. Monthly inflation rates came close to 14% on an annual basis, but not 18%.

            Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

            by BruceMcF on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 04:02:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  14% inflation was bad enough, but mortgage (0+ / 0-)

              rates others did hit 18%, so 18% is not an unreasonable number to mention.

              Inflation - a gift from LBJ -- was pretty bad, and had defied Nixon's, Ford's, and Carter's efforts to do anything about it.

              Ironic that Bush -- heavily despised here in DKland -- channeled LBJ in one significant way: want to fight a war (or two) without getting it paid for.  In LBJ's case, it was the massive commmitment to Vietnam (much larger and much more bloody -- in American casualties, at least -- than Iraq and Afghanistan put together ) while greatly expanding the social safety net with Medicare and the War on Poverty.

              Different end result reflecting a different world, but untenable economies in both cases.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 06:18:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Right; some suspect Reagan negotiated w. Iran (0+ / 0-)

          Right; some suspect Reagan negotiated w. Iran before the election, making them promises that he may have actually kept (see Iran-Contra!) in order to frame Carter as terminally weak and incapable.

          What does Romney have in mind for this???? Let's hope he and the idiot billionaires backing him don't have that kind of foreign reach.

          Obama has been so cool with all the foreign crises, I cannot see how anyone (other than Darth Vader) calls him weak.

        •  Also Reagan/Bush bribed Iran (0+ / 0-)

          to make sure that they wouldn't release the hostages while Carter was in office, so Carter couldn't claim victory on that.

          This would be as if the Republicans bribed Pakistan to make sure that bin Laden couldn't be killed by US forces, because they knew Obama would be able to claim victory by killing him.

      •  VCRs, Ataris, MTV (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ontheleftcoast, Tamar, sockpuppet

        and cocaine.

      •  I remember the SNL scandal. (7+ / 0-)

        Joe Piscopo was awful.

    •  That's because it WAS close ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... in September and October, which is what most people normally remember when they remember a Presidential campaign. It was wide apart in the summer, closed when most people started paying attention, and then Reagan surged to victory after the last debate.

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 03:51:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mitt's new plan -- invade Iran, take himself (7+ / 0-)

    and 50 Bain employees who get taken as hostages and claim Obama wants to cut a deal with Imadinnerjacket to sell arms to the Taliban for their release. Oh, and get Obama to wear some cardigans. It's so crazy it might work.

    Romney's religion is only an issue because he's a high priest in the Church of Mammon.

    by ontheleftcoast on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:52:30 AM PDT

  •  Zombie Romney (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  This post make me hot ;-) But (0+ / 0-)

    must remember not to let up or relax at all, let our bicycle tip over.

    Sometimes a .sig is just a .sig

    by rhubarb on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:53:59 AM PDT

  •  This is not 1980 (6+ / 0-)

    Carter had about 35% approval, we had hostages being held making us look weak and the economy was almost as bad as today.
    Reagan was the first real conservative to run since Goldwater and people feared him but after the debate with Carter he seemed pretty harmless and even democrats wanted Carter out.
    If this is to be compared to any election 2004 is probably the one that closest resembles it, and Bush won that being in about the same position Obama is in and Kerry was a stronger opponent than Romney.  

    •  In one way, it is 1980 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The economy was horrible for much of the country. My big fear for this year is a big financial meltdown a little past Labor Day that might actually help Willard.

      Sometimes a .sig is just a .sig

      by rhubarb on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:56:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What I wouldn't give to have the 1970s (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        economy right now . . .

        "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

        by bryduck on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:35:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One thing you wouldn't want... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Heart of the Rockies, mmacdDE, plembo

          Is to have late-70s inflation. Remember, though the economy was also in recession in 1980 (and gas prices had topped $1.00/gallon for the first time the year before) what we--thank God--DON'T have now is 15-17% inflation on top of a recession. But we sure had that in '80, and that also hurt Jimmy Carter--a lot. People blamed him (and not OPEC, where the blame really lay) for the economy. Big difference from this year, as well, as most of those polled still tend to blame Dub for this mess, and not Obama.

          "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."--George Santayana

          by GainesT1958 on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 02:06:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's 12% to 15%. (0+ / 0-)

            ... which is to say, monthly inflation expressed at an annual rate ranging from a lowest in 1980 of 12.52% in November and a highest of 14.76% in March.

            Why is it that historical inflation rates in 1979-1980 seem to grow in retelling, like the size of the fish that got away?

            Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

            by BruceMcF on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 04:06:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Tomato-Tomahto (0+ / 0-)

              Double digit inflation was no fun for those of us who lived through it.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 06:21:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Which is an excuse for exagerating ... (0+ / 0-)

                ... the magnitude of the inflation on a supposedly "reality based" site ...

                ... in what way?

                Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

                by BruceMcF on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 05:06:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's just possible that some of us don't rush (0+ / 0-)

                  to Google every other line.

                  15-17% was not that far from actual inflation rates, and might reflect some confusion with things like mortgage rates (which hit 18%) and other consumer interest.

                  However you slice it, it was not pleasant or healthy for the economy.

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 05:20:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You don't think we've had that kind (0+ / 0-)

                    of inflation these days? How much was gas 12 years ago? 8? How about rent, or costs of housing?
                    Cost of living isn't measured the same way, so we have no way of really knowing what inflation rates are now, or any way of comparing them historically. Considering that wages have frozen--at best--since the 1970s, even a modest inflation rate would hurt now more than it did then. If that's all you got, the 70s still win.

                    "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                    by bryduck on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 08:54:33 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Inflation these days is nothing compared to the (0+ / 0-)

                      80s, but I agree that the cost of things we actually need is an 800 lb gorilla that everybody's avoiding.

                      Food prices tend to go up with fuel prices, and, with drought thrown in, the cost of basics is hurting those of us who haven't seen our incomes go up over the last X years.

                      These are not good times, for sure.

                      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                      by dinotrac on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 10:19:30 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Mittney can try that line of attack (0+ / 0-)

        ...but all President Obama has to do is remind people that it was 8 fucking years of Republican 'light-touch regulation' (otherwise known as sticking-your-head-under-the-pillow-and-going-nanananana), tax-cuts for the very rich at the same time as a disastrous Middle Eastern war (launched in a fog of toxic Bush administration lies) and the Repuglican worship of god-like CEOs that did all the damage in the first place.

        Damage so profound that it's still coming back to bite us. And The Rombot and his creepy new side-kick want to take us straight back to those catastrophic policies. Except they want to go further.

        President Obama (looking straight into the camera): We're still fighting to recover from 8 years of wildly destructive Republican policies and it hasn't been easy.

        The Republican Party's single stated policy for the past 3 and a half years has been one of obstruction. Despite that, we're making progress...and Osama Bin Laden has been taken care of, something else the Republicans failed to do, for all their fighting-talk.

        Now Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan want to return to that path of fiscal suicide; they seem to have learned nothing from the past.

        But what ordinary, hard-working Americans, the 99% who don't have Swiss bank accounts or secret trusts in Bermuda, have learned is that we, as a nation, can't afford to return to those failed policies. Not now, for our own sakes; not ever, for our children's and grand-children's sakes.

    •  Not to mention Carter was getting primaried. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tamar, sockpuppet, Nedsdag, Supavash

      Having Teddy Kennedy on the stump challenging him all the time didn't do any good for Carter's approvals. This time around, Obama hasn't had that problem, thank goodness.

      A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

      by dougymi on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:10:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cause and effect are backwards. Wouldn't have been (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tamar, dougymi

        a challenge if Carter's approvals were better.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:23:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  and pilloried by his own Congress (0+ / 0-)

        Perfect pincer move by both left and right inside the Democratic party that undermined their own President. Of course the Dem leadership had to smile and say that things weren't so bad over the 4 years that followed, hammering out grand bargains with the Trickle Down President. Otherwise they'd have to admit that they had been the ones who pushed the country into the sink hole it was in. Most of us out in the real world at the time knew that the primary and legislative challenges were stupid and self-defeating -- but unfortunately the geniuses inside the beltway were never going to listen to us. The worst was the pathetic attempt at a comeback in 1984. Fritz Mondale deserved better than to be the party's sacrificial lamb that year. Everyone involved in the Dem leadership during that debacle owes the whole country an apology. After over 30 years I'm still waiting for that.

    •  In Nov '79 Carter had 19% approval. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      This is why Ted Kennedy thought he could/should challenge him for the nomination.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:23:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  and Kennedy primaried Carter. I was a big (0+ / 0-)

      Kennedy fan and was disappointed when he didn't make it. I still went out and voted for Carter, but without much enthusiasm. If I felt that way, conscientious voter and political junkie that I am, I'm sure there were a lot of Dems who didn't vote at all.

      We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

      by Tamar on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:32:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's part of it (0+ / 0-)

        Carter never really had the support of the left. He won in 1976 mostly on the Southern Evangelical vote, who felt they were electing one of their own. When he turned out to be a different kind of evangelical, they turned on him and the Democratic Party for good.

        In office, Carter did nothing to appeal to the left. By 1980, it wasn't clear who exactly was Carter's base.

        Combine that with the hostage crisis and the economy, Carter was lucky it was as close as it was. People who voted for Carter were, in large part, voting against Reagan.

        Politics ain't beanbag--Mr. Dooley

        by LeftCoastTimm on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 02:58:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, Carter was one of those darn 'Christians' .. (0+ / 0-)

          ... who spend most of their time on what that "Jesus" fellow said instead of on Leviticus and the Letters of Paul. "What's with all this taking care of poor people nonsense? What kind of Christian would believe in that kind of foolishness?"

          Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

          by BruceMcF on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 04:09:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hell, I voted for Carter, too. (0+ / 0-)

        Not such a big deal, I guess. I was still a Democrat back then.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 06:22:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Also There's No Enemy for Romney to Negotiate With (13+ / 0-)

    to keep American hostages from being released.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:56:43 AM PDT

  •  And President Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    has an answer to the question about what he has done to deserve reelection. Romney has no answer to the question about why he deserves to be elected.

    The Spice must Flow!

    by Texdude50 on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:06:01 PM PDT

  •  Not only is Mitt Romney's personal story (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GRLionsFan, Nedsdag, a2nite

    uninspiring, it actually pisses people off.

    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

    by NMDad on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:11:41 PM PDT

    •  Your post would make a great signature line. (0+ / 0-)

      It's too bad I like mine because I would use it.

      Perhaps someone else will.

      "Do they call you Rush because you're in a rush to eat?" -"Stutterin' John" Melendez to Rush Limbaugh.

      by Nedsdag on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:29:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  1980? Hah! (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe R-Money ought to think their candidate is more like Goldwater, not Reagan, and that it's gonna play out more like 1964!  Unless something changes drastically between now and November...

    "You're not allowed to sell your countrymen out to multinational financial corporations anymore and still call yourself a patriot." --MinistryOfTruth

    by Kurt from CMH on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:13:17 PM PDT

  •  When it involves Reagan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    it's ALWAYS revisionist history.

  •  It's like 1980 in that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the GOP candidate is race baiting on welfare.

    But there were a lot more white people in the electorate then.

  •  Obama's lead in the polls right now (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mconvente, Supavash

    is almost exactly the same as his lead on this date in 2008. And his EC lead is growing, and Nate Silver's estimate of Obama's percentage chance of re-election is at an all time high of 72.7%.

    There's got to be some panic in Boston. Will they try for a game changer VP pick (Jindal)?

    Romney economics: Feed our seed corn to the fattest pigs and trust them to poop out jobs.

    by blue aardvark on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:25:32 PM PDT

  •  Kos, you're making a fatal assumption: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The assumption that Team Romney knows what they're doing.

    1) Messaging.  It's mighty d*mned clear that they don't get it.  Rove is trying to steer the canoe from the front, but it isn't working.
    2) Grassroots.  As if!
    3) Timing.  You don't have a failed European tour (or even any kind of risky tour) right before the Convention.
    4) Veepstakes.  You should be able to own the media cycle over speculation among a series of "serious" choices.

    and the list goes on.

    This is NOT a professional campaign, or at least it is being run by 2nd stringers.  The only reasons Romney is the nominee is that he's got Rove's money (which he didn't have in '08) and that he ran against 3rd stringers (or worse).

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:28:42 PM PDT

    •  Its amateur hour (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      over at the Romney HQ. No strategy and all daily tactics. The tanks are going in circles and they can't see that.

      The Spice must Flow!

      by Texdude50 on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:52:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I thought the same thing (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE, Nailbanger, investorb, elmo

      How do you have all that money, and still manage to hire buffoons & head-cases to run your campaign? Fernstrohm is only the most glaring example. These guys act like they've never seen a Presidential contest. The Europe Trip appeared designed to make him look like a clown. Who fucks up a trip to England, for god's sake; They love us over there (mostly); all you have to do is smile and wave and say polite things about the food. He may as well have dropped trou, and farted towards Buckingham Palace...

      Speak the truth; Then leave, quickly. -old Russian proverb

      by Kordo on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 02:12:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  just out: CNN poll. Obama 52 Romney 45 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mconvente, Nedsdag, Supavash, lilsky
  •  And the new CNN poll w/ Obama up 7 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nedsdag, Supavash

    Things are starting to go even more toward Obama the last week.  I hope we can maintain this momentum.  Romney is just getting crushed with all these negative stories, I hope it keeps up.

    We need to really run up the score as Kos said earlier this morning, which will help us downticket.

  •  and if the GOP can steal election: Reagan Zoneland (0+ / 0-)

    200 Miles from any US territory including Gitmo, pretext for Cuban invasion

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:30:59 PM PDT

  •  Well, (0+ / 0-)

    there you go again...............

    "A recent study reveals Americans' heads are larger than they were 150 years ago but sadly there is no indication that the extra room is used for anything." - entlord

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:33:32 PM PDT

  •  it's going to be great (0+ / 0-)

    when we win again!!!

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:43:27 PM PDT

  •  yep. (0+ / 0-)

    If you call "May" "just before the election"

    "A recent study reveals Americans' heads are larger than they were 150 years ago but sadly there is no indication that the extra room is used for anything." - entlord

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:48:39 PM PDT

  •  45% (0+ / 0-)

    Romney's ceiling

    It, coincides with the same 45% who hate Obama.

    So, Obama is actually responsible for ALL the votes in this election.

    "A recent study reveals Americans' heads are larger than they were 150 years ago but sadly there is no indication that the extra room is used for anything." - entlord

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:56:34 PM PDT

  •  Kos should do something about these (0+ / 0-)

    driveby diarists.

    To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

    by UntimelyRippd on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 03:20:46 PM PDT

  •  These Republican buffoons are so idiotic, they (6+ / 0-)

    need to let this 1980 mystic die. 1980 has stated had so many variable factors playing, not least the hostage crisis that doomed Carter.

    But let them keep deciveing themselves. The choice of Ryan has VP in my opinion just sealed Romney's faith. I am willing to bet that Florida will not even be close after Ryan's true colors are spilled out for all to see.

  •  Romney/Ryan is also kind of the opposite (3+ / 0-)

    of Reagan/Bush. Reagan was the charismatic conservative, Ryan probably fits more of that role, while Bush was the "moderate" establishment pick who didnt have great political skills, Romney fits that role.

    You dont want the weaker candidate at the top of the ticket.

  •  Well, since this is Paul Ryan day (4+ / 0-)

    Let us compare:

    Mondale versus Bush I
    Biden versus Ryan

    And right there you have the rightward drift of the Overton window in one little capsule.

    Romney economics: Feed our seed corn to the fattest pigs and trust them to poop out jobs.

    by blue aardvark on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:29:46 PM PDT

  •  Why is this Diary from Thursday (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Showing up on the front page today (Saturday) ?

    I don't mind straight people as long as they act gay in public.

    by internationaljock on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:29:51 PM PDT

  •  Romney is going to lose (0+ / 0-)

    And he should.

    I wish the Repubs wold actually run a candidate that there was a choice in my mind.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:31:37 PM PDT

    •  Not possible. They can't get anyone sane (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DEMonrat ankle biter

      through their own primaries.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:37:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He could win. (0+ / 0-)

      If the economy tanks. Remember leading economic indicators only give us a fuzzy notion of the coming three months, so one mediocre job growth number and some good export news from July and neutral leading economic indicators translates into "no likely recession" for August and September, but if the economy tanks in October, there's the election.

      Remember that most of Europe is in Ryan-budget-recession already, which is a bit of a drag, and we never cleaned up the financial system, so there could be another big autumn financial melt-down this year ~ and given the over-selling of the watered down Wall Street Reform bill, another Wall Street meltdown would be pinned to the Obama administration.

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 04:19:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  by now Reagn was wooing the "Regan Dems" (4+ / 0-)

    Not his own party to shore up the nomination.

  •  As soon as it was clear Reagan had won (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    ..the Republican nomination (George H.W. Bush dropped out after Oregon on May 20th) he began leading Carter in the polls.

  •  This election will be won or lost on.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    campaign strategy.
    Lets hope that team O has the best and the brightest.
    Reagan had the benefit of a crap economy and a positive message.
    Team O cant go too negative. They have to thread the needle of trashing the opposition but having the President stay positive with a vision for the future.
    Team Romney  has an easier task with the message which will be the same as Reagan. "Are you better off than 4 years ago?"
    Luckily for us Romney is no Reagan when it comes to personal charisma.
    Priority number one for our side is to catch and show how insincere and fake Romney really is.
    Show all his flip flops from the past and have a camera on him all the time.
    Luckily sooner or later Romney will show his true self because he just cant hide it all the time.


    "Love is what we were born with. Fear is what we learned here." Marianne Williamson

    by Canadian Green Card Alien on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:32:56 PM PDT

  •  don't forget kenedy contesting carter (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, dkosdan, PorridgeGun

    had an affect

    nothing like a primaried incumbent to pull down numbers

  •  also delusion for (4+ / 0-)

    for 3 reasons

    (1) Demographics of US does not look like 1980s. Reagan only worked because of demographic advantages.

    (2) We are coming off of 32 years of being under Reaganite policies rather than at the start of a revolution. Romney/Ryan fundamentally misunderstand the nature of political movements.

    (3) The average US voter is in much less stable financial position in the 2012 than they were in 1980. America in the 80s was still on top and looking forward to better days. Now people question this.

    Bonus reason: People liked Reagan. No one likes Romney, except now for extreme right wingers. And they weren't going to be the reason he lost anyway.

  •  Iran Hostage Crisis (5+ / 0-)

    This is the main reason Carter lost in 1980.

    Reagan committed treason to ask the Iranians to be sure to hang onto those hostages until after he took office, after which point he promised them weapons sales.

    There is nothing in the 2012 election that even begins to approach that particular dynamic.

    "Don't ride in anything with a Capissen 38 engine. They fall right out of the sky." -- Kaywinnit Lee Frye

    by Technowitch on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:36:37 PM PDT

  •  WOW...things are really lookin' bad for Romney (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    This is a site that shows ONLY what the national polls show...they don't take polls...just present what's current with regard to polling data.

    Um...Obama is kicking Romney's tail big time.  And, it seems to be getting worse for the Mittens.  All of the pertinent polling data....


    The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

    by commonsensically on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:38:33 PM PDT

  •  Quite frankly (3+ / 0-)

    Reagan was more likeable than the mittster.

  •  GOP Plans (0+ / 0-)

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness

    by CTMET on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:47:35 PM PDT

  •  people LIKED reagan (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sethtriggs, dkosdan, BruceMcF

    i didn't understand it, but they liked him. nobody other than his family likes romney.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:50:36 PM PDT

  •  I love you, Mitt Romney! (8+ / 0-)

    You, Sir, are the Perfect Republican Politician: Shameless, amoral, grasping, and utterly clueless about what life is like in the world outside your personal bubble. It's like you were designed in a secret government lab. Your "campaign" has been a source of joy for me from the start. The spectacle of a grown man denying, nay,repudiating! everything he ever stood for or accomplished? Breathtaking.
     The taxes? Beautiful. It would have been easier for you to just make them public, and take the hits. But you can't, can you? Not only for the PR damage it would do you, but think of your fellow 1%-ers. Your finances would lay bare for the American people what a farcical shell-game the US tax code is. My God, they might actually take to the streets & get a few loopholes closed! Heaven Forbid!
     Your business record? Strictly taboo. Widespread knowledge of just what a pirate you are could wind you up tarred, feathered, and run out of town in the trunk of a Prius (do priui have trunks? Who cares, I'm rollin')
     Vietnam. Sure, it's ancient history to most people, but not your Base. A lot of the people who'll be voting for you remember someone who got drafted, or were drafted themselves. Chillin' in a French palace for a couple of years, and rapping to the natives about Magic Underwear, instead of humpin' it thru the jungle. Not exactly "Red Badge of Courage" level narrative, dude.

     All of those things I love you for. But you had more to give, didn't you, Mittens?

     Ladies and Germs, Reps and Dems, stoners everywhere! I give you the Bestest, Niftiest, Most Game-Changiest VP Pick since the last Republican one:

     Rep. Paul Ryan!

     Hahhhahahahhaha...wait, stop it..hhahahahhhh....ok, lemme catch my breath...

     His sociopathic budget has been discussed elsewhere, but I will note two things that make him stand out from the last VP disaster your party foisted on the nation.

    1. He's smarter than Sarah Palin. A low bar, granted, but credit where due. That smartness has mostly been put to use voting for things that most Americans recoil at, however. Palin was judged harshly because she came off like a dumbass on TV, but people could project their hopes/fears on her freely, since she basically came out of nowhere. Ryan will not have that advantage.

    2. Ryan is Establishment Republican to his core. Team Obama will have the "Bold outsider bravely challenging his Party" narrative hanging in a meat-locker before the month is out. Then you're left with two entitled White Boys who want to cut millionaires' taxes, and buy WAY more guns for our upcoming Excellent Iranian Adventure. Good luck selling that.

     In short, Mitt, I loved you before, but now? I have a blued-steel boner for you, dude, and I'm not even Gay! Don't ever change, or you know, keep changing as often as you like. Whatever you do must be right. How could all that SuperPAC cash be wrong?

     When you're back in your dressing room after your concession speech, weeping into your non-alcoholic beer and wondering where your soul went, I want you to think of me, laughing.

     Goddess Bless You, Sir!

    Speak the truth; Then leave, quickly. -old Russian proverb

    by Kordo on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:50:49 PM PDT

  •  Reagan won because he was Ronald Reagan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, basket

    and because Jimmy carter was so bad that even lifelong Democrats (like my steel worker Dad and stay-at-home Mom) were embarrassed by Carter.  Carter was the most ineffective president of the last 110 years.  About that there can be no debate.  Bush may have done a lot of things that liberals didn't like, but he did a lot of things that conservatives liked, and moved conservative policy forward.  Carter accomplished only the Camp David accords.   That was it.  Period.  How exciting was that?  Plus, unless you were there, you can't appreciate how bad the "malaise" and "stagflation" truly was.  It was the lowest point in terms of morale that we've seen in this country since the 1930's.

    Reagan, love him or hate him, was the most popular and charismatic president (and candidate) since Roosevelt.  He appealed across parties, across demographics, and across generations.  

    This campaign is NOTHING like 1980, and Romney and Obama are NOTHING like Reagan and Carter.  2004, as stated above, is a much better model:  A president that very few love, but a lot of people kinda like, who is seen as a mixed bag of accomplishment and failure vs an elitist, holier-than-thou candidate from Mass, who  nobody loves, few trust, and a lot of people dislike.  In that scenario, as we saw in 2004, people stick with the devil they know.  

  •  I was in Reagan's National HQ in 1980... (7+ / 0-)

    ...yes, I was.  A bit of a factotum.  I won't explain myself, but it had about equal measures to do with my need to fill a leftover incomplete in McGovern's class at Columbia in 1977 and my disenchantment with 18% inflation.  And I have written of these days extensively elsewhere.  Anyway...

    One thing I do recall profoundly from these days was that Reagan--whom I spoke with at least once a week--was a guy who knew how to connect to Americans.  Because in my own job, I saw how he could connect to journalists, even leftie journalists.  Anyone who thinks Romney does that must be kidding themselves.

    I remember driving Chuck Stone, a top scribe for the Philly newspaper, up to the Reagan residence on San Onofre in Pacific Palisades.  On the way up, Mr. Stone was all contempt.

    Then he got out of the car.  He couldn't wait to unload on Reagan.  "Mr. Reagan," he said, "you didn't even attend the NAACP convention..." &c.

    And Reagan indulged him and said, "Well...Chuck...that's the kind of thing that I'd like to ask you about. What can I do better?"

    I left, astonished.  And when I picked Mr. Stone up an hour later, and drove him back to the airport, he was looking around Pacific Palisades, and he said, "Well, I'll tell you one thing...this place sure beats the hell out of Plains."

    When you look at that chart, you're looking at the effects of charm, and nothing less and nothing more.  That chart is a chart of Reagan's charm overtaking the country.

    Romney? Ryan?  Hahahahahah....

    "Hibernate between 45 and 65 if you can."--VS Pritchett

    by joseph on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:59:22 PM PDT

  •  Poor chap. He's Bain laden. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dkosdan, Kdoug
  •  The Gipper vs. Mittens (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Say what you will about Reagan.....

    But, I don't think he ever tied a dog on top of a car.......he raised a cool progressive son, (and daughter) and the web is full of his humor, wit, and personable side. son? Nope.  Full of wit?  Nope.  Personable?  Um....nope....

    But we do have one thing to worry about,

    Word on the street is Romney is out looking for Bonzo's great great grandson to start a new PAC for Romney.....oh nosie!

  •  Remember John Anderson? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dkosdan, Dunkerque

    Many people forget John Anderson was a strong third party candidate in 1980. He was not in the presidential debates, but he got many votes from democrats and moderste republicans.

  •  in 1980 we also had Anderson (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dkosdan, Dunkerque

    Mucking up the numbers by about 6%.  I was one of the former Carter supporters who went with the third choice simply because I could not bring myself to embrace Reagan.  I don't think I was alone.  Last time I made that mistake.

  •  Damn facts. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I lost count how many times that 1980 Reagan bullshit was used in reaction to those CNN and FOX News national poll threads on Free Republic the other night. Ronnie and Rasmussen is pretty much what they're pinning their hopes on. Fucking delusional, all of them.

  •  Who is taking the CAKE to Iran this time? (0+ / 0-)

    "The Internet is the Public Square of the 21st Century"- Sen. Al Franken

    by Kdoug on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 02:25:12 PM PDT

  •  Changing words: (0+ / 0-)
    But they have to rally the troops and keep them engaged and motivated, so they have to spin it somehow.
    Indeed they are trying to get them engaged...

    However, considering the subject matter in the ads and the type of language the Republicans choose; I think the word enraged is closer to what they hope to attain.

    Republicans are always in a rage about something it seems and what better way is there then by getting them enraged so they will engage.

    "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Louis Brandeis

    by wxorknot on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 02:36:11 PM PDT

  •  A big factor for that election was the Iranian (0+ / 0-)

    hostage crisis.  Romney certainly doesn't have any international crisis he can use for leverage against Obama except maybe one he created.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 02:47:40 PM PDT

  •  Polls flipped after Desert One (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The failed mission to rescue the hostages, which President Carter took full responsibility for, was in April of 1980...about the time Reagan took over in the polls.

    Romney's fantasy only works if Carter had rescued the hostages, not losing a single American life in the process, and Reagan had zero charisma.

    Follow Me on Twitter!!/ZeddRebel

    by TarantinoDork on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 03:21:29 PM PDT

  •  I despise Reagan and always have (0+ / 0-)

    but he exuded sincerity and likeability. You got the feeling he believed what he said. It may have been stupid, ignorant or ridiculous but he believed it.

    And he didn't grow up rich.

    And he didn't come off spoiled.

    And he could speak.

    Mitt Romney has none of Reagan's advantages.

    Not only is Romney not Reagan, but Obama is not Carter.  

    I think Carter is vastly underrated as a president; but he was not a great campaigner.  Obama is.

    •  You had me right up to the end (0+ / 0-)

      Carter was terrible - the worst president of the last century - and it really isn't even close.  Even Nixon left a better legacy on policy and accomplishment than Carter (his personal character aside).  Hell, Nixon won 49 states, so must have been doing something right.

      The bottom line is that Reagan was a guy you could have a beer with, or watch a baseball game with - and he'd entertain you with stories throughout.  I'll bet Romney doesn't drink beer, and unlike Scott Brown, have you even heard him mention the Red Sox?  

      Obama doesn't strike me as warm and fuzzy - I actually think he's kind of "rehearsed" and "on" all the time.  But,...compared to Romney, he's Reagan.

      That single factor is the reason he's winning.  In the last 112 years, the more charismatic candidate has won the presidency EVERY time.  Sometimes it's a blow-out in charisma (Kennedy-Nixon, Reagan-Mondale, Clinton-Dole), and sometimes it's close (Nixon and either of his opponents, Johnson-Goldwater), but you can not say that the less charismatic candidate won.

      And, Obama is just more likeable, charming, and charismatic than Romney (or any of the GOP primary candidates).  The challenge will be for the Dems to find somebody remotely comparable for 2016.

  •  Bad history (0+ / 0-)

    Reagan moved to the middle to pick his running mate.

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by jg6544 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:45:12 AM PDT

  •  Operation Eagle Claw in late April was turning pt (0+ / 0-)

    The failed U.S. attempt to rescue hostages at our Iranian embassy in Tehran, Operation Eagle Claw, on April 24, 1980 (one of the U.S. Army's Delta Force's first missions ever), was the trigger point for the shift in public opinion in the election that year. I state this with a great level of certainty†††, and it's supported by your chart in this post.

    From the Wiki (linked above):

    Operation Eagle Claw (or Operation Evening Light or Operation Rice Bowl)[2] was an American military operation ordered by President Jimmy Carter to attempt to put an end to the Iran hostage crisis by rescuing 53 Americans held captive at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran on 24 April 1980. Its failure, and the humiliating public debacle that ensued, damaged American prestige worldwide and is believed by many, including Carter himself, to have played a major role in his defeat in the 1980 presidential election.[3]...
    †††=I was the Carter/Mondale State Press Secretary and local UAW media liaison in Michigan during the General Election. You could, literally, feel the shift in public opinion during the weeks following the event. (As your chart in this post confirms it, and the Wiki commentary, too.) That combined with Koppel on ABC's Nightline doing "America Held Hostage: Day 300+," every damn weeknight, made the shift in opinion extremely palpable from that point forward. It affected the 1980 election outcome even more than the ongoing Recession at the time, IMHO.

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:10:31 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site