Is Romney the next Reagan?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do we see his political opposition taking cheap shots against him today? No. But we do see Democrats right in this very forum taking cheap shots versus Nixon. Speaks volumes.

[Averroës Nix]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do we see his political opposition taking cheap shots against him today? No. But we do see Democrats right in this very forum taking cheap shots versus Nixon. Speaks volumes.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The last time the Democrats won in a landslide was when President Kennedy died. Republicans in that time have had Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan. Clearly Republicans have been more successful than Democrats.

I think others accurately already answered the broader idea of this, but I want to address the 'landslide' (PV) aspect of it. No Republican has won in a landslide except where there was a weak Democratic candidate combined with exhaustion of Democrats being in charge for basically half a century. McGovern was a bad candidate, as was Mondale. The 1980s was a decade of realignment for the Democrats - dealing with the losses of its once dominant power base while growing into a more diverse coalition. No Republican has ever won in a landslide outside of those circumstances in recent history. In fact, one of the three modern Republican Presidents came in second when it comes to his first-term popular vote.

If we get to count Reagan's 1980 victory as a 9-point landslide over Carter, then we equally get to count Clinton's 9-point victory over Dole in 1996 as a landslide as well. If we get to count HW's 1988 victory as a 7-point landslide over Dukakis, then we similarly get to count Obama's 2008 victory as a 7-point landslide over McCain.

[traininthedistance]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do we see his political opposition taking cheap shots against him today? No. But we do see Democrats right in this very forum taking cheap shots versus Nixon. Speaks volumes.

You won't see me taking cheap shots against Nixon.  Dude founded the EPA, got us out of Vietnam, and opened up a dialogue with Maoist China that ultimately succeeded beyond its wildest expectations.  And he even tried to get through universal health care!

I will admit the wage and price controls were most likely a bridge too far, but on balance Nixon's progressive accomplishments made this world a much, much better place, and for that I laud him.

...

Anyway, as for the OP: Romney is not the next Reagan.  He is the next Kerry.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do we see his political opposition taking cheap shots against him today? No. But we do see Democrats right in this very forum taking cheap shots versus Nixon. Speaks volumes.

You won't see me taking cheap shots against Nixon.  Dude founded the EPA, got us out of Vietnam, and opened up a dialogue with Maoist China that ultimately succeeded beyond its wildest expectations.  And he even tried to get through universal health care!

I will admit the wage and price controls were most likely a bridge too far, but on balance Nixon's progressive accomplishments made this world a much, much better place, and for that I laud him.

...

Anyway, as for the OP: Romney is not the next Reagan.  He is the next Kerry.

Obama basically is Nixon, when you consider how much to the right Democratic ideology in regards to non-social issues has shifted over the past few decades.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Arguing that Republican success is entirely due to democrat weakness is nonsense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your criterion essentially eliminates all possible republican landslides while retaining all possible democrat ones, which is convenient, but worthless in terms of analysis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clinton failed to win a majority of support from Americans. Ergo, saying that he won a landslide is rubbish. We're talking 48-2 style blowouts here.

[Adam Griffin]

Arguing that Republican success is entirely due to democrat weakness is nonsense. Your criterion essentially eliminates all possible republican landslides while retaining all possible democrat ones, which is convenient, but worthless in terms of analysis. Clinton failed to win a majority of support from Americans. Ergo, saying that he won a landslide is rubbish. We're talking 48-2 style blowouts here.

Well, it's really not when you look at the past 75 years or so. Democrats had pretty damn solid control of the Presidency and even when we didn't, we did have control of the Congress to keep the Republican Presidents of the past in-check. Even Reagan ultimately had to get past Tip O'Neill - long after the degeneration of the Democratic Party had began. When a political party stays in power for that period of time, they can be blamed for their shortcomings pretty exclusively. When Americans lost faith in government, they also lost faith in the Democratic Party.

I'm not trying to discount Republican wins. Republicans clearly won by large amounts in 1972, 1980 and 1984. What I am saying is that in an election with an equal playing field, with equally qualified candidates, no one is going to win by 10 or 20 points. We had some serious flaws going into 1972, 1980 and 1984 and it made it a lot easier for Republicans to win by those margins. If you were to have an election, say, similar to what you have expressed to be your desire (a 'true' Republican versus a 'true' Democrat'), then there wouldn't be a very wide gap in the margin of victory. If you can unseat an incumbent with a 50% approval rating by 10 or more points, then that's something to brag about - otherwise, you're just taking advantage of variables and handicaps, and that goes for both sides. There hasn't been a Republican candidate that ran for an 'open Presidential seat' and won by a huge margin that is not comparable to a recent Democratic victory. (1988 = 2008, while 2000 was a ever-so-slight Democratic victory)

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why is it so difficult to admit that Reagan, Nixon and Eisenhower were all very successful presidents by any measure of the definition?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then it would be proper to say that Reagan was more qualified and experienced than Carter to become president. You have to give him some credit for his blowout win vs a sitting president (the only time this has ever happened since 1932).

It gets rather tiresome when Democrats cannot see beyond partisanship and credit Reagan and Nixon for earning their landslides.

 

[Adam Griffin]

Then why is it so difficult to admit that Reagan, Nixon and Eisenhower were all very successful presidents by any measure of the definition?

I didn't know we were going back that far. Sure, I'll give you Eisenhower.

Then it would be proper to say that Reagan was more qualified and experienced than Carter to become president. You have to give him some credit for his blowout win vs a sitting president (the only time this has ever happened since 1932). [


It gets rather tiresome when Democrats cannot see beyond partisanship and credit Reagan and Nixon for earning their landslides.

Yes, there's one difference between 1980 and 1996: one was where a Republican unseated a Democratic incumbent, while the other was a Democratic candidate thwarting a Republican candidate by the same margin. This is probably the best one to use as an example on your part. I'll still emphasize that Carter was a very unpopular man at the time of the election, but to unseat an incumbent by that much is a respectable feat.

My main point when I was talking about an equal playing field was to say: focus on the elections with no incumbents that can be judged for better or worse. There's 1952, 1960, 1968, 1988, 2000 and 2008. Two of them were significant Republican wins, three of them were less than 1 point apart, and one was a significant Democratic win.

I really don't think 1952 is valid to modern party comparison, however. When you compare from 1960 onward, you get 1 Democratic victory, 1 Republican victory and 3 Toss-ups.

If you compare the past 25 years (which is still quite awhile politically), then it's 1 Republican victory, 1 Democratic victory and 1 tossup. So unless you count a 60 year period, there is no statistical advantage for either party in this regard.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Romney is way more Poppy Bush than Reagan.

[J. J.]

Yes, there's one difference between 1980 and 1996: one was where a Republican unseated a Democratic incumbent, while the other was a Democratic candidate thwarting a Republican candidate by the same margin. This is probably the best one to use as an example on your part. I'll still emphasize that Carter was a very unpopular man at the time of the election, but to unseat an incumbent by that much is a respectable feat.

There is another difference.  No candidate got a majority of the PV in 1996.  We went through a period from 1980 and ending in 2008, where no Democratic got a majority of the popular vote.  There was never that important electoral mandate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really think the period we have to look at is 1980, a presidential election where everything changed.  I believe very strongly in realignment theory and would make the argument that from 1932-1976, the basic pattern remained the same.  As indicated, since 1980, only once dd the D's get a majority of the popular vote, 2008.

[Adam Griffin]

Yes, there's one difference between 1980 and 1996: one was where a Republican unseated a Democratic incumbent, while the other was a Democratic candidate thwarting a Republican candidate by the same margin. This is probably the best one to use as an example on your part. I'll still emphasize that Carter was a very unpopular man at the time of the election, but to unseat an incumbent by that much is a respectable feat.

There is another difference.  No candidate got a majority of the PV in 1996.  We went through a period from 1980 and ending in 2008, where no Democratic got a majority of the popular vote.  There was never that important electoral mandate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really think the period we have to look at is 1980, a presidential election where everything changed.  I believe very strongly in realignment theory and would make the argument that from 1932-1976, the basic pattern remained the same.  As indicated, since 1980, only once dd the D's get a majority of the popular vote, 2008.

Reagan was fortunate enough to have a smaller third-party presence in 1980 (which certainly attracted some of those Democrats that might be considered Reagan Democrats but by obviously at that time were not). I'd be fairly willing to say that Anderson and Perot attracted a similar composition of voters. There were 2 points less resistance for Reagan than Clinton in this regard and Reagan likewise received 2 points more in the PV. I understand the definitions of plurality/majority and the so-called 'mandate', but I find it a bit dismissive to say that a nine-point, marginally-below-majority victory should be viewed the same as the 1992 or 2000 Democratic results. The circumstances during the Clinton elections made it nearly impossible for any candidate to get a majority.

I agree with you on the second part.

[Phony Moderate]

I suppose it's a good time to point out that Hugo Chavez has won four successive landslide election victories.

[Adam Griffin]

I suppose it's a good time to point out that Hugo Chavez has won four successive landslide election victories.

This is what happens when you have a True Leftist.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I said, it's only happened twice ever - FDR in 1932 vs Hoover and Reagan vs Carter in 1980.

[opebo]

A cheap, shoddy, worm-riddled facsimile of Reagan, yes.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Personally I think that Mitt Romney would be somewhat more attractive version of Nixon with a tad of Bush Senior thrown in (or maybe the other way around ).

[Donerail]

Reagan won. Romney won't.