Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
stop eating dog ears
Could Ronald Reagan still get the Republican nomination?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
stop eating dog ears
I was being ironic, but it retrospect, I realize how rediculous it sounds. Sorry.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
for the exact same reason, today he would make the cut......the Republicans we had two years ago were not fiscal conservatives.....however, fifty or so of those are gone now.....more will disappear in 2012......
signalmankenneth
Verified User
cawacko
Well-known member
Sounds like he should run for the Democratic nomination.
It is an upside down world we live in.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Overall, Reagan LOWERED taxes. He lowered income tax brackets and effectively raised taxes by closing loopholes and deductions used by corporations and wealthy individuals. But all in all... he lowered them.
Reagan would hands down win the Republican nomination. It wouldn't even be close. Reagan could also hands down win the Dem nomination. Because both parties know exactly what would happen in the general election.
1984 all over again.
Reagan would destroy the opposing party.... The ONLY person that could give Reagan a run for his money would be Bill Clinton.
Independents would LOVE to have that choice.
Socrtease
Verified User
In a word, YES! Ronald Reagan was a leader. You can hate on him all you want for things you think he did to the working class etc. I would suggest you find someone that worked 40 hours a week during the Reagan years and ask them if they were worse off under Reagan's policies. Ask them how they felt about the direction the country took from 1981 to 1989. Ask them if they felt the same about our country during that time period as they did in the 70's. the 1984 election Reagan won by almost 17 million votes.
This is what the election map looked like after the blood was mopped up:
The revisionists want to pretend he was not as popular as he was. I was 18 in 84 and voted in my first election. I voted for Mondale. I was young and idealistic and still held in sway by the "New Left" which was really no different from the old left. Reagan would beat all comers today. The left is goofy when it comes to Reagan.
This is what the election map looked like after the blood was mopped up:
The revisionists want to pretend he was not as popular as he was. I was 18 in 84 and voted in my first election. I voted for Mondale. I was young and idealistic and still held in sway by the "New Left" which was really no different from the old left. Reagan would beat all comers today. The left is goofy when it comes to Reagan.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
In a word, YES! Ronald Reagan was a leader. You can hate on him all you want for things you think he did to the working class etc. I would suggest you find someone that worked 40 hours a week during the Reagan years and ask them if they were worse off under Reagan's policies. Ask them how they felt about the direction the country took from 1981 to 1989. Ask them if they felt the same about our country during that time period as they did in the 70's. the 1984 election Reagan won by almost 17 million votes.
This is what the election map looked like after the blood was mopped up:
The revisionists want to pretend he was not as popular as he was. I was 18 in 84 and voted in my first election. I voted for Mondale. I was young and idealistic and still held in sway by the "New Left" which was really no different from the old left. Reagan would beat all comers today. The left is goofy when it comes to Reagan.
The left feels compelled to demonize Reagan because he was so successful. He was not perfect by any means, but he was a leader. He had a vision and he was able to convey that vision to the American public. He had an unwavering pride in American exceptionalism and he never shied away from showing that in public.
Anything bad that occurred under Reagan was his fault according to the left. Anything good that occurred was due to the Dem led House under Tip. All of the "Reagan tripled the debt" crowd seem to forget that the President doesn't pass the budgets. CONGRESS does. While Reagan certainly signed the budgets, that debt run up was also due to a certain party that controlled the House.
As for today... I am a bit biased. I also think Reagan would destroy any opponent... with the possible exception of Bill Clinton. Reagan would still likely win, but that would be close.
In a word, YES! Ronald Reagan was a leader. You can hate on him all you want for things you think he did to the working class etc. I would suggest you find someone that worked 40 hours a week during the Reagan years and ask them if they were worse off under Reagan's policies. Ask them how they felt about the direction the country took from 1981 to 1989. Ask them if they felt the same about our country during that time period as they did in the 70's. the 1984 election Reagan won by almost 17 million votes.
This is what the election map looked like after the blood was mopped up:
The revisionists want to pretend he was not as popular as he was. I was 18 in 84 and voted in my first election. I voted for Mondale. I was young and idealistic and still held in sway by the "New Left" which was really no different from the old left. Reagan would beat all comers today. The left is goofy when it comes to Reagan.
I don't dispute that Reagan would be a formiddable general election candidate. That's not the question at hand. The question at hand is whether someone not named Reagan with Reagan's track record could win the Republican primary election. Remember, these are the same voters that nominated Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle over more moderate contenders.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
remember... Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle came from TWO states. Pretending they would have won a general primary is nothing short of absurd.
Reagan would win the Republican nomination hands down. It would not be close. There is not a single current candidate that would garner consideration against Reagan. Not one.
The ONLY candidate who could compete with Reagan is Bill Clinton.... and even Clinton would lose.
Bfgrn
New member
Could Ronald Reagan still get the Republican nomination?
NO...
Even Ronald Reagan couldn't pass the 'Reagan test' for true Republicans
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...-test-for-true-republicans.aspx#ixzz1DOSNgB5F
The resurgent GOP wants a Gipper purity test. Does the party faithful know he raised taxes, grew the federal government, and granted amnesty to illegal immigrants?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-01/the-republicans-reagan-amnesia/?cid=hp:mainpromo5
NO...
Even Ronald Reagan couldn't pass the 'Reagan test' for true Republicans
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...-test-for-true-republicans.aspx#ixzz1DOSNgB5F
The resurgent GOP wants a Gipper purity test. Does the party faithful know he raised taxes, grew the federal government, and granted amnesty to illegal immigrants?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-01/the-republicans-reagan-amnesia/?cid=hp:mainpromo5
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Here we have yet another lefty moron spouting off talking points. At least this one provided the link so that we can see where the talking points are coming from.
What's a general primary?
I disagree.
Of course Clinton would lose a Republican primary contest against Reagan.. Clinton is a Democrat who was disliked by Republicans.
Bfgrn
New member
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
When Reagan was (much) less popular than Carter
By 1992, three years after he left the White House, Ronald Reagan was anything but a beloved former president. As a painful recession gripped the country, the public came to see the Reagan years -- which featured a massive defense buildup, soaring deficits and even a stock market crash in 1987 -- as the source of their economic woes. Running for president that year, Bill Clinton promised to enact a clean break from the "failed policies of Reagan and Bush." As Reagan prepared to speak at the Republican National Convention in August, a Gallup poll found that just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of him. By contrast, Jimmy Carter, the man Reagan had defeated in a 44-state rout in 1980, was viewed favorably by 63 percent of the American public. The Reagan presidency stood in something approaching disrepute.
Today, though, you'd never know any of this happened. In the two decades since it bottomed out, Reagan's image has been resurrected, thanks largely to a relentless campaign from conservative activists.
More
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Reagan would certainly support the above. If he had a Congress that allowed it, he would do so.
Reagan would support the above.
Reagan would support the above.
Reagan would support the above.
Reagan would certainly support the first part, but would also support amnesty in certain situations.
Give him 50% on that one.
Reagan would most likely do the above.
Reagan would do the above.
Not certain on this one, lets say no on this.
Reagan would support the above.
Reagan would support the above.
So essentially Reagan would be in line with about 85% of the above. Yeah... he would get the Rep nomination.
Side note.... the above is just ONE congressman's OPINION on what Reps should stand for.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I am referring to the culmination of primaries across the country that would lead to the Rep nomination.
As always, you have the right to be wrong.
Care to put forth who it is you think would beat Reagan? I am sure you have a name in mind since you are so sure Reagan wouldn't win.
You truly are a moron.
I stated that the only CANDIDATE that could compete with Reagan was Clinton. I did not limit that competition to the Republican nomination.
I mean that NO one, save Clinton, would have a chance against Reagan today. Whether it be Reps challenging Reagan for the Rep nomination or a Dem running against Reagan in the general.
Bfgrn
New member
Yea Einstein...Tim Mak is a Washington writer and contributor to FrumForum.com.
Frum Forum
About
FrumForum.com is a site edited by David Frum, dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.
David Frum
A former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush, he is also the author of the first "insider" book about the Bush presidency. His editorial columns have appeared in a variety of Canadian and American magazines and newspapers, including the National Post and The Week. He is also the founder of FrumForum.com (formerly NewMajority.com), a political group blog.
"I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything."
David Frum - Speechwriter for George W. Bush
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
As Soc stated, the left likes to try and rewrite history....
A recession gripped the country in large part because Bush decided to raise taxes as the economy slowed. (a primary reason Obama would not raise taxes this year)
You can try and paint Reagan with any brush you wish. But again, ask people if they were better off in January 1989 or January 1981 and see what they tell you. The country was far better off because of Reagan.
Also... do tell us... how much of those deficits were a direct result of compromise with the Dem House? Or are you one of those people who think the President controls the budget?
Also.... as for your 'soaring deficits'.... Clinton raised the nations debt by $1.6 trillion.... as did Reagan. (adjusted for inflation, Reagan increased it by about $2.15 in 2000 dollars) Reagan also had the cold war to deal with, the high inflation of the 1970's, the despair the country felt, high interest rates slowing growth. Clinton on the other hand had little to deal with internationally, was the recipient of the tech/telecom/internet/biotech boom that began in the mid 80's and exploded in the late 90's. It wasn't until the REP congress forced a showdown and compromise with Clinton that the two parties began trying to balance the budget.
