Experts Announce That Reagan Can’t Win An Election

Screenshot 2016-01-30 at 09.25.00 PM-down

10 Mar 1980, Page 5 – at

This was the 1984 election map.



About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Experts Announce That Reagan Can’t Win An Election

  1. Edmonton Al says:

    These articles, like most in the MSM, seem to support my hypothesis that; “The validity of any statement or claim is INversely proportional to the MSM hype.”

  2. Steve Case says:

    That blue blob just west of Lake Michigan is Madison WI.

  3. RAH says:

    Well I hope everyone noticed that the article is about the 1980 election while the map shows the results of the 1984 election. In 1984 Reagan carried 49 states ( Mondale only won his home state) and the highest number of electoral votes in the history of US presidential elections. The 1980 election was closer though Reagan still won by a landslide carrying 44 states.

    It should be noted that in both elections Regan carried NY, CA, and IL. I think It is highly doubtful any Republican candidate could carry even two of those states in these quite divided times.

    • Mondale only won his home state …

      Mondale finally achieved a perfect record when he lost Minnesota in the 2002 U.S. Senate race to Norm Coleman (he was a last minute stand-in after incumbent Paul Wellstone’s death).

      I believe he’s the only U.S. politician who managed to lose in all 50 states.

    • “Experts Announce That Reagan Can’t Win An Election”

      • Tony, your point was clear.

        • RAH says:

          Yes it was. I just wanted to be sure that the article and map were from two different elections and to remind people of the history while making the point that such lopsided victories for either side are highly unlikely in the current conditions. However if the economy tanks in the near future all bets on how much the Republican candidate can win by are off.

        • RAH, your point was clear to me, too. And I generally agree that Electoral College upsets like 1980 and 1984 are less likely today. However, trying to gauge the diverse sentiments of a large part of our extended family in the Midwest, I would not be surprised if Trump pulled commanding numbers of blue-collar Democrats and independents should he become the nominee.

        • I would be very surprised, because his positions are all over the map, and the Democrats will be sure to emphasize the less flattering ones if Trump is nominated. Most especially his unparalleled nastiness, his lying, his cheating at business, his double standards in all areas of life (for himself vs. everyone else) and his contempt for all dissent, and that he wages a scorched Earth campaign against any friend, acquaintance, or even adversary who doesn’t give him unconditional support.

          People keep fighting with me about whether he is a fascist, but the point seems totally lost on them that it’s not really about what we, here, believe about Trump. It is about what the country will believe. The country will agree with me, after all the talking is done (assuming it’s Trump in the general.) They will agree with me. There is absolutely no argument that can be made, that would effectively counteract the facts. It doesn’t matter how grand all the people here think he is. They have ZERO chance of convincing the country, because this is NOT 1930s Italy or German. IT IS NOT. Anyone in any doubt about that, has their head in the sad.

      • RAH says:

        Even though as a Republican he had been a two term Governor of CA (67 to 75) which was a blue state and winning both times in convincing fashion. The Republican establishment had him marked though because he was a very vocal and active supporter of Goldwater which put him right of the mainstream establishment.

        • Ted says:

          I think you may be surprised by California. Among voters, I’d say white people here are still more conservative than not. (the under 30 crowd is hard core democrat, but not as liberal as you’d expect, and they don’t vote) It’s mostly just rich people here who believe the liberal line. The minorities vote overwhelmingly democrat because “republicans are evil”, not because they’re particularly liberal. California went permanently democrat when we voted to end state benefits for illegals, and the state government told us where to shove our votes. (in a more recent display of the contempt they show us, our vote against homosexual “marriage” became the basis for the supreme court to basically invalidate the state referendum process, nation wide) Whites stopped voting, and started moving out of the state. Blacks started voting against republicans, because it’s what they think they’re supposed to do. It’s blind politics, in the absence of any real self interest either way. I think a very strong percentage would vote their wallets instead of their race, if they saw a compelling reason.

          Rightly or wrongly, Trump is seen as the best chance we’ve had to close the border in a long time. If he wins the primary, I can see him drawing a record turnout, particularly here. And it won’t be all those millions of Mexicans, who can’t even (legally) vote. It’ll be the millions who make less (or no) money than they would if those Mexicans weren’t here. That includes MOST blacks, as well as most of the hispanics who can legally vote. Perception is everything. It doesn’t even matter if Mexicans are actually taking jobs, or driving down wages. The perception is that they do. And the poorer you are, the more you believe that perception. I think Trump would put California in play.

        • It is becoming more and more clear to me that most of the people supporting Trump are just very uninformed about his positions. Because they keep on making vague arguments about his likeability and political strength, while rarely ever addressing his statements.

          “The people that have been here for years … who are supporting a family, it’s very, very tough to just say you have to leave.”

          “You have to give them a path and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that.”

          “Congress should protect our borders first. Amnesty should be done only if the border is secure and illegal immigration has stopped.”

          “I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health.”

          “Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare.”

          “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.”

          Regarding a wealth tax, “People said, ‘Oh, what a terrible thing, that’s not a very conservative thing to do.’ I think that’s a very conservative thing.”

          Regarding abortion: “I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors.”

          Source for the above:

        • You’re right about one thing, Ted. Perceptions count for a lot.

          What will moderate and independent voters perceive about these?

          “Laziness is a trait in blacks.” (Was accused of saying it; later said, in court that he guessed he probably had said it.)

          On women: “You have to treat ’em like s—.”

          “I would never buy Ivana any decent jewels or pictures. Why give her negotiable assets.”

          Very Reaganesque? I think not. Of course, if he can convince enough people that this is how Reagan talked, we may not have another conservative for a very long time.

          By the way, Rick Perry was sent packing, I suspect, in large part for some old comments about Blacks that were far less extreme, and for which he apologized.

        • RAH says:

          Ted I’m going to have to disagree with you on this as much as I wish that there was some real evidence that your correct. Democrats dominate the legislature and many of the Republicans are nothing more than democrat light. They have a democrat leftist loon for Governor. And they repeatedly send the likes of Boxer and Pelosi to Congress.

        • Ted says:


          It’s very condescending to assume that people could only possibly disagree with you because they don’t know what they’re talking about. I’ve clearly spelled out my rationale for leaning slightly toward Trump, and it has nothing to do with any belief that he’s the most conservative candidate. I know who he is, and what he stands for. While there are many things I don’t like about him, I find his motives far more transparent than the rest of the crowd. We live in a time when supreme court justices are CLEARLY, BLATANTLY, either bought or blackmailed into submission. I believe Trump’s ego and money make him far more resistant to those problems than most. I’d rather elect a flawed man who’ll follow his own flawed conscience, than a good man who’ll do whatever the puppeteers tell him to do.

        • Ted, I’m sorry to upset you. It certainly was not my intention. I actually thought I was being charitable by assuming that what you just wrote as your motive was not the case. So again, my apologies sir, and I thank you for your candor.

          And you are certainly right about the Supreme Court; that situation is an utter travesty.

  4. There would have been no Reagan if he had never gone after the Establishment candidates and called them out for the Leftism, hypocrisy, and lies.

    • Of course, some people don’t really want a change in course.

      But if you do, it’s kind of implied that you go after those are fighting to stay the course.

      • Especially when you have a candidate who was asked to run by his friend, Bill Clinton.

        • Ted says:

          What’s in it for Trump, to get Hillary elected? If you believe he favors friendship above self aggrandizement, you think much more highly of him than I do.

        • Well, of COURSE, Ted. But it’s not about friendship, it’s about coordinated action for mutual benefit. (Which of course, can lead to personal aggrandizement.) That’s what it means to be a part of an Establishment. It’s not him against the world (though in business he often plays it that way). What it really is, is his Globalist and collectivist ideology, against our conservative and individualist ideologies.

          AND HE DOES HAVE AN IDEOLOGY. Unfortunately, a lot of folks haven’t dug too deeply yet, but are content to cast their votes based on a shallow understanding of him.

        • And, consider this: after two landslide elections for the Democrats with Obama, they get all (or many) of Republicans chanting that Trump is conservative … they have managed to REDEFINE what conservatism is in the minds of the low-info voter …. Then, when he goes down in flames, they have managed the coup-de-grace … finally demonstrating “beyond any doubt” that the country has definitively rejected conservatism in favor of socialism, in a series straightforward contest where the two ideologies were supposedly clearly expressed on either side. What a victory that would for them! It would like the FDR era, but probably even worse!

        • ^ “series of straightforward contests”

          sorry about my keyboard. I wish I had my older ones!

        • DougM says:

          Ted – You assume here that Trump is a willing participant in any plot to put Hillary in the White House. Bill could very easily be playing him just to cause disruption on the Republican side. Funny thing is, if that is the case, Bill and Hillary didn’t count on the draw of the doddering old fool socialist or the email scandal.

          We do seem to live in “interesting” times…

  5. random schmoe says:

    Talk about obvious: 105 year old corpses with late stage Alzheimer’s can’t win elections.

    • RAH says:

      Don’t think corpses have Alzheimers.

      • random schmoe says:

        They don’t run for elections either.

        • RAH says:

          They do get votes though. I wrote in Ronald Reagan on my ballot to protest during the 2008 presidential election. Reagans Corpse would be better than what we have now.

        • Ted says:

          I’d vote for ANY corpse right now. Say what you want about William Henry Harrison, he didn’t take away any of our rights, while serving as president. That puts him above any other president since at least Coolidge.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Since we are voting for corpses, there is a lot to be said for Grover Cleveland. He was as close to a Constitutionalist as we have had since the end of War of Secession.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Ted! . You generally seem to have good judgement in such matters. Now you make me want to read up on William Henry Harrison

        • DougM says:

          Just on the Dem side (exhibit A: Bernie Sanders)…

        • Ted says:


          Absolutely right about Cleveland. In terms of actual policy, he’s solidly my favorite president. (I’m even a Browns fan)

          I mentioned Harrison because he contracted pneumonia during his inaugural speech, and died of it about a month later, making him the closest thing we’ve had to a corpse in office. I could be wrong, but my memory is that he didn’t sign a single bill. That makes him a solid second behind Grover, who by most accounts actually INCREASED our freedom during his terms.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Ted! You just corrected a faulty memory for me and now it makes sense. I was thinking that it was the second President Harrison who died early, but you are correct.

          I do sometimes wonder what President Garfield would have been like if he had not been assassinated so early in his term. He was apparently a hard money advocate and had some enemies in the banking field. Not a safe group of enemies to have! I have not found any hard evidence that the bankers were involved in his shooting, but I do remain suspicious.

  6. random schmoe says:

    Have hope! There’s still 8 months for a resurrection:

  7. Snowleopard says:

    George Carlin said it best:

    “The politicians are put there to make you believe you have a choice. You have no choice, you have owners.”

    Whoever is selected the owners will still do what they want.

    • The way I see it is as a constant struggle. The “owners” as you call them seek total control, and we seek to nullify their control. The two sides (we and they) push and pull against each other. The power ebbs and flows. We do what we can, and they do what they can. If we did nothing, our lot would be much worse. We’d love to neutralize them, but just because we know we won’t, doesn’t mean we go all limp in their hands.

      So I’d have to disagree with Carlin as to whether we have a choice. Occasionally, they may box us in and we may have no meaningful options. But at other times, we have the choice whether to resist or not, and exactly how. This is a game of strategy and tactics. But the game they want us play is “Just give up, and accept it.” They want us to just give up, because it makes their life so much easier and more pleasant. But it is our moral duty to try to make their life as difficult and unpleasant as possible. I wonder if Carlin really understood that, because that quote suggests to me that he didn’t.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Richard! “But the game they want us play is “Just give up, and accept it.” They want us to just give up, because it makes their life so much easier and more pleasant.”

        There is a difference between “I refuse to play a rigged game.” and “Just give up and accept it.” The Owners maintain power by ethical methods — but not how it sounds! THEY are not ethical, but most people — normal people — are ethical. Most people feel like if they are part of the voting process that they have an ethical responsibility to abide by the results. I am sure you have heard the saying, “If voting could change anything, it would be illegal.” As long as we play the voting game, a game where the owners choose WHO we get to vote for, we will never beat the Owners. Average people will say, “I respect the office even if I do not respect the person who won. Maybe we will get a better person elected next time!” What we need is for the average person to say, “NO! The game is rigged! None of the candidates represent We The People! We will not support this system. We want a real choice!”

        If you have not read “The Discourse Of Voluntary Servitude”, I would recommend it.

        • HEY, Jason!

          I’ll be happy to read that; however, I also wonder if perhaps you’ve read a little too much into my comment. I advocate neither to always vote, nor never to vote. Either one can be an effective strategy, depending on the circumstances. But part of a strong strategy is timing, and part is the message that one sends adversaries. (If we’re not clear as to what we’re willing and able to do, and when, and under what conditions, we won’t be taken seriously, and we’ll get tromped all over.)

          I think that perhaps, to accomplish our task of effective resistance to a strong and megalomaniacal Establishment, we need the knowledge and temperament of statesmen, but also the discipline and nerve of generals. Right now, I can’t see that we have either in very great quantity, and I think that’s the primary reason we as a group are in such rapid decline, why some of us are suffering so much, and why we are held in such contempt by so many who are above us.

          But unlike yourself (apparently), I don’t necessarily pine for a great improvement. I advocate for it, but I’ve seen enough to know that it’s not going to happen in this life. So instead, I look to how I can make the best of an extremely bad situation. As long as I know I’ve done everything I can to further the objective, I’m happy! The rest is in God’s hands.

          But I also strongly reject Gator’s position, which as best as I can tell, is: If the majority is going to just “chuck it”, go home, and take a nap, then I might as well, also. To me, that’s not just defeatist, but a dead, Godless, philosophy. To follow it is not just to create more temporal problems, but also to disobey the Lord to whom I’ve voluntarily pledged my unconditional and permanent servitude.

          — RT

        • The work is so long, it’s kind of hard to respond to here.

          Having skimmed it, I could say that a major problem with it is that, while it makes mention of God, it does so from a Deist perspective. You could profit greatly from incorporating a study of biblical history into your thinking. Try, if you can, to understand why tyranny befalls us in this world.

          The book classifies different grades of tyrants, but the author seems ignorant of the fact that all tyranny is a function of God’s will and plan, and has a just purpose. Without accounting for that, we’re led to believe that it’s God’s will for us to be in perpetual rebellion against all injustice until the day he returns. But that’s not the teaching of God, rather the enemy. That kind of thinking arises from Deism.

          And for the same reason, the book also takes no account of the ongoing effect of God’s actions on the affairs of men. That is the source of our legitimate hope for improvement in our lives. Without that, we have no chance of seeing any improvement, and our efforts (whatever they may be) are in vain.

  8. Jason Calley says:

    Hey Richard! Thanks so much for your responses and thoughts. You say, “I also wonder if perhaps you’ve read a little too much into my comment. I advocate neither to always vote, nor never to vote.”

    Actually, I may very well have read too much into that. My impression was that you were more strongly advocating the “stay in the (voting) game” but rereading your comment I see that I was misinterpreting what you were saying. I do agree with you that just giving up is not an ethical option, at least not for me. Neither you nor I will be here forever, but we expect our children, our friends, and even those billions of people we have never known to be here after we are gone. We may not be our brother’s keeper, but we are still their brother and cannot in good conscience forget them completely.

    I think that the main take away point from the Discourse is that no Great Man rules by his own power. Every king, every tyrant, every president, — they all rule through the acquiescence (either enthusiastic or grudgingly) of those who are ruled. As has been pointed out, Hitler never killed anyone (with the possible exception of battles during WWI). Instead, millions of other people murdered at his command. The solution for unjust government (of whatever flavor) is for people to refuse to associate themselves with it. If one of your neighbors ordered you to rob a stranger, you would refuse. Why? What would compel you to refuse? Is being ordered to rob a stranger different if you work for the IRS? Why or why not?

    I admit that personally I am much closer to a Jeffersonian Deist than I am to most modern Christian churches — but I think that while I am weak on Old Testament studies, I have done a pretty thorough study of the New Testament, including (many decades ago!) reading much of it in Greek. Where does God’s will enter into politics today? I honestly do not think that I am capable of determining that. Perhaps you can — but it is above my pay grade! 🙂

    Thanks for your thoughts, Richard. I think we have some fundamental disagreements, but that is one reason why I value your input.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s