Just makin' it explicit: Anyone saying "Perry Can't Win" quite clearly hasn't heard about 1980

[BackToThe60s]

Remember how Carter & Co. were just hoping and praying that Ronald Reagan would get the GOP nomination? Remember how John Connally and Howard Baker were the candidates they feared the most?

Look, I don't want Rick Perry---or any other Republican---in the Oval Office.

But let's not get dismissive. Of anyone. The political volatility in this country right now is the highest I've ever seen it, so I ain't rulin' out ANYTHING!

Stay vigilant. Good night.

[still_one]

1. Perhaps, however, I do not believe people want another president from Texas. In addition, the

republican machine wants either romney or huntsman. Any of the other repuke nominees are too radical for the independents

The example I would use is mccain/palin. If mccain had not chosen palin, it would have been a much closer election.

Reagan may not have been the sharpest tack in the box, but compared to perry he was a genius. Most important, Reagan was not overtly mean. perry is not only mean, he is an asshole. His associates, and endorsers are some of the most despicable and hateful characters around.

[calimary]

2. People have remarkably short memories.

I'd bet on American gullibility, short-sightedness, impulsiveness, and willful ignorance. I don't have much confidence in America voters these days.

[Cosmocat]

5. People did not want another BUSH in office, either ...

The MSM, driven by the republican party in the 90s, was DEATHLY afraid of Hillary running for president in 99. So, they spent most of the decade screaming about how this is America, and we don't have royal families, and it just is not right to have the power of this country in one family for so long. At the same time, one of the core talking points during the 90s was ... WASHINGTON INSIDERS are bad ...

So, who do they nominate - GWB. The son of a man who was either VP or president for 12 straight years, and the very definition of a Washington insider.

But, the Rs defined the race along with the MSM, and all the screaming about one family having power in the white house disappeared overnight, and don't you know, GWB all of a sudden was some good ol boy from Texas, not the son of HWB ...

I remember 99 like yesterday. I spent the entire year just dumbfounded as to why GWB was taken serious by ANYONE. It was a complete mystery, and I was stunned at how the media ignored his MANY negatives and focused on the mind numbing "a guy you would like to have a beer with" nonsense, while at the same time so horrifically tearing down Gore. I remember election day, viscerally, and the thought that we were frucked.

People forget that. They forget how the 2004 race got framed the same ways. AND, they forget what BO had to beat - the Reverand Wright nonsense, the fricken FLAGPIN, "celebrity." They forget that Howard Dean was destroyed politically for a moment of simple emotion.

Sorry, the Rs get to define the public debate, and again, the public debate is going to this simple:

Rick Perry, STRONG jobs creator.
Barrack Obama, weak jobs killer.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. The irony of the "guy you could have a beer with" is that Bush (allegedly) doesn't drink

So no, you can't have a beer with him.

[calimary]

24. Yeah, and many of them are still saying that, while eagerly counting the days til they can vote for

rick perry.

NEVER underestimate the gullibility or stupidity or willful ignorance of the American electorate.

[COLGATE4]

7. H.L. Mencken said it a long time ago: "No one ever went broke

overestimating the stupidity of the American public". Right then, right now.

[Vicar In A Tutu]

3. Perry is no Reagan

And Obama isn't the snippy, grumpy Carter of his last year or so and won't appear as that in the debate, either. Both Perry and Reagan have been governors of huge states and that's where the real comparisons end. Perry has none of Reagan's personal positives, and Obama isn't blamed for the economy, unlike Carter, wasn't elected in a squeaker, unlike Carter, is facing a GOP who got elected last year and are ALREADY hated and victims of something like a 17 point swing in the polls for next year, there is no hostage situation.

Despite that, Reagan and Carter was actually a close race until the final stages. If you've watched the debates, I ask you to recall just how grumpy and I'll-tempered Carter seemed in comparison to Reagan. His demeanour was that of a man shattered and out of ideas whereas Reagan was sunny, likeable and very, very mainstream. That's part of the reason he captured so many Democrats. He wasn't a shifty Texas gunslinger like Perry, one who's always going to provoke a huge amount of suspicion, only four years removed from ANOTHER very much the same. He may have invoked God's name, but it wasn't the disturbing trope it is with Perry..

[stevenleser]

11. Reagan also had the ability to capture the state of California, the biggest Liberal state EV wise

That puts pressure on a Democratic opponent from the getgo.

Add the rest of the 1980 Reagan and national scenario you aptly describe and all the ingredients are there for a GOP victory.

It's hard to point to a large Democratic state where Perry would have a shot at winning. So, he basically has to win the George W. Bush states.

To make the election impossible for Perry to win ought to be easy. Not the same with the reverse. Obama's target states are Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida. That is six states where if President Obama wins two or three of them, it's virtually impossible for Perry to win. Add the fact that there are extremely unpopular GOP governors in three of those states, an energized Democratic base in Wisconsin, the Democratic convention in North Carolina, and you have a really good chance for the President even under difficult circumstances.

The potential GOP candidates that could have pressed Obama better in those states are either gone or are not gaining traction (Pawlenty and Huntsman).

[tritsofme]

15. It is easy to forget that between 1952 and 1988, Democrats only won

California in the landslide year of 1964. The electoral dynamics were totally different.

But you are right, for Perry his only plausible strategy is win the Bush states or bust.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Vermont was a red state back then too

The exodus of the moderate Republicans over to the Democratic side and the white racists over to the Republican side flipped the electoral map completely.

[bigdarryl]

4. Carter had a split democratic Party going into the general election because of

Ted Kennedy challenging him in the primary.Thats why when I here some stupid ass progressives say the President needs to be challenged in a primary to get him to go more to the left I laugh.People forget there history plus who ever said the Obama Administration is talking about hoping to run against Perry anyway

[baldguy]

6. I seem to recall another clown-like lightweight Texas Gov with no chance to win the Oval Office.

That turned out well, didn't it?

[mmonk]

8. Except Reagan didn't alienate conservatives who were fiscally,

not socially conservative, through the use of fundamentalism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. if the economy is not doing very well and there is a general sense of malaise in the air

then all bets are off on how the election will turn out. Of course we don't know that will be the case - but it is quite likely.

[n2doc]

10. Desperate people do desperate things

Combine with the 25-30% virulent racists/nutjobs out there and Perry only needs to pick up 20-25% of 'sane' people to win. And only in a majority of the electoral college. It is quite possible, if the economy goes into another recession.

[primavera]

12. There is a well established relationship in political science...

... between disenfranchisement and religious fundamentalism. When people feel that their political institutions are unresponsive to their needs, that their economic system does not provide for them, and there are no ways of improving one's lot through political or economic activity, they tend to turn to god to fix their problems. Since our economic system only provides for the richest of the rich, and our political system only services the richest of the rich, I don't think it's a coincidence that the main Repuke candidates are religious nutjobs: conditions definitely favor them.

[Golden Raisin]

13. I'm not young anymore

and absolutely nothing would surprise me anymore --- up to and including President Bachmann or Palin. I don't laugh at or dismiss anyone.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Uh, no I was there and I do not remember it that way at all.

Reagan was a well proven candidate, known by most of the country before he ever ran for office. He had defeated actual contenders in actual toss up elections. Perry is so very much not Reagan on so many levels that the comparison is fairly worthless, also Obama, faults and all, is in much better shape and energy than Carter was at this point. Much better shape.

[TrainToCry]

16. This isn't 1980. Nothing is the same.

[Honeycombe8]

17. You're right about being vigilant and not underestimating anyone. But it's not true that Reagan...

It's not true that Reagan was a longshot, appealing-to-the-far-right-only candidate. He was ALWAYS a strong candidate that appealed to the masses. If Carter thought Reagan was a lightweight, well, I guess that's one in the list of reasons that he lost in a landslide.

[jefferson_dem]

20. "I don't want Rick Perry---or any other Republican---in the Oval Office."

That part made me chuckle. Nobody here wants that, which is the exact reason why we need to all need to fight like hell to make sure Obama - the eventual Democratic nominee - squashes any republican/teabagger/nutjob they throw out there.

That being said, I offer four additional points:

1. 2012 is not 1980.
2. Obama is no Carter
3. Perry is no Reagan
4. Perry would be a much weaker general election candidate than Romney. Polls (early as it may be) already bear that out.

[Cosmocat]

23. The salient point is #1 ...

Agree that Obama is stronger than Carter was at the end of his term ...
And, yes, Reagen had a VERY long track record ...

But, the problem is, this is 2011, not 1999 ...

We have a a media that has lost any pretense at all of journalistic integrity. Over the last 30 years they have devolved to the point where they OPENLY tear down Ds and prop up Rs. They don't even try to hide it at this pont.

The people are getting MUCH different information now. Information designed to marginalize the democrat and protect or pump up the R. Would Faux have ever existed then.

Also, people are A LOT different.

I am not so niave as to think everyone took their civic responsibility as a life or death measure back then, but we are a people today who are dealing as such a painfully superficial level - again, politically, the Rs have totally reframed everything. People have been allowed to think they can get something for nothing - taxes in particular.

In total the tone/atmosphere is so different. NEVER would lunatics such as Bachman or Palin be given so much of a platform. NEVER would clowns like Christine O'Donnell or Sharon Angle be viable contenders for the SENATE.

5 years before the 79 elections REPUBLICANS were responsible in great part for the impeachment of a REPUBLICAN president. % years before this election, democrats would not even consider even investigating a republican president who committed the worst act against our country in our history in lying us into a disasterous military endevor. In between the Rs spent 10s of millions investigating, with dozens of hearings a democratic president, including the fan mail of his fricken pet cat.

Perry is almost even with Romney NOW, and this is after Romney campaigning for five years running, and Perry not being on the radar until about three months ago.

Romney would be a real threat depending on how things shake down the next 15 months. But, Perry is the guy their party has been looking for, someone who the whole party will get behind ENTHUSIASTICALLY ...

[Imajika]

21. Anyone who thinks Perry can't win is a fool..

If the economy sucks bad enough, he not only could win but probably will win.

I just don't think the economy is going to be awful enough to allow for that. I think we will see sluggish growth, which will be just enough for the President to plausibly claim things are still improving (albeit slowly). If the economy goes backwards though, all bets are off.

[LatteLibertine]

22. He could win

and I really can't see any informed independent supporting him. I'm saying I doubt it.

We don't need another religious fundie from Texas that was a C student.

He gives me serious Dubyah flashbacks.

[calimary]

25. And they don't remember the year 2000 either.

:banghead: