(Yes the title is somewhat intentionally obnoxious. After a re-reading I found the tone of this post to be pedantic, but I was too busy to change it. Sorry.)
Relating to a conversation between me and Jeffrey in the post below, I dug up this video of the crucial Reagan Carter debate in 1980. Carter is attacking Reagan on "policy" grounds, and Reagan responds with the "right" words at the right time. It might be useful to understand why these words are so devastating, and why Reagan is accumulating millions of "votes" during these moments, which will lead to an historic electoral stomping.
You just watched millions of votes move. Isn't that worth some study, for those who might be politically inclined? Will the "49% progressives" take heed?
Yes, Reagan made a questionable speech in Philadelphia, MS. But that wasn't what enabled him to seize a political opportunity that led to the Presidency. The "States rights" speech in Mississippi won't help someone understand why Reagan carried New York and New England on election day in 1980.
Think about the reasons why Reagan was broadly appealing in 1980. It wasn't because of his "policies", and it wasn't because he was the "anger" candidate, as Jeffrey seems to believe.
I would submit that Progressives and Dems interested in winning an election can learn from the political example in this video. The context in this video is not Medicare or Philadelphia Mississippi or "welfare queens". Millions of votes are moving here... it's worth a bit of clear- headed study. A candidate who has learned these political lessons might be especially dangerous.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A doorway to political understanding
7 comments
DiggIt!
Del.icio.us
7 Comments:
You needn't apologize for being pedantic as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes I have trouble following the more convoluted stuff. But this, I get. Very interesting.
Sometimes you just have to be confident in what you say.... I see no flaw with the title.
Reagan carried New England and New York because of John Anderson. Without Whitey Anderson it would have been an ass whupping instead of total humiliation. Otherwise I agree with the post and the previous one. I'm not a purist either.
See now you've opened a second thread while I'm still bloviating away in the one below. This is getting too confusing for me.
You're right, A. It's amusing to recall a time when a liberal/moderate Republican was taking votes away from an incumbent Dem president.
Ack. I can't believe how many folks are going on about this.
I remember that moment. I was not impressed and it did not change my vote. Big surprise, I'm a liberal.
I would not change my vote either in the primary or general elections based on someone saying something positive about Reagan.
That doesn't mean I agree with what Obama said or any of the other large number of Dems who have said positive things about Reagan.
It just means I hate Reagan, have good reason to hate him, and will never say anything positive about him.
I think this is a complete non-issue.
By 
Nightprowlkitty, at
11:58 AM
Dude, Reagan won for the same reason (essentially) that George W. Bush won--because he was a candidate who gave many people the impression (even if he never specifically said it) that he was going to be their Daddy and protect them from all the turmoil and change going on in the world who was facing a candidate who was telling everyone that change was a fact and that they'd have to get used to it and deal with it.
By , at
2:48 PM