General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReagan is Dead and would not get Elected Today
most of the people that Reagan appealed to have died off and those who are left are the teabaggers of today.
these people see "their america" slipping away from them. a black president, gays getting married are things they don't find acceptable in "their country". they are loud and the media whores give them far more attention than they should get for their numbers.
these people convinced themselves that Obama was the worst president ever. the first time he got elected was bad enough but they convinced themselves that it was liberal media and that people would see how bad he was and they would get their "i told you so".
but then he was elected again and they could not accept it.
i don't think Reagan could get elected today because he appealed to a certain type who viewed america a certain way. the southern strategy could not keep up with the change in demographics.
what we see now are people who think the country should be punished for electing a black president , and for supporting gay rights, and anything else they view as going against "their country".
Loudly
(2,436 posts)Pretty sure he couldn't be governor of California!
So what roadblock does THAT stand in his way?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)It wasn't too long ago that a majority of California voters were happy to vote for another Republican actor-turned-governor.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Schwarzenegger was lucky to get in on a recall election of an unpopular (unlucky, more like) Governor. And Arnold wasn't exactly a Tea Party type.
Look at the California legislature: it's been very Democratic for quite some time now. And we're now Democratic at all levels of government. We also vote around 60% for Democratic presidential candidates-not bad for the nation's most populous state!
JI7
(89,250 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)JI7
(89,250 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)Encourage that you say what you mean.
Reagan couldn't get elected today, not because his supporters have died off, but because in today's Republican Party, he would simply be considered too far left to pass muster. A "RINO" in other words.
We're talking about the man who signed amnesty for millions of undocumented workers in 1986 here.
He wouldn't survive a Republican primary today, just like how Rubio was thrown under the bus after his (rather weak) immigration reform remarks.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Among (especially) white middle-class and upper-class voters, his appeal was national. Look at the state he was Governor of, for starters-hardly a Southern state.
Many of the people who voted for Reagan were well-educated, too, so educational levels don't tell the whole story.
JI7
(89,250 posts)and i think that appealed to people in places like california and other states also.
california back then was not like california is today.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Many areas of the country, however, were not nearly as progressive in overall culture as they are today.
The problem with today's politics is that it's totally at odds with the culture. Most people (of those who are paying attention to politics, that is) are just disgusted with the whole process of national politics; in California and elsewhere, that anger is directed mostly at the GOP, if opinion polls are any guide.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 15, 2013, 04:48 AM - Edit history (1)
West Virginia, Maryland, and Hawaii in 1980. And DC also went for Carter.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)that I'm not old enough to remember Reagan's presidency, or else I may have ended up with a broken TV whenever I saw him on. Some people talk about him being "too liberal" to fit in today's Republican Party well, but I call bologna on that; Reagan would've fit in just fine with these neo-confederates in today's GOP. The man was nothing but a scam artist who popularized trickle-down, and a hate-monger. How dare he make up that Welfare Queen lie and stir up conservative resentment of Blacks. You don't see Democrats (or liberals in general) doing anything like Reagan did while campaigning and as president.
Reagan was one President who genuinely makes me sick whenever I read about him, and thank God that the Southern Strategy is finally starting to lose its effectiveness in national elections.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)spent being welcomed into the living rooms of many American people weekly.
I don't think you can generalize about politics using either Ronnie or Arnold.
Reagan's political era was also the era of the religious right reacting to Roe v. Wade and World War II veterans and others reacting to the drugs and rebellion of the Sixties.
For better or worse, the culture is not the same now.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)a great one, but good enough. He knew how to deliver a line in a genial, aw shucks kind of way that appealed to the average guy who was naive enough to fall for the anti-government pablum he was selling. He had a lot of people buffaloed.
I remember visiting my Reagan Democrat (now staunch R) aunt during the 80s and her telling me with a straight face that she loved him because of his strong "family values" and his dislike of "welfare queens" who loaded up their grocery carts with cigarettes and booze paid for with food stamps. No use arguing with someone living in an alternate universe.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)And the zombie apocalypse will begin.
jmowreader
(50,559 posts)If Reagan was alive right now, and running for president in this era, he would have done two things that would have ensured his election.
First is that he would have convinced the voters he was a far-right ideologue. The fact he actually WAS one, would have helped some.
And second, he would have molded his policies to conform to the expectations of the tea baggers. Yes, the Reagan of thirty years ago couldn't have gotten elected because he was too far to the left. The Reagan of today would have been the ultimate teabagger. You think Rand Paul is bad? Well buddy, that's because you haven't been given the opportunity to see the 21st Century Ronnie.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)was that he didn't seek to privatize Social Security. Instead, he increased the FICA taxes on the lowest income earners, while limiting the maximum income that was subject to FICA tax.
As governor of California, he sicked the National Guard on students at Berkeley, an action that would be imitated by Ohio governor James Rhodes a year later at Kent State.
He delighted in denigrating liberals, welfare families, the unemployed, and the downtrodden.
He had absolutely no environmental sense, once proclaiming that trees caused more pollution than automobiles. And he appointed people like Anne Gorsuch and James Watt, the antithesis of environmentalists, to key environmental positions.
He strongly favored military spending over domestic social services spending, and never met a "gold-plated" weapons system that he didn't like.
He dumped Carter's human rights foreign policy in favor of supporting right-wing dictators and insurgents.
The only advice he had for unemployed workers (and there were a lot of them back in 1981-83) was that they should "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and "vote with their feet", presumably just like the Joads did in Grapes of Wrath.
And his attorney-general, Edwin "all suspects are guilty" Meese, whom he supported whole-heartedly, is in the news today as an instigator of the current shutdown.
So no, the man was not "left" by any stretch, even by today's loose standards.
TeamPooka
(24,228 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)pstokely
(10,528 posts)?
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)For one thing his views are considered liberal to the tea party.
For another, he's dead.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)i wouldn't say he would be liberal today
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I said he could get elected as a liberal Democrat, not the same thing at all.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Please see my post #20 for the reasons why.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I said he could be elected as a liberal Democrat these days.
Really is two different things.