'it looks like a landslide, folks...'

[Politico]

Carter's people were saying the same thing this time thirty two years ago.

[Politico]

Carter's people were saying the same thing this time thirty two years ago.

When Reagan ran an absolutely terrible campaign? No, not quite but revisionist history is always cute.

Reagan ran a decent campaign, but in September 1980 Carter's team still had more people terrified at the prospect of President Reagan than the number of people scared of President Romney right now. At one point, Reagan was even polling in the upper 30s in October. It took the debate to turn the tide.

If your boy had simply stepped aside in January, we wouldn't be having problems right now because Romney could have ran with the type of rhetoric that would have him leading 54-44 right now.

[Politico]

Carter's people were saying the same thing this time thirty two years ago.

When Reagan ran an absolutely terrible campaign? No, not quite but revisionist history is always cute.

Reagan ran a decent campaign, but in September 1980 Carter's team still had more people terrified at the prospect of President Reagan than the number of people scared of President Romney right now. It took the debate to turn the tide.

Do you think Mitt Romney is as good a candidate as Ronald Reagan?

Of course not, but this environment is just as toxic as 1980. And Reagan only became an exceptional candidate of the highest caliber AFTER becoming president (i.e., after surviving the attempt on his life in 1981). Furthermore, Romney has the capability of being just as good of a president as Reagan (although nobody can touch his presidential communication skills obviously).

[Politico]

Carter's people were saying the same thing this time thirty two years ago.

When Reagan ran an absolutely terrible campaign? No, not quite but revisionist history is always cute.

Reagan ran a decent campaign, but in September 1980 Carter's team still had more people terrified at the prospect of President Reagan than the number of people scared of President Romney right now. It took the debate to turn the tide.

Do you think Mitt Romney is as good a candidate as Ronald Reagan?

Of course not, but this environment is just as toxic as 1980. And Reagan only became an exceptional candidate of the highest caliber AFTER becoming president (i.e., after surviving the attempt on his life in 1981). Furthermore, Romney has the capability of being just as good of a president as Reagan (although nobody can touch his presidential communication skills obviously).

Are you on drugs?

Reagan was never super popular until after the attempt on his life. He was polling in the upper 30s less than a month before the election, for crying out loud. Go watch the 1980 RNC. It's not particularly more noteworthy than the 2012 RNC. Go read what people were saying about Reagan in September 1980. It's not exactly much different from what people are saying about Romney right now.

[Politico]

For those who like to compare 2012 to 1980, don't forget that Reagan was in the lead in the polls from late May onwards, and was ahead by 20 points after the Republican convention. Carter narrowed the gap somewhat during the fall, but never closed it all the way, and Reagan's surge in the final week increased his already-existing lead, rather than moving him to the lead for the first time.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/09/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/

Instead of using a source called "The Monkey Cage," I suggest utilizing sources such as Princeton and Gallup:


http://election.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/gallup80.jpg

Yes, at one point in 1980 Carter led Reagan by almost 30 points! The second last poll in late October, right before the debate, had Carter up 46-39. In contrast, Gallup has the race at 47-46 right now in Obama's favor although Romney is gaining traction due to the weakness on the foreign policy front and the growing disillusion with domestic Democratic rhetoric and their failure to produce the right results.

[Politico]

It seems the worse Romney does, the more higher right-wingers seem think his chances of winning are. Why would there be a 1980 landslide for Romney at this point? No polls are showing that happening.

Sustained days of malaise like we are seeing today have not been seen since Jimmy Carter's heyday in 1980. Look at the above poll if you want to know why we are supremely confident. The best debater in the world would not be able to defend Obama's record and this environment. The Romney campaign has been putting unprecedented resources into preparing for the debates. The debates are going to break Obama once and for all, first on the domestic front and then on the foreign front. There will not be another left-wing president in the White House for another generation after all is said and done.

What part do you guys not get: Romney refuses to lose. The guy is Rambo. Romney and many members of his team have dedicated over half of a decade towards winning this election, and they will not lose.

[Politico]

These days of malaise have not been seen since Jimmy Carter's heyday in 1980. Look at the above poll if you want to know why we are supremely confident. The best debater in the world would not be able to defend Obama's record and this environment.

It isn't 1980 and Obama isn't Carter. Have you seen the polls for the current race? They don't support any landslide happening for Romney.

What matters is where we are headed, not where we are (even though where we are is a better position than what Reagan had on September 18, 1980).

Jimmy Carter's grandson's videotape leak is only fueling the narrative Romney wants: What kind of America do we want: Obama's Big Government of American decline, or Romney's America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility?

BTW, do you guys really believe it's a coincidence that Jimmy Carter's unemployed grandson was the one involved with leaking the tape?

[Politico]

thanks to mitt's insensitive remarks, he turned a respectable loss into a landslide.

Quick question: What percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes know that they do not pay federal income taxes?

Crazy as it may sound, Mitt may actually have a winning thread here - if only because no one will admit to being in the category that he speaks of and 'lazy non-tax payers' are an easy scapegoat.

Then again, I've been purged of all doubt as it pertains to Mitt Romney's ability to screw up an easy sell.

It's probably not a coincidence that Jimmy Carter's unemployed grandson is the man behind the leaking of the tape. This may be a planned leak of the Karl Rove variety for the reasons you have outlined above. It's probably not a coincidence that Obama is at roughly 47% in the polls right now, right after the leaking of this tape (e.g., somebody asks somebody who they support, gets the answer Obama, and the snark response: "Oh, you're one of those 47%, huh?" Multiply scenarios like this a few thousand times over the next few weeks, and watch what happens nationally)

I've told you guys time and time again: There's no stopping Romney. There is a method to the madness. You didn't really think anybody could ever possibly beat "Obama The Master Politician" the traditional way, did you?

[Politico]

Gallup has always been the gold standard. 1980 was much different from today. Gallup is pretty much the only poll that mattered back then.

[Politico]

These are landslides:









Not this:

This and I would add 1980 to the list.

I am kind of sick of relatively minor deviations from 2000 being considered a "landslide."

[Politico]

I am kind of sick of relatively minor deviations from 2000 being considered a "landslide."

Where "minor deviation" = nearly 100 more electoral votes for the winner than in 2000.

Come on...take away a handful of states and we're talking about a loss. That's not a landslide.

[Politico]

I am kind of sick of relatively minor deviations from 2000 being considered a "landslide."

Where "minor deviation" = nearly 100 more electoral votes for the winner than in 2000.

Come on...take away a handful of states and we're talking about a loss. That's not a landslide.

If the states are CA, NY, and FL, sure.

Take away OH, PA, VA, NC, and FL from Obama and he loses 2008. That's not a landslide.