Turnout in 2012

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

No one thinks that a conservative nominee will motivate the Democratic base to vote? Hah!  Also remember that every 2 years that go by states continue to have minority population growth, primarily the Hispanic population in the southwest.  So even if turn out is slightly lower, the overall numbers could be so high that it replicates 2008.  Of course this depends on how the GOP acts the following months.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

This is such BS. The nation is not nearly as right-wing as it was in the 1980s and 1990s. Those were great decades, especially the latter half of each decade. I'll take that any day over Obama's days of malaise. Bill Clinton could never win the support of liberals and progressives in this climate. And he was a great president. The problem is not the right, although some of them are a bit loopy on some social issues, but the left. They have this fantasy belief that government is some panacea that is the solution to any and every economic problem. I am scared where this fantasy will lead if it continues as is or, worse, is fully implemented to the greatest degree possible.

And this is coming from a former Gore and Kerry supporter (And a moderate Obama supporter in 2008).

You are right, our country is no where near as conservative as the 1980s.  That is why it is interesting to see the Republican party move further to the right.  Reagan wouldn't even stand a chance with the modern day conservative GOP base.  He would be labeled as a left wing liberal for having the audacity to slightly raise taxes.   He would be labeled a debt lover because of the increased national debt during the Reagan administration.  He would be labeled as an anti-Business politician because he lacked the utter hatred for unions the way the modern GOP base does.  The conservatives have this fantasy that the invisible hand of the market will magically fix everything.  That's why Texas has more than 27% of it's residents lacking health care insurance whereas Massachusetts has around 5% lacking health care insurance under the guise of a big government plan.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

1. Taxes were much lower in January 1989 than January 1981
2. Reagan largely got what he wanted because of southern Democrats who would be derided as DINOs today
3. The border was not a free-for-all in the 1980s, one of the most tense periods of the Cold War
4. Reagan single-handedly dismantled a major public union (i.e, PATCO). This had not been done before, and possibly never will happen again

This is reality, not spin. With that said, I am willing to cede that Reagan knew when he needed to be pragmatic. The same goes for Clinton. It is a common characteristic of good presidents. But if you really believe the GOP would not nominate Reagan, a man much further to the right of McCain and the Bushes, I do not know what else to say. I will add that I am not a registered Republican, and it appears we are both registered Democrats (although it is growing increasingly difficult to remain as such; the poles of the big tent are becoming wobbly)

That doesn't change the fact that Reagan raised taxes.  He negotiated with Tip O'Neil, hardly a southern DINO.  Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.  The bottom line is that Reagan violates so many modern day conservative principles he wouldn't stand a chance.  If any GOP candidate for the 2012 took his stances they would have no chance.  

"Where Collective Bargaining Is Forbidden, Freedom Is Lost"

Imagine any GOP candidate today actually saying that.  This all goes back to your initial point.  Yes the country is nowhere near as conservative as it was in the 1980s.  Yet the GOP keeps moving to the right.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

1. Taxes were much lower in January 1989 than January 1981
2. Reagan largely got what he wanted because of southern Democrats who would be derided as DINOs today
3. The border was not a free-for-all in the 1980s, one of the most tense periods of the Cold War
4. Reagan single-handedly dismantled a major public union (i.e, PATCO). This had not been done before, and possibly never will happen again

This is reality, not spin. With that said, I am willing to cede that Reagan knew when he needed to be pragmatic. The same goes for Clinton. It is a common characteristic of good presidents. But if you really believe the GOP would not nominate Reagan, a man much further to the right of McCain and the Bushes, I do not know what else to say. I will add that I am not a registered Republican, and it appears we are both registered Democrats (although it is growing increasingly difficult to remain as such; the poles of the big tent are becoming wobbly)

That doesn't change the fact that Reagan raised taxes.  He negotiated with Tip O'Neil, hardly a southern DINO.  Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.  The bottom line is that Reagan violates so many modern day conservative principles he wouldn't stand a chance.  If any GOP candidate for the 2012 took his stances they would have no chance.  

"Where Collective Bargaining Is Forbidden, Freedom Is Lost"

Imagine any GOP candidate today actually saying that.  This all goes back to your initial point.  Yes the country is nowhere near as conservative as it was in the 1980s.  Yet the GOP keeps moving to the right.

If you slightly raise corporate taxes during your term as president, but cut income taxes more than anybody before or since, well, it makes you the biggest tax cutter in American presidential history. That, along with the buildup in the military, is the Reagan legacy. I cannot believe you are trying to act like Reagan pursued the policies of Dukakis. And, yes, it is true that Reagan negotiated with O'Neil on the budgets, but so what? What else was he going to do? You have to negotiate with the Speaker of the House on budget deals, or the government does not agree to a budget and there is a shutdown.Another thing not to overlook is that many of the illegal immigrants Reagan gave amnesty to were Cuban exiles, and can you blame them for doing what they did? Your attack on Reagan's record on unions is absurd. This is the man who destroyed PATCO and the labor movement has been in decline ever since his tenure.

lol I haven't mentioned Dukakis once, nice try, but this is about Reagan's hypothetical feasibility in 2012

I don't understand your argumentative attitude.  I am saying that I agree with your initial statement that the country isn't as conservative as the 80s.  I just see that Reagan would have no chance in the in this election cycle.  Reagan would be tossed aside as a RINO

I also don't blame illegal immigrants from leaving Mexico for a better life.  News flash, that is why people come to this country.

You are right Reagan did raise taxes.  The GOP candidates are calling to cut corporate taxes dramatically.

The decline of labor has been due to weak Democrats from the 90s and the first decade of this millennium

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

If anyone thinks Reagan stands a chance in this decade they are truly out of touch.  Sorry if you think he has a chance, but he would be a 1% candidate.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

1. Taxes were much lower in January 1989 than January 1981
2. Reagan largely got what he wanted because of southern Democrats who would be derided as DINOs today
3. The border was not a free-for-all in the 1980s, one of the most tense periods of the Cold War
4. Reagan single-handedly dismantled a major public union (i.e, PATCO). This had not been done before, and possibly never will happen again

This is reality, not spin. With that said, I am willing to cede that Reagan knew when he needed to be pragmatic. The same goes for Clinton. It is a common characteristic of good presidents. But if you really believe the GOP would not nominate Reagan, a man much further to the right of McCain and the Bushes, I do not know what else to say. I will add that I am not a registered Republican, and it appears we are both registered Democrats (although it is growing increasingly difficult to remain as such; the poles of the big tent are becoming wobbly)

That doesn't change the fact that Reagan raised taxes.  He negotiated with Tip O'Neil, hardly a southern DINO.  Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.  The bottom line is that Reagan violates so many modern day conservative principles he wouldn't stand a chance.  If any GOP candidate for the 2012 took his stances they would have no chance.  

"Where Collective Bargaining Is Forbidden, Freedom Is Lost"

Imagine any GOP candidate today actually saying that.  This all goes back to your initial point.  Yes the country is nowhere near as conservative as it was in the 1980s.  Yet the GOP keeps moving to the right.

If you slightly raise corporate taxes during your term as president, but cut income taxes more than anybody before or since, well, it makes you the biggest tax cutter in American presidential history. That, along with the buildup in the military, is the Reagan legacy. I cannot believe you are trying to act like Reagan pursued the policies of Dukakis. And, yes, it is true that Reagan negotiated with O'Neil on the budgets, but so what? What else was he going to do? You have to negotiate with the Speaker of the House on budget deals, or the government does not agree to a budget and there is a shutdown.Another thing not to overlook is that many of the illegal immigrants Reagan gave amnesty to were Cuban exiles, and can you blame them for doing what they did? Your attack on Reagan's record on unions is absurd. This is the man who destroyed PATCO and the labor movement has been in decline ever since his tenure.

lol I haven't mentioned Dukakis once, nice try, but this is about Reagan's hypothetical feasibility in 2012

I don't understand your argumentative attitude.  I am saying that I agree with your initial statement that the country isn't as conservative as the 80s.  I just see that Reagan would have no chance in the in this election cycle.  Reagan would be tossed aside as a RINO

I also don't blame illegal immigrants from leaving Mexico for a better life.  News flash, that is why people come to this country.

You are right Reagan did raise taxes.  The GOP candidates are calling to cut corporate taxes dramatically.

The decline of labor has been due to weak Democrats from the 90s and the first decade of this millennium

The decline of labor has been happening for decades. It started a long-time before the 90s or this past decade. The biggest hit in the history of labor was probably Reagan shutting down PATCO, which really fueled an acceleration in the diminishing power of unions.

We'll just have to disagree on the Reagan hypothetical. His philosophy is the foundation of the GOP today. I see no way he does not win this nomination today simply because he was pragmatic from time to time. That did not stop John McCain or George W. Bush from getting the nod.

His philosophy isn't being embraced by the GOP, his name is (corporate tax increase, amnesty, a near tripling of the debt, etc).  John McCain received the nomination likely due to the historical precedent of the GOP base selecting the next-in-line.

Even so I still agree with your initial point that the country is not as conservative as the 80s or the 90s.  So even if the current GOP candidates were equivalent to Reagan they would still face major obstacles.

Maybe you're right about the nomination, the cult-of-personality with Reagan is so prevalent that he could call for an across the board tax increase to fight the debt and the GOP base would be satisfied with it.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

1. Taxes were much lower in January 1989 than January 1981
2. Reagan largely got what he wanted because of southern Democrats who would be derided as DINOs today
3. The border was not a free-for-all in the 1980s, one of the most tense periods of the Cold War
4. Reagan single-handedly dismantled a major public union (i.e, PATCO). This had not been done before, and possibly never will happen again

This is reality, not spin. With that said, I am willing to cede that Reagan knew when he needed to be pragmatic. The same goes for Clinton. It is a common characteristic of good presidents. But if you really believe the GOP would not nominate Reagan, a man much further to the right of McCain and the Bushes, I do not know what else to say. I will add that I am not a registered Republican, and it appears we are both registered Democrats (although it is growing increasingly difficult to remain as such; the poles of the big tent are becoming wobbly)

That doesn't change the fact that Reagan raised taxes.  He negotiated with Tip O'Neil, hardly a southern DINO.  Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.  The bottom line is that Reagan violates so many modern day conservative principles he wouldn't stand a chance.  If any GOP candidate for the 2012 took his stances they would have no chance.  

"Where Collective Bargaining Is Forbidden, Freedom Is Lost"

Imagine any GOP candidate today actually saying that.  This all goes back to your initial point.  Yes the country is nowhere near as conservative as it was in the 1980s.  Yet the GOP keeps moving to the right.

If you slightly raise corporate taxes during your term as president, but cut income taxes more than anybody before or since, well, it makes you the biggest tax cutter in American presidential history. That, along with the buildup in the military, is the Reagan legacy. I cannot believe you are trying to act like Reagan pursued the policies of Dukakis. And, yes, it is true that Reagan negotiated with O'Neil on the budgets, but so what? What else was he going to do? You have to negotiate with the Speaker of the House on budget deals, or the government does not agree to a budget and there is a shutdown.Another thing not to overlook is that many of the illegal immigrants Reagan gave amnesty to were Cuban exiles, and can you blame them for doing what they did? Your attack on Reagan's record on unions is absurd. This is the man who destroyed PATCO and the labor movement has been in decline ever since his tenure.

lol I haven't mentioned Dukakis once, nice try, but this is about Reagan's hypothetical feasibility in 2012

I don't understand your argumentative attitude.  I am saying that I agree with your initial statement that the country isn't as conservative as the 80s.  I just see that Reagan would have no chance in the in this election cycle.  Reagan would be tossed aside as a RINO

I also don't blame illegal immigrants from leaving Mexico for a better life.  News flash, that is why people come to this country.

You are right Reagan did raise taxes.  The GOP candidates are calling to cut corporate taxes dramatically.

The decline of labor has been due to weak Democrats from the 90s and the first decade of this millennium

The decline of labor has been happening for decades. It started a long-time before the 90s or this past decade. The biggest hit in the history of labor was probably Reagan shutting down PATCO, which really fueled an acceleration in the diminishing power of unions.

We'll just have to disagree on the Reagan hypothetical. His philosophy is the foundation of the GOP today. I see no way he does not win this nomination today simply because he was pragmatic from time to time. That did not stop John McCain or George W. Bush from getting the nod.

His philosophy isn't being embraced by the GOP, his name is (corporate tax increase, amnesty, a near tripling of the debt, etc).  John McCain received the nomination likely due to the historical precedent of the GOP base selecting the next-in-line.

Even so I still agree with your initial point that the country is not as conservative as the 80s or the 90s.  So even if the current GOP candidates were equivalent to Reagan they would still face major obstacles.

Maybe you're right about the nomination, the cult-of-personality with Reagan is so prevalent that he could call for an across the board tax increase to fight the debt and the GOP base would be satisfied with it.

I think you, and the rest of the people who are trying to label Reagan as some sort of massive tax hiker, really have no concept of what America was like in the late 1970s compared to after Reagan. Just take a look at a table of historical income tax rates some time.

Where did I say he was a massive tax hiker?  I said he raised taxes, which you admitted.  That is a historical fact.  It is also a fact that the current GOP candidates are against any tax increase.  

Do you think a GOP candidate could survive this primary if he said "time to raise taxes somewhat"?  No way, they would be a bottom-tier candidate.  The Reagan-myth is what the GOP candidates are idolizing as opposed Reagan-reality.  

You may very well be right that Reagan himself as a figure could win, likely due to his personality, but if you were to take 100% of his stances and policies and give them to Romney he would stand no chance, none.

This entire debate started when I agreed with you when you said the country was not as conservative as the 80s and I agree with that.  So why would you even want to use the Reagan policy positions with that being the hypothesis?  Moving to the left would be best for the GOP chances in the general, not the right