Could Romney be the new Reagan?

[Phony Moderate]

Romney is too Liberal on the social issues, even after flip flopping, to be another Reagan.

[LastMcGovernite]

More like the new McKinley.

Mitt Romney is the next Bob Dole.

He should be so lucky as to be as honorable as Bob Dole.  Forget political successes or failures, as a man Romney could never hold a candle to Bob Dole.

hear, hear.  or is it here, here?  Either way...

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Mitt Romney is the next Bob Dole.

He should be so lucky as to be as honorable as Bob Dole.  Forget political successes or failures, as a man Romney could never hold a candle to Bob Dole.

Amen.

[Devilman88]

No, Reagan was a conservative. Romney, just a mormon.

[Mr.Phips]

In 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected in the midst of a slow economy and doubts about the previous administration, similarly to how President Obama was elected in 2008. People viewed Carter as a "change" and a fresh new, young face in the White House, which is, to some extent, what Obama's campaign ran on. Despite people's wishes, Carter failed to fix the economy and the country quickly down-spiraled. Carter had failed. As we all know, Reagan was elected by a landslide in 1980 and handily defeated Carter. Whether you believe that Reagan himself was responsible for the turnaround of the economy, nobody can argue that the economy did indeed come out of the slump it was in under the Reagan administration. People associated the recovery with Reagan's presidency and it served as one of the primary reasons why he was so popular.

Could Mitt Romney be the next Ronald Reagan? If Obama fails to fix the economy and the country continues to downspiral, could we see Romney not only elected by a landslide in 2012, but the economy prosper under an 8-year Romney administration?

I so agree with you! We need Romney now.

Do you miss Ronald Reagan? At least we now have a President who uses much the same techniques and displays the same political skills. As a liberal I thought that Reagan would fail as President due to his right-wing ideology. In 1984 only thirteen electoral votes went to his opponent. Reagan was effective, which is enough to win the moderate vote. Add the moderate vote to the core partisan vote and you get a monumental landslide.

Leading indicators suggest that we are now pulling out of an economic downturn. Obama might not deserve credit for an economic upturn, but if there is one he won't get blame for it. He is far more adept than Dubya as a diplomat -- and in view of what goes on in North Korea, we will need that. 

If you want to compare elections, then try 1980 and 2008. Americans wanted leadership very different from what they had endured recently in both years -- and voted for change. They got change. It may be hard for you to believe, but Obama got a higher percentage of the nationwide vote in 2008 than did Reagan in 1980 -- but not by much.  The big difference? There wasn't someone siphoning votes away from the losing candidate.

Romney 2016? Maybe. 2012? You will be doing him a huge disservice.

I don't know. My gut is telling me Obama's reelection will be based on not if the economy recovers, but how health care reform and cap-and-trade legislation fare in congress. If they fail even with Obama's backing, he will seem weak and partisan, which will significantly hurt his image. I think this image damage will be disproportionate amongst the youth, who are very idealistic and really believed in Obama.

Not necessarily Clinton failed with health care reform, but recovered nicely by 1996.

Clinton recovered because Republicans gained control of Congress and the American people did not want to hand the whole government over to Republicans. 

[Daniel Z]

In 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected in the midst of a slow economy and doubts about the previous administration, similarly to how President Obama was elected in 2008. People viewed Carter as a "change" and a fresh new, young face in the White House, which is, to some extent, what Obama's campaign ran on. Despite people's wishes, Carter failed to fix the economy and the country quickly down-spiraled. Carter had failed. As we all know, Reagan was elected by a landslide in 1980 and handily defeated Carter. Whether you believe that Reagan himself was responsible for the turnaround of the economy, nobody can argue that the economy did indeed come out of the slump it was in under the Reagan administration. People associated the recovery with Reagan's presidency and it served as one of the primary reasons why he was so popular.

Could Mitt Romney be the next Ronald Reagan? If Obama fails to fix the economy and the country continues to downspiral, could we see Romney not only elected by a landslide in 2012, but the economy prosper under an 8-year Romney administration?

I so agree with you! We need Romney now.

Do you miss Ronald Reagan? At least we now have a President who uses much the same techniques and displays the same political skills. As a liberal I thought that Reagan would fail as President due to his right-wing ideology. In 1984 only thirteen electoral votes went to his opponent. Reagan was effective, which is enough to win the moderate vote. Add the moderate vote to the core partisan vote and you get a monumental landslide.

Leading indicators suggest that we are now pulling out of an economic downturn. Obama might not deserve credit for an economic upturn, but if there is one he won't get blame for it. He is far more adept than Dubya as a diplomat -- and in view of what goes on in North Korea, we will need that. 

If you want to compare elections, then try 1980 and 2008. Americans wanted leadership very different from what they had endured recently in both years -- and voted for change. They got change. It may be hard for you to believe, but Obama got a higher percentage of the nationwide vote in 2008 than did Reagan in 1980 -- but not by much.  The big difference? There wasn't someone siphoning votes away from the losing candidate.

Romney 2016? Maybe. 2012? You will be doing him a huge disservice.

I don't know. My gut is telling me Obama's reelection will be based on not if the economy recovers, but how health care reform and cap-and-trade legislation fare in congress. If they fail even with Obama's backing, he will seem weak and partisan, which will significantly hurt his image. I think this image damage will be disproportionate amongst the youth, who are very idealistic and really believed in Obama.

Not necessarily Clinton failed with health care reform, but recovered nicely by 1996.

Clinton recovered because Republicans gained control of Congress and the American people did not want to hand the whole government over to Republicans. 

I am skeptical that a lot of voters vote simply to prevent one party from gaining power over every branch of government. My point is that failing at a major domestic policy reform does not seem to be strongly correlated to electoral success. I don't think failure helps, but the overall foreign and domestic situation is probably what has the greatest impact on voters. In 1996 the world was in relative peace and the economy was doing well. Had we been in a significant recession I don't doubt for a second that voters would have been willing to give Republicans complete control like they gave Democrats complete control in 2008.

[Vepres]

In 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected in the midst of a slow economy and doubts about the previous administration, similarly to how President Obama was elected in 2008. People viewed Carter as a "change" and a fresh new, young face in the White House, which is, to some extent, what Obama's campaign ran on. Despite people's wishes, Carter failed to fix the economy and the country quickly down-spiraled. Carter had failed. As we all know, Reagan was elected by a landslide in 1980 and handily defeated Carter. Whether you believe that Reagan himself was responsible for the turnaround of the economy, nobody can argue that the economy did indeed come out of the slump it was in under the Reagan administration. People associated the recovery with Reagan's presidency and it served as one of the primary reasons why he was so popular.

Could Mitt Romney be the next Ronald Reagan? If Obama fails to fix the economy and the country continues to downspiral, could we see Romney not only elected by a landslide in 2012, but the economy prosper under an 8-year Romney administration?

I so agree with you! We need Romney now.

Do you miss Ronald Reagan? At least we now have a President who uses much the same techniques and displays the same political skills. As a liberal I thought that Reagan would fail as President due to his right-wing ideology. In 1984 only thirteen electoral votes went to his opponent. Reagan was effective, which is enough to win the moderate vote. Add the moderate vote to the core partisan vote and you get a monumental landslide.

Leading indicators suggest that we are now pulling out of an economic downturn. Obama might not deserve credit for an economic upturn, but if there is one he won't get blame for it. He is far more adept than Dubya as a diplomat -- and in view of what goes on in North Korea, we will need that. 

If you want to compare elections, then try 1980 and 2008. Americans wanted leadership very different from what they had endured recently in both years -- and voted for change. They got change. It may be hard for you to believe, but Obama got a higher percentage of the nationwide vote in 2008 than did Reagan in 1980 -- but not by much.  The big difference? There wasn't someone siphoning votes away from the losing candidate.

Romney 2016? Maybe. 2012? You will be doing him a huge disservice.

I don't know. My gut is telling me Obama's reelection will be based on not if the economy recovers, but how health care reform and cap-and-trade legislation fare in congress. If they fail even with Obama's backing, he will seem weak and partisan, which will significantly hurt his image. I think this image damage will be disproportionate amongst the youth, who are very idealistic and really believed in Obama.

Not necessarily Clinton failed with health care reform, but recovered nicely by 1996.

Clinton recovered because Republicans gained control of Congress and the American people did not want to hand the whole government over to Republicans. 

I am skeptical that a lot of voters vote simply to prevent one party from gaining power over every branch of government. My point is that failing at a major domestic policy reform does not seem to be strongly correlated to electoral success. I don't think failure helps, but the overall foreign and domestic situation is probably what has the greatest impact on voters. In 1996 the world was in relative peace and the economy was doing well. Had we been in a significant recession I don't doubt for a second that voters would have been willing to give Republicans complete control like they gave Democrats complete control in 2008.

I'm younger so I wouldn't know, but it seems that Obama campaigned much more on his healthcare plan than Clinton did, who described himself as a moderate, pro-growth, new Democrat.