Trump’s win vs. Reagan’s blowout: Why 2016 is NOT 1980 - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/trumps-win-vs-reagans-blowout-why-2016-is-not-1980#sthash.jU51m0Rc.dpuf

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Trump’s win vs. Reagan’s blowout: Why 2016 is NOT 1980 - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/trumps-win-vs-reagans-blowout-why-2016-is-not-1980#sthash.jU51m0Rc.dpuf


Beginning last summer, I wrote a series of articles for Conservative Review comparing Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan. The series was inspired by Trump enthusiasts insisting that their man was the closest thing to America’s next Ronald Reagan. Donald Trump was no less than “another Reagan.” Most central to the Trump-Reagan thesis was the curious insistence that the underestimated Trump, just like the once-underestimated Reagan, would rise up and crush Hillary Clinton in Reaganesque fashion. It would be a landslide. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/trumps-win-vs-reagans-blowout-why-2016-is-not-1980#sthash.jU51m0Rc.dpuf

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's not the same, because the demographics are so different.  We're not in the same kind of dominant position we were in '80 and '84.

However, it may still be a milestone election in that it exposed some serious underlying cracks in the Democratic coalition.  Specifically, that a strategy of building a coalition of victim groups falls apart when the groups start demanding prioritization in their aggrieved status.

Hillary didn't lose because she didn't appeal to white working class voters.  She lost because she couldn't appeal to them.  When Bernie tried to present a more class-based "we're all in this together" argument, BLM went nuts.  They considered it disrespectful to their victim status that white people could be considered victims too, so they forced the Dems to focus almost solely on appealing to minorities.

I think it is going to be somewhat tough for them to patch that back together.  We may actually have a long-term opportunity here.

[txradioguy]

It's not the same, because the demographics are so different.  We're not in the same kind of dominant position we were in '80 and '84.

However, it may still be a milestone election in that it exposed some serious underlying cracks in the Democratic coalition.  Specifically, that a strategy of building a coalition of victim groups falls apart when the groups start demanding prioritization in their aggrieved status.

Hillary didn't lose because she didn't appeal to white working class voters.  She lost because she couldn't appeal to them.  When Bernie tried to present a more class-based "we're all in this together" argument, BLM went nuts.  They considered it disrespectful to their victim status that white people could be considered victims too, so they forced the Dems to focus almost solely on appealing to minorities.

I think it is going to be somewhat tough for them to patch that back together.  We may actually have a long-term opportunity here.

Republicans weren't in a dominant position in 1980 or really even in 1984.  They got lucky in 1980 that Carter turned out to be such a milquetoast leader.  Mr Malaise and Misery Index it turns out was exactly what we didn't need in our country at that time.

Reagan was rewarded in 1984 due to his leadership abilities and the fact he'd actually accomplished a lot of his campaign promises.

Mondale on the other hand flat out told people who'd just had a their taxes lowered he was going to raise them again.  The country viewed him as Carter redux.

Since then whatever positive gains Reagan made for the GOP and especially Conservatism have been pissed away by what we have in D.C. that call themselves Republicans.

There was a chance to put a Reagan-esque leader back in the Oval Office...and instead we're getting an orange faced reality tv star.

[Rivergirl]

The person with the right message, demeanor, and character could once again garner a mandate to govern according to the constitution.
This is not that time. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

It's not the same, because the demographics are so different.  We're not in the same kind of dominant position we were in '80 and '84.

It's odd, because in one way "we" are more dominant. We have the president, congress, the USSC (soon), most governors and SL's.


But yes, the popular vote is a warning not to read too much into our position.