Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Sarah Palin to take our country back ... to 1964. It'll be deja vu all over, again!

A recent Politico article described how Sarah Palin pleaded her electability at a meeting of Republicans in Florida. She told them something like, "Ronald Reagan was a 'true conservative' and was considered to be unelectable; I am a 'true conservative,' like Reagan; therefore, anyone claiming I am unelectable is wrong." Sounds logical, doesn't it?

But is a "true conservative" electable? Let history be a guide: To find a "true conservative" who ran for President, we have to go back to 1964. In that election, Barry Goldwater was trounced by Lyndon Johnson. Goldwater received only 38.5% of the popular vote; Johnson received 61.1%. As you can see on the 1964 electoral map, above, the result in the electoral college was even more lopsided.

And at a time, now, when President Obama's popularity has declined, a new CBS poll gives Palin even more bad news:
President Obama would trounce Sarah Palin in a 2012 match-up, according to a Bloomberg National Poll released today.

Fifty-one percent of respondents in the poll said they would vote for Mr. Obama if the election were held today and Palin were his GOP challenger. Just 35 percent said they would vote for Palin. Another 10 percent said they wouldn't vote at all, and 4 percent were unsure. ...

Surprise! Palin's numbers are a lot like Goldwater's final numbers. Obama's numbers aren't up to Johnson's, yet, but give it time.

Note: It's doubtful that Ronald Reagan was a "true conservative." A Conservative wouldn't have employed deficit spending like Reagan did, for example. Palin isn't like Reagan in many ways, but she claims to be a "true conservative," so, for the sake of argument, we take her at her word.

Goldwater wrote the Conservative "Bible," The Conscience of a Conservative. At that Wikipedia link, you can find a .pdf of Goldwater's book and references to other writings that illustrate how far those who now claim to be "true" or "common sense" conservatives have strayed.


rj said...

Sarah was but a wee tyke in '64. On one day in '64, she was literally "born yesterday," so you can't expect her to know this.

Don't be such an unfair elitist.

Olivia said...

Well, Reagan was senile and Palin is nuts so there's that.

Anonymous said...

This post is right on the money! I don't think anyone has made this point and so well.
Thank You,


nswfm said...

I didn't vote for either time as President, either. To his credit, however, he had true leadership positions before running. CA is about 10% say of the entire economy and had maybe 25 million people. AK has three times the city I live in as it's population, and I doubt that it is the 7th or 8th largest economy in the world. I'd second the he was senile and she's delusional comment.

Anonymous said...

Oh geez...Reagan isn't the most legendary president by all means and he served a full term as governor.

It just makes this video spoof I got about preventing Alzheimers and memory loss all that much funnier.


Funny video, but I know that Alzheimers and having Sarah Palin as president is not.

Anonymous said...

I was in grade school when LBJ ran against Goldwater. I did vote when Ronny was running, and I voted for Carter. I remember how bummed I was when Ronny got in, the Iranian hostages came home....Not for the hostages, glad their nightmare was over, but just knew something was really really fishy about that. Turns out we didn't know the half of it until that senile clown left office. Iran scandal, Contra scandal in Central America etc. I've got facebook friends who are always posting stuff about how great Ronny was. Jimmy left office and helped build homes for people to live in. Also, he did lot's of peace talks, and who knows maybe held off nuclear war with North Korea at some point as well.