0
1

[–] schwanstucker 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Well, the alternative is then Hillary, so what WaPo is saying is that "no Republican can win." Where have we heard that before? As to other candidates: Cruz can't win. His support isn't going to magically increase, and he's 'way below Trump, except in Romneyland. He's totally ineffective as a speaker, and his whole manner says, "Lightweight." Sanders can't win, unless the zombies vote for him as the Cryptkeeper. Kasich can't win, despite his assertions to the contrary on the media. Bush can't win. Nobody would admit voting for him. Romney? Against Obama II? Please. I like / liked Rand Paul, but he was never a real factor.

On the other hand, if Hillary is indicted, she'll win for sure. She has to, to pardon herself.

1
0

[–] arrggg 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

1
-1

[–] BoiseNTheHood 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The Washington Post also said that Reagan wouldn't beat Mondale in his home state in '84.

By 1984, Reagan was an extremely popular incumbent president. He was running well everywhere against Mondale. But suddenly, up popped a curious Washington Post poll that indicated Reagan's 1980 margin of over 16% in California had dropped precipitously to single digits. Nancy Reagan was alarmed, calling campaign manager Ed Rollins (full disclosure, my former boss) and saying, "You have to do something."

Rollins disagreed, as he later wrote in his memoirs Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms: My Life in American Politics.

A Californian himself Rollins was certain Reagan was just fine in California. The Reagan campaign's own polls (run by Reagan's longtime pollster Dick Wirthlin) showed Reagan with a "rock-solid" lead. After all, said Rollins, "Californians knew Ronald Reagan, and either loved him or hated him. He'd been on the ballot there six times and never lost." The Post poll data made no sense. But Mrs. Reagan was insistent, so Rollins ordered up another (expensive) poll from Dick Wirthlin. Rollins also dispatched longtime Reagan aide and former White House political director Lyn Nofziger, a Californian as well, back to the Reagan home precincts. More phone banks were ordered up. In all, a million dollars of campaign money that could have been spent on Minnesota -- Mondale's home state where the ex-Minnesota Senator was, remarkably, struggling -- was spent on California because of the Washington Post poll.

A few weeks later, the Washington Post ran a story that confirmed Rollins' initial beliefs. The Post confessed that… well… oops… it had made a mistake with those California polling numbers. Shortly afterward came the November election, with California once again giving Reagan a more than 16 point victory. In fact, Reagan carried 49 states, winning the greatest landslide victory in presidential history while losing Minnesota in -- yes -- a close race. Mondale had 49.72% to Reagan's 49.54%, a difference of .18% that might have been changed by all that money that went into California. Making Reagan the first president in history to win all fifty states.

After the election, Ed Rollins ran into the Washington Post's blunt-speaking editor Ben Bradlee and "harassed" Bradlee "about his paper's lousy polling methodology."

Bradlee's "unrepentant" response?

"Tough sh…t, Rollins, I'm glad it cost you plenty. It's my in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign."

http://spectator.org/articles/34732/how-carter-beat-reagan

If they're saying Trump can't get elected... well, get used to saying President Trump.

1
0

[–] BoiseNTheHood 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Oh wait, there's more! The WaPo was also shitting on Reagan in the 1980 election:

In Feb. 1980, The Washington Post political reporter Haynes Johnson questioned whether Reagan’s “loyal legions will stay with him to the end, and if so whether they will be able to avert a final crash.”

It took Reagan winning 206 delegates to George H.W. Bush’s 47 to finally convince Republicans to begin endorsing him “to head off any perception,” as The Washington Post worded it, that he couldn’t win the general election.

http://jpupdates.com/2015/10/20/love-him-or-hate-him-trumps-campaign-mimics-reagans-run/

On June 23, 1979, Barry Sussman in the Washington Post wrote, "Reagan has not picked up substantial support from party activists who represent either strong moderate or small liberal elements of the party, the poll indicates. Many appear to be concerned about some of Reagan's followers — 'arch-conservative kooks,' one poll respondent called them."

https://www.creators.com/read/erick-erickson/12/15/the-goldwater-talking-point

3
-1

[–] Moonbat 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

It's an unfortunate fact that the candidate you like and the candidate who can win aren't always the same person. As a libertarian I'm more painfully aware of that than most. But Trumpsters are a different breed - they refuse to look at the math, absolutely refuse to consider his electability based on the actual facts. When he gets crushed in November I'm really looking forward to the mental gymnastics they go through to rationalize away why he lost. The hysterics are going to be beyond epic.