Could Reagan or JFK be elected now?

[onejayhawk]

Depending on who is talking, you will hear:

• Reagan could not get elected in today's Republican party.
• JFK would never make it as a Democrat today.

The first is a reference to the tax hikes under Reagan. The second is a reference to JFK's pro-business policies.

How true are the comments?
If they are off base, why?

This is an RD thread, so mind your manners.

J

 

[gay_Aleks]

Question: Would that mean that "Reagan" and "Kennedy" are names that are completely unknown to the current public right now?

 

[JollyRoger]

Reagan could get the GOP nomination today because he was a good communicator that would know better than to disclose his true colors during the election cycle. Given what Wall Street has done under Obama and the bailout that Obama helped give to American businesses, JFK might not be pro-business enough.

 

[warpus]

Didn't Reagan significantly lower taxes? I know he wasn't a very good president, that a lot of people venerate him as much as Jesus, but I thought that he lowered taxes. Was it maybe just for the rich?

 

[Goodfella]

Who says Reagan wouldn't make it? He had policies intended to increase income growth among the only wealthiest, he favored creationism in school over science, he talked the tough talk on Russia and immigrants, and he was willing to screw over millions of people abroad to advance US policy. Sounds like a great Teahad candidate to me.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I'm quite sure that it was in the Cold War, and well, the world was slightly different.

You know, the whole "we're pointing at each other nukes enough to blow the world over several times".

 

[Goodfella]

I'm quite sure that it was in the Cold War, and well, the world was slightly different.

Right, so he'd be perfect for a party living in the Cold War.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Some friendly people who are living in well-insulated bunkers and don't go out and meet people, state that perhaps we're entering a Second Cold War...

 

[Tahuti]

Didn't Reagan significantly lower taxes? I know he wasn't a very good president, that a lot of people venerate him as much as Jesus, but I thought that he lowered taxes. Was it maybe just for the rich?

No, he did lower taxes. Eventually he raised them again.

As for the OP, they would have to significantly change their rethoric. Reagan could be elected as a democrat as well.

 

[gay_Aleks]

It still depends if the public knows about Reagan and Kennedy - they're well-known names, so some people would just automatically vote, recognizing the name.

 

[JollyRoger]

Didn't Reagan significantly lower taxes? I know he wasn't a very good president, that a lot of people venerate him as much as Jesus, but I thought that he lowered taxes. Was it maybe just for the rich?

He explicitly raised taxes in 7 of 8 years he was in office. The one year he "cut" taxes, he actually lowered tax rates, but gutted a lot of deductions, so the net effect was not much of a tax cut, if any.

 

[bhsup]

Yes, of course they could. This country has elected perhaps the most inept President in the 20th or 21st century twice in a row now in the last two elections. The only thing I can take away from that is anybody can get elected.

And no, before anyone tries to claim it, the above does not imply/infer/suggest in any way that Reagan or Kennedy were inept. If you think it does, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

 

[Wastl]

Yes, of course they could. This country has elected perhaps the most inept President in the 20th or 21st century twice in a row now in the last two elections. The only thing I can take away from that is anybody can get elected.

And no, before anyone tries to claim it, the above does not imply/infer/suggest in any way that Reagan or Kennedy were inept. If you think it does, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Seeing how Obama is very far away from being the most inept president of the 20th and 21st century - heck, his predecessor was far worse than he ever could have been - I have no idea what point you are actually trying to make. Probably the same old stupid "Obama is teh Devil!!1!" bs that tea party fans like to throw around. Obama has been very average, partly because of his own behaviour, partly because the Republican party went off the deep end and turned US politics into a mockery of itself.

As for the actual question; a Reagan that is judged entirely on his political ideals - and not the glorified tea party version that had nothing to do with him - probably wouldn't get anywhere near being selected as a Republican candidate. Nowadays, Republican candidates need to move far to the right during the primaries to get selected as candidate, and then can't move back far enough without looking like a flip-flopper, which gives enough ammunition for the democratic candidate to beat him.
Kennedy might make it on charisma alone. The democrats have no fraction that is nearly as powerful as the far-right among the republicans, as such they have plenty of positions a candidate can take without alienating large parts of the party.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

He explicitly raised taxes in 7 of 8 years he was in office. The one year he "cut" taxes, he actually lowered tax rates, but gutted a lot of deductions, so the net effect was not much of a tax cut, if any.

In the one year that he cut the income tax rates, he also presided over the largest tax increase in the history of the United States under the guise of 'payroll tax reform necessary for the preservation of the Social Security system'. The tax increases in the remaining seven years, along with the income tax cuts of the one year, were relatively insignificant.

That said, I would vote for him today because he is the last president or presidential candidate we have had with demonstrable understanding of how the economy actually works.

Kennedy was before my time so I can't really speak to that. He had great charisma though, and charisma is timeless so he may well be electable.

 

[JollyRoger]

That said, I would vote for him today because he is the last president or presidential candidate we have had with demonstrable understanding of how the economy actually works.

He proved you could have a good economy with massive deficits.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Seeing how Obama is very far away from being the most inept president of the 20th and 21st century - heck, his predecessor was far worse than he ever could have been - I have no idea what point you are actually trying to make. Probably the same old stupid "Obama is teh Devil!!1!" bs that tea party fans like to throw around. Obama has been very average, partly because of his own behaviour, partly because the Republican party went off the deep end and turned US politics into a mockery of itself.

Obama can be seen as average...as long as you don't consider the initial conditions of his term. There is an intense desire, particularly among Republicans but present to some degree in everyone, to not acknowledge how bad things were in 2008. Republicans are driven by shame, the rest of us by fear.

An indication of that reality...

The President of the United States approached congress and said 'we need to just hand the Treasury Secretary a trillion dollars and let him distribute it as he sees fit with no particular oversight at all. This is the only way we see to avoid an economic armageddon beyond what has become known as the great depression'.

This truly outlandish and unprecedented idea was not met with scorn, because it was frankly believable. That armageddon was palpably immanent, and there wasn't anyone jumping up shouting 'that's crazy and here's a better idea', although there were plenty shouting 'that's crazy' because it actually was, even though it was fitting with the existing conditions.

So while Obama can be seen as 'average' in regards to his accomplishments, if you look at what was averted during his term he's pretty remarkable. I supported McCain, but in hindsight I'm not sure he could have gotten us through.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

He proved you could have a good economy with massive deficits.

Actually, if you look at his plan the deficits were intended to be temporary. Get the economy expanding, then reapply taxation to stabilize growth while paying back the money that was used to establish the growth. Much like a business borrows money to get going, then uses the profits to expand further while paying down the debt.

The problem was the only person capable of following his plan through turned out to be him. When the time came GHW Bush didn't have the charisma to raise the taxes and get away with it. Then Clinton came in and enjoyed eight years of riding the exploding economy like a surfer on a hot wave and making no effort to bridle it for long term benefit whatsoever. When the wave was finally petering out GW Bush and his merry band of idiots thought they could reenergize it through the same process that made it in the first place, despite the fact they were by then standing on dry sand (in other words they did not have the existing conditions Reagan had, so trying to use the same plan made no sense whatsoever but they did it anyway).

 

[danjuno]

Jack Kennedy almost didn't win in 1960 even with a Dixiecrat with massive political capital as his veep. With the Dixiecrats gone I wouldn't like Kennedy's chances, though I'd have to have the psychic ability to know who'd he prefer as a running mate out of today's Democrats to know for sure. Reagan would probably fit in with the GOP of today in terms of substance, but I have a feeling he would butt heads with the likes of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in terms of presentation, much the same way establishment Republicans like Peter King and Chris Christie have.

 

[warpus]

So while Obama can be seen as 'average' in regards to his accomplishments, if you look at what was averted during his term he's pretty remarkable. I supported McCain, but in hindsight I'm not sure he could have gotten us through.

Yeah, but he promised us a lot of Change. That was his main message.. No? And hope I guess?

So what has exactly changed in his term as president? Not much, from where I'm sitting. The right doesn't like him because he's "socialist" or a muslim alien or whatever, and the left doesn't like him because he's too far to the right and too much in his actions like Bush.. Generally speaking.

Where's the change? Where's the hope?

If his platform had been: "More of the same", then his term would have been a great success. But that's not the platform he ran on.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If his platform had been: "More of the same", then his term would have been a great success. But that's not the platform he ran on.

See, that's my point.

In 2008 I was actively preparing for the end of civilization. Place in remote desert, check. Independent well, check. Solar power to keep the well and whatever else I need to produce food going? Check. Sufficient arms to deal with anyone who makes it across the desert? Check.

The fact that I turned out not to need those things (yet) is change. It isn't the optimistic 'change should have meant wine and roses' that might be normally associated with 'hope', but I see it as a huge change for the better.

The reality is that absolutely nothing is the same as it was in 2008, but most people do not want to remember the horrific reality of 2008. As with any other near death experience we want to just block it out.