Deal Breakers: The Elections that changed the game - 1900, 1920, 1932, 1968, 1980, (2012)?

[denem]

Each one ushered in a paradigm shift. If Romney is the candidate, 2012 could be another. The Reagan coalition is fracturing. A Newt implosion would leave TPTB licking their wounds and on the warpath. Next time those plebs will do what they're told. Get Rupert on the phone now!

It's interesting that the biggest landslides, did little but confirm the changed rules:

1928, 1936, 1972, 1984.

1964 was an exception. The ghost of Jack Kennedy vs 'In your guts you know he's nuts', Barry Goldwater, the looney who would blow up the world: Dirty politics had it's first Really Big Win since the 1800s.

What do you think?

[choie]

1. I think

the 2000 election should be included.

[denem]

2. 2000 confirmed the Reagan paradigm was not over IMO

WJC raised taxes strictly as a fiscal conservative, spent a lot of capital on NAFTA, then declared 'the era of Big Government is over' He was still playing by the Reagan Rules. On the back of a surplus, GWB ran on tax cuts and restoring honor. Yes, 911 was a game changer, and not over. The 'War on Terror' lingers on.

[unblock]

3. 2012 will be of little significance overtly. what it will do is make republicans replot strategy.

2016 will be the telling year. they will lose in 2012, question their media image, and retool their message, for that race.

THAT is much more likely to be an interesting and consequential election.

[unblock]

4. not sure what you're saying about 1964. both a landslide and highly significant.

i suppose you could argue that it merely ratified what jfk "won" in 1960, although THAT was a very close election, and little of the civil rights victories would have happened were it not for lbj's huge huge mandate.

[quaker bill]

5. It is a bit up in the air yet

With Romney at the top, the election could turn into something quite interesting. We could have an election where questions of wealth and what you do to get it play large. A large victory could produce a mandate for something very different on domestic policy. Mitt has few personal flaws, just alot of really bad ideas, the defeat would be more about ideas and the party that promotes them than it would be about the messenger.

Republicans are actually safer losing with Newt. Losing, even badly, with a candidate that has known temprament issues running on old and tired ideas that they need to replace anyway could be dismissed as a one-off. The defeat would be all about Newt, not the party. The upside is that a really big defeat would marginalize the tea party permanently.

I prefer beating Romney in November, but will be happy to work to defeat either one.