Let's just say you have substantial capacity for denial.

Provide the evidence. Reagan was elected is not evidence of a conservative majority. It is not even evidence of a conservative majority in the 80s. It is evidence that Reagan was very charismatic.

Who runs the polls?

The secret liberal cabal that has frozen out all other pollsters?

Explain the election of Reagan, then.

He was a charismatic politician who came on the heals of an ineffectual leader.

Come on Bit. What issues do you think define conservatism?
Make a list and let's check the polling. Don't run and hide behind the skirts of some liberal polling conspiracy nonsense.

Yet you have in no way shown that there is either a conservative or republican majority in the US

Let's just say you have substantial capacity for denial.

How can you explain this seeming contradiction?

Who runs the polls?

As others have stated, this mythical conservative majority exists only in the minds of people like Bithead...

Explain the election of Reagan, then.

Silent? No. Its a few hundred people sitting in a darkened room muttering to each other.

About you, lol.

AIP we have already seen the embodiment of the modern "conservative" in Sarah Palin. The woman could not respond coherently when asked what newspaper she read.

her teleprompter was on the fritz.

I think this can be explained by importing a concept; there is a major difference between republican and conservative.

Yet you have in no way shown that there is either a conservative or republican majority in the US.
Honestly I think what data there is shows that there is not a consistent majority in support of either party or either ideology (in the liberal conservative dichotomy). I have never seen a poll that showed self ID with either party at even 40%. As far as ideology I don't know that it is possible to pin down. The closest estimate I see as possible to gather would be polling on various issues. What issues do you see as defining conservatism?

That may be the way you see it but it doesn't seem to mesh with the numbers

I think we may be talking past each other here based on charm analogy. I think this can be explained by importing a concept; there is a major difference between republican and conservative.

Hardly silent.

Silent? No. Its a few hundred people sitting in a darkened room muttering to each other.

Hardly silent. They simply sat on their hands, to the degree that the Republicans have turned left. You may recall that wasn't the case when Reagan ran.

That may be the way you see it but it doesn't seem to mesh with the numbers.
YEAR.....population.....R votes.....D votes.....Winner % of ToT
1984.....~225 mill......~44 mil.....~35.5 mil.....19.6%
1988.....~236 mill......~54.5 mil...~37.5 mil.....23%
2008.....~305 mill......~60 mil.....~69.5 mil.......22.8%

1984 ~147 mill eligible voters ~30% to winner
1988 ~166 mill eligible voters ~33%
2008 ~208 mill eligible voters ~33.5% to winner

Both the 1980 and 1984 had ~55% turn-out as opposed to ~63% turnout in 2008. Meaning that more people sat on their hands for both of Reagan's victories than in our most recent election.

You are quite simply wrong by every available measure. You have no evidence aside from your gut feeling that there is a conservative/republican majority in this country. That assertion is even less true if one is to use your exceedingly narrow definition of conservative.

Ah yes, that mythical Silent Majority that we've heard about before...when will these people rise up and finally vote for their interests, rather than staying quiet and allowing those evil socialists to run everything...once again, who is the hard-right candidate who can defeat our president in 2012...

Hardly silent. They simply sat on their hands, to the degree that the Republicans have turned left. You may recall that wasn't the case when Reagan ran.

There is a Republican/conservative majority out there.

Ah yes, that mythical Silent Majority that we've heard about before...when will these people rise up and finally vote for their interests, rather than staying quiet and allowing those evil socialists to run everything...once again, who is the hard-right candidate who can defeat our president in 2012...

mm, not quite...we had 8 years of someone who tried to move to the middle on things like education and Medicare in an attempt to co-opt moderate voters and create that mythical GOP majority that Rove had delusions about..

There is a Republican/conservative majority out there. And being able to idetntify it is the one failing I'll pin on Rove.

As for Bush, let's recall, please, that his father was no different... he too was a moderate. Remember for example he was picked to be Reagan's VP because he came down tot he left of Reagan.

And as for...

although "moderate" by your standards, he probably got as many votes as he did because of that.

Yeah. My point exactly. He'd have done far better was he an actual conservative.

Well, if you'll look, We just had 8 years of a centrist and ran someone who came down to the left of even THAT.... How'd that work out?

Umm, not quite...we had 8 years of someone who tried to move to the middle on things like education and Medicare in an attempt to co-opt moderate voters and create that mythical GOP majority that Rove had delusions about...I'm sure most people wouldn't judge ideology to be Bush's greatest sin, but rather, his rank incompetence...as for McCain, although "moderate" by your standards, he probably got as many votes as he did because of that...someone to the right of him would have gotten trounced far more than he did...do tell, what hard-right candidate could possibly defeat the president in 2012...