Reagan Won 49 State Landslide with "only" 58% Job Approval

Independent Research, Roper Center ^ | May 4, 2003 | nwrep

[nwrep]

Reagan Won 49 State Landslide with only 58% Job Approval

In trying to determine the correlation between job approval ratings and Presidential elections, I looked at historical archives of Gallup (and other) Presidential Job Approval data. In 1984, Ronald Reagan won a landslide 525 electoral votes, winning 49 states with only a 58% approval on the eve of election. Here are some approval numbers of other presidents on the eve of their respective elections:

 

President		Polling Date(s)		Approval Rating
B.J. Clinton		10/26-29/1996		54
George H.W. Bush		10/12-14/1992		43
Reagan		10/26-29/1984		58
Carter		9/12-15/1980		37
Nixon		6/23-26/1972		57

[nwrep]

ping

[sushiman]

Yea , but look who he ran against !

[Cameron1]

W should be a shoo in, even if the economy is not great. (I believe it will be, though.) The Dems have a strong contender who looks like Lurch on the Monsters, and a pretty boy who made his fortune winning lawsuits. Then there's the spoiler Al who will undoubtedly be playing tghe race card, and a wincing, smirking has been who whines when he talks. The man with the big eyebrows and red hair thinks he has appeal, but he needs to retire back in Missouri and write a book. Then there is the sure winner from the socialist state of Vermont who is too cocky for me....he assumes he ahs already won. Its gonna be a saturday Night Live field day for the dems between now and 2004.

Will Hillary have to bail them out.....not a chance. She would lose big time, but then we all know it would be a vast right wing conspiracy that derailed the smartest woman alive......LOL

[deport]

[GraniteStateConservative]

It's a useful indicator, but the "right track, wrong track" measure is even better. It predicted that Clinton would fail to win a majority of the vote in 1996-- which surprised most every pundit.

[Husker24]

I dont know if any Republican will ever be a shoe in. Just look at the electoral map. Republicans will never win California....period and probably not New York. Florida could be iffy in the future especially if Castro falls and all those Cubans switch partys (which ill bet they do if they dont go back to Cuba). With all those states in the Democratic camp, I dont think its possible to win, we need at least one more big state other than Texas.

[Sonny M]

Florida could be iffy in the future especially if Castro falls and all those Cubans switch partys (which ill bet they do if they dont go back to Cuba).

Not likely, the cubans are the pariahs of the hispanic community. They don't fit in with the rest, including mexicans. In Miami, cubans are very successfull, and on average, tend to do better then whites there. Since many of them do not like marxism, they do not tend to support most government programs (Liberals despise them for this, calling them paranoid), and are more social conservative (especially the older cubans). They are the demographic that has used the republican party to achieve 2 things, both political and economic empowerment (Blacks chose political, asians chose economic). They are an anomoly with minorites and hispanics especially. There is little or no chance of them crossing over. The guys at DU hate them, with open vengence, as so many liberals, and the democratic party in the US has been openly hostile to them.

[David Noles]

I dont know if any Republican will ever be a shoe in. Just look at the electoral map. Republicans will never win California....period and probably not New York. Florida could be iffy in the future especially if Castro falls and all those Cubans switch partys (which ill bet they do if they dont go back to Cuba). With all those states in the Democratic camp, I dont think its possible to win, we need at least one more big state other than Texas.

Never say never in politics , New York is shaping up to be a safe bet for the gop in 04 and by the way , California is very much in play with Bush out polling anyone in the democratic field. Florida has already been taken out play for the democrats. 2004 will not be a continuation of election 2000. Forget the old red blue map.

[gcruse]

The only state Bush won't get is California. And if Grey Davis continues screwing up, Bush might get a clean sweep. It is also very possible that he brings in absolute majorities in Congress on his coattails.

[Moonman62]

Reagan actually used the veto, and he took his political enemies to task with truth and humor. He ruffled some feathers and the country is much better off for it, though he did lose some percentage points in the popularity contests.

[jagrmeister]

You are right about Reagan. But remember that despite their similar stance on policy, Bush and Reagan are different men. A leader must adopt a style that matches his personality. I don't know that Bush would fare well in a war of words with Democrats. His approach is to let the GOP House and Senate battle the Dems in Congress, stay above the fray, and sell his plans to the American people directly. To succeed based on the lessons of great men before you, do not necessarily do what they did, seek what they sought.

[Redleg Duke]

Yeah, but there are a lot more dead Democrats voting nowadays!

[Moonman62]

I like what you're saying. It's just that the "new tone in Washington" is turning out to be very expensive. The veto power exists for a reason. The president does seem to take a very strong stand on foreign policy that I wish he'd also do on domestic issues.

[Digger]

It's interesting to note that Reagan's advisors told him approx 10 days that he had every state wrapped up except Minnesota & they old him that they could go in & take it also. Reagan, the class man that he is said no. (He didn't see the need to further embarrassment.) Thank you, Ronnie, for the greatness you restored to the Presidency. Then we had to have the Sinkmeister.

[texas booster]

IMO, the main reason why Reagan won in such a landslide with 58% public approval is that the demoncrats had not perfected large-scale vote fraud. Much of the polling data that I saw in the 2000 election was pretty accurate, EXCEPT in urban demoncrat areas and in demonic rural areas. There the demons did better than expected.

National vote fraud, the untold story of elections in the 90's and beyond.

[RLK]

Reagan actually used the veto, and he took his political enemies to task with truth and humor. He ruffled some feathers and the country is much better off for it, though he did lose some percentage points in the popularity contests.

-------------------------

This is one analytic area. Nobody who is doing anything and confronting the opposition is going to have 90% approval ratings. Offending people who need offending will lower your approval ratings, but means an effective president. Any president today who doesn't create solid asnger in 30% of the population is giving the wrong people too much of what they want. Specifically, I want anyone who voted for the Clintons to be undergoing grand mal seisures.

Another area is defining what approval is and how approval is defined in the poll questions.

[capitan_refugio]

I don't know about you, but I sure like the maps with the Republicans in "blue." "Red" just goes naturally with the Dumbocraps.

[capitan_refugio]

Right you are. The vote fraud, especially with illegal hispanic voters in California, is frightening.

[Moonman62]

Any president today who doesn't create solid asnger in 30% of the population is giving the wrong people too much of what they want. Specifically, I want anyone who voted for the Clintons to be undergoing grand mal seisures.

Wow, thanks for the laugh! You're absolutely right. Consensus is consistent with sprawling government. Problems never get solved, and government has to keep growing so that the problem can be managed in perpetuity.