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

[tortoise]

The only state Bush won't get is California. And if Grey Davis continues screwing up, Bush might get a clean sweep.

Yeah, California is an interesting case. It is so bad here that only the most compulsive Democrat bootlickers are still behind a State administration that has probably broken all records for how quickly a political regime can trash a state. When the Democrats make epic messes of things they do control at the same time that the Republicans are gaining an increasing amount of control everywhere else, it is a setup for a landslide.

The bottom line is that the number of nominal Democrats who can stomach the Democratic party is shrinking. They may not be immensely fond of Bush, but the Democrats are so bad that it is almost a vote against the Democrats. It isn't that the Republicans are so good (though Dubya is lefty enough that moderate Democrats can deal with him), but that the Democrats are actually that bad. But we still have quite a way until election time.

[RLK]

There is an old proverb going back sever thousand years: "He who never made and enemy, never made a friend." In order for a president to avoid making enemies with certain people with views diametrically opposed to mine, he will need to betray and insult me. The fact that Reagan evoked paroxisms of rage in certain groups of people who hated by guts didn't bother me at all, while it also ensured absolute support from others like me. If Reagan had had a 90% approval rating, I couldn't have supported him in '76 and voted for him twice for president.

[Sonny M]

Honestly, I live I live in New York City, upstate is republican, but not conservative. NYC which is most of the voter base of this state, is not going to go republican, as long as the people here have any kind of time to kill to vote. They don't know not care about issues, but they will vote against republicans. Bloomberg won his election here by running to the left of Mark Green (who was a nader raider for god sakes, side note, his brother is a die hard, straight line, conservative, who is big on supporting the GOP, outside of his brother, he always puts money into the GOP, I guess the black sheep theory is true). In fact, if Sharpton hadn't screwed the dems with the minority vote, we would have a dem mayor today.

[RockBassCreek]

Reagan was a Californian, and typically (with Gore and Tennessee being an exception) presidential candidates -- even bad ones -- win their home states.

It was pretty nice for Reagan starting off knowing he would probably win California.

What would the next election look like if we could fairly confidently put California in GWBush's column? (hint: it would be over -- we wouldn't need to count the votes [except in Florida where they now refer to it as 'practice.']

[RockBassCreek]

Forget the old red blue map.

Not exactly. That win from 2000 is important because there's been NO shift in any of those states in an anti-Bush direction. Fly-over country won once for Bush. It can do it again IF NEED BE.

I also think that some of the the non-Bush states will probably go his way this next time. Forget Florida -- add one or all to Bush: Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, Iowa, to Bush's column.

[Reagan79]

Actually it has been contended by Reagan's all volunteer election officials in Minn. he actually won that state. Reagan only lost by a few thousand votes, and it was known that more than a few thousand dead voted Mondale in Minn. But like you said Reagan refused to look into it because of course he was always a class act!

[gcruse]

But we still have quite a way until election time.

By starting the 2004 election process a year
and a half early, can you imagine how sick we
are going to be of politics by the time voting
time gets here?

[Stay the course]

You've got the wrong number for Bush-41. He was at 34%, not 43%.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

CA is in play. If you break down California's map by county you'll see that political novice Bill Simon won almost every single county-except for San Fran and LA.

People are very upset with the Gov, this state is not the liberal bastion everyone else thinks it is.

[Poohbah]

CA is in play. If you break down California's map by county you'll see that political novice Bill Simon won almost every single county-except for San Fran and LA.

In other words, he won almost every county except the ones that where the majority of voters live.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

In other words, he won almost every county except the ones that where the majority of voters live.

That's too simplistic. He still only lost by about 10%, and ran a terrible campaign. I think its the best thing for the feckless GOP here that he didn't win. Gray has done nothing but screw up since he was reelected, and has made conservatives here more passionate about politics.

[Poohbah]

That's too simplistic. He still only lost by about 10%, and ran a terrible campaign.

"Only" 10%. Spin, spin, spin...

Maybe if the allegedly "pro-family" and other "conservative" organizations operating in this state would actually work for electing someone like Bill Simon instead of manufacturing excuses to endorse fruitcake third parties, we might close the gap to 9%.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Maybe if the allegedly "pro-family" and other "conservative" organizations operating in this state would actually work for electing someone like Bill Simon instead of manufacturing excuses to endorse fruitcake third parties, we might close the gap to 9%.

Are you having your own conversation over there? Exactly what fruitcakes are you talking about and what does that have to do with the price of rice?

[Poohbah]

Are you having your own conversation over there? Exactly what fruitcakes are you talking about and what does that have to do with the price of rice?

The US Taxpayer Party comes to mind.

In 1996, one of the local San Diego "pro-family" outfits set out to deliberately split the vote, with the *DECLARED* intention of electing a radical pro-abort and pro-gay-marriage candidate in my district--to "teach the Republicans a lesson."

They commissioned some push polls to clobber the GOP candidate (a fiscal conservative who didn't perfectly hew to the "pro-family" group's agenda), and then pushed a former bus driver running on the USTP ticket as their candidate.

The vote for the USTP candidate was about 0.5% higher than the Democrat's margin of victory.

And, what happens in 2002? The exact same scenario that they employed in 1996.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Had not heard of this in San Diego. Anyone that votes for the US Taxpayers party need their head examined, sound like a bunch of Loosertarians.

When will people learn that Ralph Nader and Ross Perot did nothing but cause friend fire accidents.

I don't share your pessimism, I think the Dems learned from Nader, and the GOP learned from the Perot effect. I don't think either party will be that surprised this election.

[Poohbah]

The problem we have here in CA is that the GOP campaign managers insist on treating some of these groups that slow-roll them every damn election as friends--and they let them into the holy of holies, and the Democrats somehow get this data when things go to s**t in September/October.

Until they prove themselves otherwise, I view them as enemies.

[stands2reason]

Looking at polls, I'd say 37% of voters are broken-glass Dems. add 5% for voter fraud, and there's your base to work against--42%

[AuH2ORepublican]

Actually, Simon only lost by like 5%.

I think Bush will carry CA in 2004 because (i) he'll increase his support among Hispanics to over 40% and (ii) because of national security and terrorism concerns, the GOP in general and Bush in particular will carry suburban areas that had swung sharply to the RATs (due to abortion and gun control) after the Cold War ended and social issues came into the forefront.

The only states Bush won't carry are Massachusetts, Rhode Island, DC, Vermont (maybe), Hawaii (maybe) and New York (maybe).

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

Okay, I'll bite. What is it predicting now? Of course its still way too early, I know...

[republicanwizard]

My very own Pennsylvania and Ohio need to become GOP locks. The combined weight of our 41 electoral votes is enough, combined with a GOP lock in Texas and Florida, to keep RATS out of the White House.