[185JHP]

If you posit that 30% were reliable "R" voters, and 30% were reliable "D" voters, than Reagan's accomplishment was slicing off 30% of the middle 40%. IMO the Reagan landslide had to do with two things: credible and obvious personal decency, and having a great act to campaign against - the hapless, feckless (and at the same time mean and petty) Jimmah. That said - are there a lot more bums, deviates, moochers and spongers for the "Ds" to woo than there were in the 70s/80s?

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

The Reagan race referred-to in this article was his gubernatorial victory over Pat Brown. The parallels are plentiful: Reagan was truly an outsider with no governmental experience--an actor and union president--running against a lifelong big-government politician known for strategic largesse and backroom backscratching. Like Simon, Reagan offed the "establishment" GOP candidate in a sweeping upset and went on as an underdog to beat Brown handily. The rest--including his trouncing of Jimmah--is history.

One thing that is not a parallel is that people liked Brown-- a jolly backslapper type and a great guy to have a beer with, by all accounts. By comparison, Davis is a brooding Queeg given to grandiose visions of power, especially his own ("The job of the Legislature is to implement my vision" "Singapore is a model for California's police.") He's a singularly unlikeable and even vaguely scary dude, one who lets occasional fascist stripes peek through his public plumage.

Another non-parallel is that Brown's term as governor was generally regarded as reasonably successful, whereas everyone acknowledges that Davis is an unvarnished disaster.

Go Bill Go!