Trump’s Favorable Rating Rivals Reagan’s in 1980

[randomname]

Trump’s Favorable Rating Rivals Reagan’s in 1980

A new Associated Press poll released today found after months of media and GOP establishment attacks a majority of Americans overwhelmingly view Trump negatively.

Seven in 10 people, including close to half of Republican voters, have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump.

Six in 10 people have an unfavorable view of Ted Cruz even though the liberal media has not started its campaign of destruction against the Texas senator.

Grandma Hillary has a 55% unfavorable rating.

Trump is wildly popular with Middle Class voters but that doesn’t impress the Beltway elites.

Ronald Reagan’s favorable rating was also at 30% back in March 1980.

The elites also worried about Ronald Reagan’s chances back in March 1980.

The CSMonitor reported, via Free Republic:

The nation’s Republicans are working against the clock to answer two key questions: Can conservative Ronald Reagan possibly attract enough independent and Democratic votes to win in November?

An if he is likely to lose, has former President Gerald Ford time enough to challenge him for the GOP nomination?

The consensus among political experts is that time has probably already run out for Gerald Ford, though he still appears the stronger choice to beat Jimmy Carter in November.

But some experts caution: Don’t count Ronald Reagan out as a national candidate for the fall. He is not, they say, “a McGovern or a Goldwater” — fringe candidates who led their parties to one-sided defeats in 1972 and 1964. Intellectuals don’t want to take him seriously, but he does well with working-class voters. He would take the West, challenge President Carter in the South, and do well in the pivotal Midwest states like Ohio and Illinois, whose southern regions titled toward Carter in 1976, they say.

Back in March 1980 the establishment said the same thing about Ronald Reagan.

They said he could never defeat Jimmy Carter.

He was too divisive.

Reagan trailed Carter by 15 points in February-March 1980.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...trump-unfavorable-rating-rivals-reagans-1980/

 

[CPUd]

This is not 1980 And Donald Trump is not Ronald Reagan

 

[klamath]

It is the direction his negatives are going. Reagans were steadily dropping all of fall 1979 and spring of 1980 as people got to know him, Trumps negatives on the other hand have been climbing as people got to know him.

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

April 25, 1980

Then this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPB1aJ2RPt8

Carter was one of the most unpopular incumbent presidents to run for re-election ever, 28% approval his last year. And that was before the hostage crisis. He was actually primaried as a sitting president, against Ted Kennedy who the far left loved and these primaries went on right up until the day before the convention when Kennedy dropped out. Democrats were about as divided and unenthusiastic about him as it gets.

Reagan on the other hand established as the frontrunner within the first few primaries in late February. Bush was essentially his only real opponent the entire way, and it couldn't have been all that "divisive" if he chose Bush as his VP running mate. Reagan clinched the nomination mid May and by that time the GOP was solidly both behind him and against Carter.

 

[jmdrake]

This is not 1980 And Donald Trump is not Ronald Reagan

This.

It is the direction his negatives are going. Reagans were steadily dropping all of fall 1979 and spring of 1980 as people got to know him, Trumps negatives on the other hand have been climbing as people got to know him.

This.

April 25, 1980

Then this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPB1aJ2RPt8

Carter was one of the most unpopular incumbent presidents to run for re-election ever, 28% approval his last year. And that was before the hostage crisis. He was actually primaried as a sitting president, against Ted Kennedy who the far left loved and these primaries went on right up until the day before the convention when Kennedy dropped out. Democrats were about as divided and unenthusiastic about him as it gets.

Reagan on the other hand established as the frontrunner within the first few primaries in late February. Bush was essentially his only real opponent the entire way, and it couldn't have been all that "divisive" if he chose Bush as his VP running mate. Reagan clinched the nomination mid May and by that time the GOP was solidly both behind him and against Carter.

And this.

And this point I don't expect Trump to even get the GOP nomination. And no it won't be "stolen" from him. He's losing it fair and square.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Even if there is resemblance in their favorable ratings, these are not 1980s and there are some key differences between the two.

First, Reagan did not switch his stances and had always been a conservative.

Reagan's democratic party opponent had not voted for Iraq war.

Reagan supported Islamic Jihadis/pre-ISIS1.0 against Russians.

Bluedog neocons supported Reagan, today they prefer Hillary or Cruz.



It is not the same.



Semi-related

Iran to build statue to commemorate capture of U.S. sailors
Washington Times-Mar 19, 2016

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...768-trump-sailors-went-through-hell-with-iran

 

[francisco]

April 25, 1980

Then this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPB1aJ2RPt8

Carter was one of the most unpopular incumbent presidents to run for re-election ever, 28% approval his last year. And that was before the hostage crisis. He was actually primaried as a sitting president, against Ted Kennedy who the far left loved and these primaries went on right up until the day before the convention when Kennedy dropped out. Democrats were about as divided and unenthusiastic about him as it gets.

Reagan on the other hand established as the frontrunner within the first few primaries in late February. Bush was essentially his only real opponent the entire way, and it couldn't have been all that "divisive" if he chose Bush as his VP running mate. Reagan clinched the nomination mid May and by that time the GOP was solidly both behind him and against Carter.

There you go again, clouding the issue with facts. Trumpettes won't roll with that.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Bluedog neocons supported Reagan, today they prefer Hillary or Cruz.

"Bluedog neocons" would actually be the type of people to support Trump over Cruz. They see Cruz as too ideologically conservative.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Even if there is resemblance in their favorable ratings, these are not 1980s and there are some key differences between the two.

First, Reagan did not switch his stances and had always been a conservative.

Reagan's democratic party opponent had not voted for Iraq war.

Reagan supported Islamic Jihadis/pre-ISIS1.0 against Russians.

Bluedog neocons supported Reagan, today they prefer Hillary or Cruz.



It is not the same.



Semi-related

Iran to build statue to commemorate capture of U.S. sailors
Washington Times-Mar 19, 2016



http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...768-trump-sailors-went-through-hell-with-iran

Reagan was for tax cuts. But he also signed the largest tax hikes in history (both as Governor of California and as President- the biggest increase at the time in both jobs- yes, he was consistant). He was against welfare but expanded the welfare system. "Man is not free unless government is limited" yet it grew from 5 million employees to 5.3 million- and that does not count his expansion of the military. Under Clinton, the number of government employees fell to 4.1 million- the smallest in decades. He was a lot less conservative than many think he was.

As mentioned, the biggest problem for Carter was the hostage crisis which weighed heavily on him and distracted him. "America Held Hostage" was a nightly program every night after the news (it later turned into "Nightline" and expanded coverage to other stories). In the election, there was also a strong third party candidate- John Anderson.

 

[Bossobass]

Psychics are a dime a gross and 2012 has nothing to do with 1980. presidential polls before the primaries are worth even less.

The election will be stolen from Trump, despite the voter's overwhelming preference, and you haters will wear a Clinton presidency like an e coli jumpsuit for 8 excruciating years.

 

[jmdrake]

Psychics are a dime a gross and 2012 has nothing to do with 1980. presidential polls before the primaries are worth even less.

The election will be stolen from Trump, despite the voter's overwhelming preference, and you haters will wear a Clinton presidency like an e coli jumpsuit for 8 excruciating years.

A Trump candidacy would pretty much guarantee a Clinton presidency. Trump supporters love to talk about polls...until they go against their guy. I remember some Trump supporters saying "Don't believe the polls saying Trump is behind by 10% in Wisconsin. Other polls show he's ahead." Well those polls were indeed wrong. Trump lost by 13% instead of 10%. People talk about how Trump is going to trash Hillary? How is he going to do that? He talks about her voting for the Iraq war? Well when she voted it he openly supported it, then lied and said he never had. He's going to attack her on Benghazi? After Benghazi he called her the best secretary of state ever. He's going to attack her on Libya? He called for a full U.S. invasion of Libya. rump supporters were declaring that he would take out Hillary like he supposedly took out Ted Cruz with the "sex scandal." Only...that didn't work and Cruz went up in the polls. As for the election being "stolen" from Trump, he's having trouble earning it. It's becoming increasingly unlikely that he will break 1237. Not only has he capped out in the popular vote with only 3 men left in the race, but his ground game sucks so bad that he's not picking up all of the delegates in the states he won.

 

[Zippyjuan]

If he ends up with the most delegates (a likely scenario at this point) can you say he did not "earn" a nomination? If a nomination does not go to the guy with the most delegates then why even have the primary and caucus system? Maybe just have some backroom party leaders declare who they want to be their candidate. Save all that time and money spent on the primary and put it towards the general election.

 

[CPUd]

If he ends up with the most delegates (a likely scenario at this point) can you say he did not "earn" a nomination? If a nomination does not go to the guy with the most delegates then why even have the primary and caucus system? Maybe just have some backroom party leaders declare who they want to be their candidate. Save all that time and money spent on the primary and put it towards the general election.

Fuck no, he has to win fair and square. It is the reason for the delegate system in the first place, to keep someone from skating in with 35% of the vote. It is a good thing to have the nominee voted in by the majority of the party. At the convention, the delegates represent the party. I'm not sure how the Democrats do theirs though.

 

[CPUd]

If someone comes into the convention 100 delegates short of a majority and can't swing 100 unbound over to his side, they have no business trying to be president.

 

[Zippyjuan]

$#@! no, he has to win fair and square. It is the reason for the delegate system in the first place, to keep someone from skating in with 35% of the vote. It is a good thing to have the nominee voted in by the majority of the party. At the convention, the delegates represent the party. I'm not sure how the Democrats do theirs though.

So they should give it to somebody who got even FEWER votes than that person? That makes even less logical sense.

 

[CPUd]

So they should give it to somebody who got even FEWER votes than that person?

If they have a majority of the delegate votes, yes. That's the reason they have delegates. Pure democracy has been shown throughout history to be a bad thing.

 

[klamath]

If he ends up with the most delegates (a likely scenario at this point) can you say he did not "earn" a nomination? If a nomination does not go to the guy with the most delegates then why even have the primary and caucus system? Maybe just have some backroom party leaders declare who they want to be their candidate. Save all that time and money spent on the primary and put it towards the general election.

It is all about a true majority. We do NOT have a president until he reaches a true majority of the electors. Any thing less the 270 does not make a president. It is the very building block of a republic not a democracy.
In 2007 when I was a delegate candidate for Ron Paul in California, I sure as hell shouldn't of been forced to vote for McCain because he got the most votes. If Ron withdrew I as one of 3 elected representatives of my congressional district should have the right to determine how I should best change my vote to represent the people that elected me, NOT who got the most popular votes especially if that person didn't begin to get 50% of the overall vote. Trump is actually getting more delegates than his vote totals because of the winner take all system. If he still can't win with that then the problem is with his campaign.

 

[Zippyjuan]

It is all about a true majority. We do NOT have a president until he reaches a true majority of the electors. Any thing less the 270 does not make a president. It is the very building block of a republic not a democracy.
In 2007 when I was a delegate candidate for Ron Paul in California, I sure as hell shouldn't of been forced to vote for McCain because he got the most votes. If Ron withdrew I as one of 3 elected representatives of my congressional district should have the right to determine how I should best change my vote to represent the people that elected me, NOT who got the most popular votes especially if that person didn't begin to get 50% of the overall vote. Trump is actually getting more delegates than his vote totals because of the winner take all system. If he still can't win with that then the problem is with his campaign.

In popular vote totals, Trump has collected almost two million more than Cruz- 8 million to six million. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html That means he has one third more of the popular vote so far than Cruz.

Can you make the argument that Cruz and not Trump should be the nominee since Trump has the most delegates and the largest portion of the popular vote? Should the prize go to the #2 finisher?

 

[CPUd]

In popular vote totals, Trump has collected almost two million more than Cruz- 8 million to six million. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html That means he has one third more of the popular vote so far than Cruz.

Al Gore had more of the popular vote than GW Bush.

 

[Zippyjuan]

And see how that turned out? Two major wars, the Great Recession? Exploding government spending and debt- going from nearly balanced budget to $trillion deficits? (not claiming Gore would have been better and Congress shares the blame as well)

Popular vote count:
Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000