Poll: Carter 63%, Reagan 32%

Charleston (WV) Daily Mail ^ | February 21, 2012 | Don Surber

[Theoria]

From the past, to today.

Carter (+19) vs. Obama (-2) in February of Year 4

Now this is pretty interesting.... The chart above shows the approval-disapproval ratings for President Carter and President Obama in February of their fourth year in office (1980 vs. 2012), based on the Gallup/USA Today Presidential Approval Tracker website. Carter's approval was 55% in early February of 1980 vs. 46% for Obama in mid-February 2012, and Carter's disapproval was 36% vs. 48% for Obama. Carter's Approval-Disapproval spread was +19 compared to Obama's -2 point spread.

Note: In March of 1980, Carter's ratings tanked and by the end of the month he was at -12 Approval-Disapproval.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

——And in January 1980, the Gallup Poll showed:
Carter 63% Reagan 32%——

Most excellent, Grasshopper.

I was blessed to be 18 in 1980, and able to vote for Ronaldus Magnus, but I don’t remember these polls. But I remember gas lines, stagnation, and The Kinks, “Low Budget.”

I also supported Jack Kemp in the primary, which is embarrassing in retrospect. I also remember the “I paid for this microphone,” moment, which was the first time Reagan caught my attention.

[mkjessup]

"hold their noses as necessary"

That sounds like code for "vote for Romney if he's the nominee" and I'm here to tell you that it ain't happenin'.

[apillar]

Republicans are committing political suicide if they nominate that Ronald Reagan guy. He is WAY too conservative. Women and moderates will NEVER vote for him. It’s going to be a landslide win for Carter, unless Republicans settle on someone more electable like George H.W. Bush or John Anderson.

[TonyInOhio]

I've always wondered why any credence is lent to the RCP averages. We have seen example after example of polls with bad or slanted samples and outright fraud in reporting results. The Washington Post polls, for example, have been so bad that they have stopped publishing the sample data. Yet, Real Clear Politics makes no distinction between good and bad polling, nad simply includes all of it in the averages.

An average of bad polls is going to be just as bad.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Wrong. All conservatives need to get behind the candidate that most closely represents conservatism and back that candidate.

The problem is that there is not agreement as to who that is, because conservatism isn't a monolith. In particular, you have the tension between social conservatives and libertarians. Santorum is the strongest social conservative, but is also not as much a small government guy as some of the others. Gingrich kind of pitches and yaws between small government conservativism with occasional grandiose ideas. Paul is probably the most small government of the bunch, but has weird ideas on national security and no social conservatism. And Romney, for all his flaws, may be the biggest free market proponent of the bunch (other than on health care) except for Paul, but without Paul's nutty foreign policy.

In any case, I think "conservatives", however you might define that, should get behind the person they think is the most conservative candidate who they also believe can win. Ignoring the ability to win the general election is foolish, in my opinion, unless symbolic votes are your thing.

[SoConPubbie]

And Romney, for all his flaws, may be the biggest free market proponent of the bunch (other than on health care) except for Paul, but without Paul's nutty foreign policy.

Yea, that Individual Mandate of this Socialist ROmneyCare really proves your point, doesn't it?

[Vaduz]

Averages of the Polls

Obama 30%

Anybody but Obama 70%

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

We should put those numbers in context. The truth was that we were in a downturn at this point in 1980 because of Volcker's tightening of the money supply. "Stagflation". The economy got worse during the course of 1980, and that helped the challenger. As pathetically weak as this "recovery" is, it is still on a mild expansion, so Obama's own ratings likely will go up.

Just being realistic.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I guess "Other than on health care" escaped your keen insight, huh?

Santorum is talking about gaming the tax rates to give preferences, and supports more government intervention in the economy, and Newt angered a lot of conservatives with his attacks on Bain Capital. By default, they've left Romney as the rhetorical defender of capitalism, except for his stance on RomneyCare.

That's more of a pathetic commentary on the stupid things said by Newt and Santorum than it is anything good about Romney.

Romney remains the same slimy gameshow host he's always been, but these other guys aren't helping themselves in taking advantage of that. I'm still pulling for Newt, though, because I think he is the only one of the three serious contenders capable of framing the free market v. socialism debate in a manner appealing to swing voters.

[Augustinian monk]

And the other elephant in the room is that culturally conservative Americans were still the silent majority. His views on issues like abortion/prayer in school helped him b/c that was where 70% of the country was.

[Impy]

January 1980 was well before Reagan was the presumptive nominee. After he was I believe a close race was expected.

And I still remember that Kerry 55% Bush 43% poll. That thing was an outlier if memory serves.

Obama’s numbers do not impress me.

[Sans-Culotte]

I know you say that with a certain amount of pride, however, all you have proven is that you are a willing and usefull tool of the GOP-E.

I know you say that with a certain amount of pride, however, all you have proven is that you are a willing and useful tool of Obama.

Congratulations.

[campaignPete R-CT]

Tom,
Kemp didn’t run until ‘88.
‘80 was Reagan, Bush, Anderson, Baker.
Connolly, Crane, and Dole dropped out early.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

My mind is going....

[The Citizen Soldier]

All Republicans need to get behind the candidate who can win, hold their noses as necessasry, and back that candidate.

Yes, that's good counsel...

so long as it is not Bishop Mitt Romney whom I will NEVER vote for!!

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Obama’s numbers do not impress me.”

Carter had a primary challenge, Obama will not. He has been able to spend the last year or so rallying Dems behind him as the GOP (Republicans in Congress) master making them dance to his tune. Alternately Democrats were fighting with Carter for his four years and divided, and he had his own Dem congress, the kiss of death.
If the election was held today, which it is not, things would look pretty grim for the GOP. But things can happen outside of his control between now and then so it is not over.

I don't see a Reagan in the field.

[matthew fuller]

"All Republicans need to get behind the candidate who can win, hold their noses as necessasry, and back that candidate. Divided we fall."

That kind of thinking got us McCain last time.

[SoConPubbie]

I guess "Other than on health care" escaped your keen insight, huh? Santorum is talking about gaming the tax rates to give preferences, and supports more government intervention in the economy, and Newt angered a lot of conservatives with his attacks on Bain Capital. By default, they've left Romney as the rhetorical defender of capitalism, except for his stance on RomneyCare.

Not at all.

Only in the minds of those trying to shape the message and those willing to buy it.

Nothing said by either Newt or Santorum rises to the level of complete idiocy and total abandonment of conservative Free-Market, capitalistic principles than the Socialistic Nightmare that is RomneyCare.

You're whole mantra about "By default, they've left Romney as the rhetorical defender of capitalism" is all beltway driven propaganda and is completely bereft of any basis in logic or fact.