Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
I was away a couple of days. I can finally sit down and reply.
> So here's an interesting question... In light of those stats (I believe they are > accurate) how popular do you believe Reagan would be today compared to how > popular he was with voters during his tenure? It seems to me he would have > been no more popular among voters today than Romney was.
This is a very interesting question. Reagan's era was very different. Reagan first attempted to be president in 1976. He lost the Republican primaries to Gerald Ford, but 1976 set him up to become the main Republican candidate in 1980.
In 1980 he won with 51% of the vote compares to Jimmy Carter's 41%. Voter turnout was really low that year, only 53% of the electorate voted. Reagan was helped by the Iran hostage crisis, rising interest rates that were crippling the economy, and the perception that he could be a Republican capable of mending the rift caused by the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. During his tenure Reagan became very popular with both Republicans and Democrats. In 1984 Reagan was reelected with 58.8 % of the vote copared to Walter Mondale's 40.6% (voter turnout was again only 53%). This clearly shows Reagan's appeal across the aisle and across party lines.
In our modern era Reagan probably would not have suceeded during the primaries. Reagan has the distinction of being the only American president to be divorced. In 1948 his first wife, Jane Wyman, divorced him. Four years later he married actress Nancy Davis (born Anne Frances Robbins), who became the first lady. There was nothing inappropriate about his divorce and second marriage, but in our present era it is quite possible that he would have been taken apart and his private life would have been used to sink him. Such is the nasty nature of politics in the mass media era. I don't think that religion would have affected his chances. He was raised a Catholic, but was baptized into the Disciples of Christ (a protestant church with a Congregational and Presbyterian polity).
We must also look at the nature of the modern electorate. These days minorites have gained a lot of political clout, as have women. The general perception is that Reagan used veiled allusion to race and state's rights as a way to court the seggregationist vote in the South (the so-called Dixiecrats). Reagan also attempted to dismantle government programs aimed at ensuring civil rights and welfare for the poor. Reagan was accused of policies that contributed to racism and increasing racial tensions. Whether those accusation are warranted is a matter of debate, but in our modern era Reagan would have been taken apart on racial issues and that 28% of the vote represented by minorities would not have gone his way. Regan has also been the called the "most anti-women president of the 20th century". I saw a claim that said that sexual discrimination claims increased 25% in the 1980s. I think Reagan would have failed to garner the female vote.
All in all I think that his great appeal and political qualities would have made him as popular as Romney, but he would have lost the election too because the demographics of the vote have changed so much.
Übergeek 바둑이: I can agree with much of what you say about Reagan except for the parts you rightly describe as "perceptions". You don't say who had these perceptions, but I think it's clear who they were. There were supporters and detractors (as there always are) on both sides would likely try shoring up their own perceptions with some obvious misperceptions. And one of those obvious misperceptions is when you imply cases of sexual discrimination had risen as a result of Reagans presidency.
"I saw a claim that said that sexual discrimination claims increased 25% in the 1980s."
This is probably true, but had nothing to do with Reagan. It's the same as if you implied feminist influence didn't begin until 1980 and then quickly peaked during the Reagan administration. If (reported) discrimination cases rose to that level during that time, it would be incidental to Reagans tenure. Feminist influence had been steadily growing for at least two decades prior to the 80's.
I personally got a taste of that influence during the 80's when I applied for a job, and was immediately grilled about my personal life. It was obvious I was not going to get the job and why. But even if I did get the job, I could see what lay in store for me working for those people. The problem with the interview began when it came out that I was a married man who had three children... when that little secret(?) came out I could see a definite shift in attitude in the woman who was doing the interview. After a few more minutes of listening to insulting questions and comments I decided not to sit through any more of it, and excused myself from the meeting. It was funny in a way, because when I got up to leave her attitude shifted to one of surprise, and she told me the interview was not over yet. So I said "It is for me. You can continue with the next guy who walks in, but as far as I'm concerned we are done here."
By the way, the feminist movement took a big hit, one I believe they've never recovered from, when after Reagan they stood by and supported the next (Democrat) president. And they were suspiciously quiet over his adulteries and misogynist behavior... I don't need to comment on that. It speaks for itself.
Übergeek 바둑이: Reagans first election was definitely a response to Carters failed policies. It was said of Carter that he couldn't say no to anyone, and as a result the poor fool was besieged by lobbyists on all sides... they were all over him like flies on [fecal matter]. But you failed to mention that Reagan had already proven he was able to turn the nations economy around. And he did, which accounts for why he won by an even bigger margin for his second term. During his tenure as governor of California, he not only turned the economy around by encouraging (instead of discouraging) business, but the resulting increase in tax revenue (more jobs, more tax money) allowed more money (not less) to be funneled into social services... Big Bird wasn't a bit worried about job security at that time. If he cut any social services it's because they didn't really function as a safety net. Many so called "social services" do nothing to help people with real needs, but rather exist as incentives (give aways) to encourage voter loyalty.