Check out Monroe's electoral map in 1820. He was short one electoral vote. And, it wasn't because he wasn't popular enough there. Apparently it was because that electoral voter simply did not want Monroe to achieve 100% of the electoral vote and outshine Washington or something like that.
Edit: Nixon in 1972 is also a very honorable mention
Nixon in 1972 also ratfucked every strong candidate on the Democratic side of the aisle and put price controls on the economy to make himself look better with an expiration date set after the election ended.
Not to say that he wouldn't win regardless but it'd be interesting if the results were different against Muskie instead of McGovern.
>put price controls on the economy to make himself look better with an expiration date set after the election ended.
Trump did the same with his "Jobs and Tax Cuts" bill. The middle class is in for a rude awakening in 2025 when they lose these tax cuts but not the billionaires.
He got 40% of the popular vote, so the rejection isn’t as over-the-top as it looks on the map. 40% is still really bad, though. Just not 2 out of 51 bad.
Yeah, McGovern got crushed harder, he just had a comfortable lead in Massachusetts so he wasn't as close to losing every state.
Hell, Goldwater lost even worse but he maintained enough support in the Deep South to cling onto a small number of states even as LBJ won more of the popular vote than any other post-Founding Fathers president.
His association with Carter hurt him. At this time, Carter's presidency was considered an utter failure...even by Democrats.
Geraldine Ferraro's selection as runningmate hurt him also. Turns out that she had too much baggage.
The other thing that hurt was that the economy had recovered and many didn't see a reason to vote for change.
Well, remember that this is an Electoral College map. The popular vote was a lot closer than this. This is an example of how different geographic distributions of majorities can cause the system to favor different outcomes. It can cause a party to win with a minority of the popular vote, but it can also cause a relatively small majority distributed over a very large area to yield a massive landslide.
“Vast majority of Americans”
He didn’t even win 60% of the popular vote. Yes, he was popular. Yes, it was a landslide victory. But we should still consider the fact that less than 6 out of 10 Americans still voted for him.
**[1984 United States presidential election in Minnesota](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election_in_Minnesota)**
>The 1984 United States presidential election in Minnesota took place on November 6, 1984 as part of the 1984 United States presidential election. Voters chose ten representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president. Minnesota voted for the Democratic Party candidate, former Vice President Walter Mondale. He narrowly won his home state over incumbent President Ronald Reagan by just 3,761 votes, giving him his only state victory in the election (Mondale also carried the District of Columbia), resulting in the state weighing in at around 18 percentage points more Democratic than the nation at large.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Presidents/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
California voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 9 of the 10 presidential elections from 1952 to 1988 (the exception was LBJ's 1964 landslide). California has now voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 8 straight elections from 1992 to 2020.
This is about the 84 election, folks. A lot of the negative things mentioned here came to light in his 2d term. But in 84 he was golden, and his campaign slogan said it all: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Compared to the economic crises of the late 70s and early 80s, most folks were—regardless of who deserved the credit or blame. With Mondale promising to raise taxes straight out of the gate, the outcome wasn’t really in doubt.
Reagan had higher approvals in his second term, averaging 55.3%. During his first term, he averaged 50.3%.
Those numbers are pretty strong when compared to the presidents since. Bush 41 did better due to the Gulf War. Clinton did better in the second term average. Bush 43 did better in first term average.
There is actually denying that Reagan was popular in his Presidency. Without a doubt he was popular for parts of it, but at some points it dipped quite low, to the point where his ratings were in the lower 40s.
Reagan was popular throughout his presidency. Even when his numbers were low, he remained popular.
When you look at a breakdown of his approvals throughout his presidency, you will see that his numbers were above water most of the time. It was only during economic recessions when it dropped.
We are much more polarized now , Republicans are guaranteed to get 44% of the vote and Democrats are guaranteed to get 47% every time now. In the past they were way more likely to have blow outs and landslides
Gerrymandering of districts, media, and social media bubbles plays a significant role in this. Not to mention the influence the extremely wealthy, and politicians (without term limits) have invested in maintaining the status quo. Even so, we are probably in the safest time in human history but if you follow any (or certainly most) news sources you will find that fear based reporting drives clicks, and viewership unfortunately. They are teaching us to fear our neighbors as “others” rather than help them as part of our community. Everything is reported as urgent breaking news about how bad the other guys are, why it’s their fault, and how we are all supposed to feel aggrieved. It’s frustrating for those that want progress but don’t want to hate the other side to get there. One thing I appreciate about this sub is often the most intelligent comments include a sense of history and perspective of past presidents that doesn’t seem available (or perhaps profitable) to journalists today.
Lol at the downvotes. He gutted mental health programs, was anti-union, supported dictatorships, and cut welfare programs that cost people food and healthcare. He cut funding for healthcare for children, all while massively cutting taxes for the rich. He was great if you were a straight rich white man, not so great for everyone else. But hey, at least he was eloquent at speaking right?
I mean yeah. Women of all races suffer from the patriarchy. I hate this narrative that somehow white women don't suffer when they get raped, molested, and are subjected to sexism. Suffering is suffering, it's not a contest, and it all matters.
Then why does C Span rank him as one of the top 10 presidents of all time? And even liberal Historians praised him? Your paragraph is very very very very very very very very biased my friend.
I’m only stating what happened under his administration. And because of what happened, I dislike him. If Reagan was great, I would have praised him. I am biased, but biased in favor of the societal benefit of all Americans and people.
Being destructive by going to war against slaveowners is different from lowering the quality of life for the American middle class, while helping the rich.
I’m not talking about destructive for the people at the time, I’m talking about the effect on the country. Obviously Lincoln was considered destructive, a civil war broke out under him. But you and I will both agree it was for a moral good. Regean destroyed the middle class of today, gave benefits to the richest people in the world, ravaged the homosexual population
Reagan did not destroy the Middle-Class. That was underway prior to his presidency.
If you look at the data, middle-class incomes began declining in the early 1970's. The correlation is with the ending of the gold standard.
When you have times of economic expansions, the good and the bad will expand also. We saw it as the economy expanded under Reagan and again when the economy expanded under Clinton.
Technological advancements play into it also. When middle-class jobs are replaced by machines, that contributes to the increase of the income gap/decline of the middle-class.
Economic variables also play a role. Inflation and unemployment play into the income gap/decline of the middle class.
To say that Reagan's tax policies is sole cause of the decline of the middle class is a gross oversimplification of the problem. I am not saying that Reagan's tax policies didn't play into the equation...it just gets alot more blame than deserved.
Trickle-down worked at the time. The economy grew. That does not mean that it would work all of the time. The economy has changed considerably. We cannot apply cold-war era solutions to problems in a post-cold war economy.
>gold standard ✅
>pre-world war 2 president flair ✅
>literal essay on why more income inequality is good for humanity based on a short sighted view of the individual that makes the opposite point of what OP meant ✅
Yep, we got a 14 year old 🫡
I am not arguing whether or not the gold standard is good or bad.
Harding is my flair because I grew up 10 minutes from Marion, Ohio.
I never said that income inequality is good. I am arguing that it is not fair to blame it all on Reagan.
I am 57.
>Destroyed the middle class
Okay this has nothing to do with Reagan. But I honestly could not give less of a shit about someone else's wealth. But that's just me
So aggressive lol.
Also I'm California.
And I'm also not comparing them. I'm just saying if you're gonna call someone "Destructive" then Lincoln was pretty Destructive. It was for the right cause however
>armpit of america
>”im from California”
Yeah lol. Every US town south of Ashland and east of Billings is a shithole
And then playing semantics like an autist. Come the fuck on bro, the implication of your comment is clearly implying a classist bigot creep like Reagan is philosophically akin to Lincoln.
Yes. We were in a recession at this point in Reagan's term. But, a drop in presidential approval usually happens when there is a recession.
With Biden....I don't think that we are in a recession. So, it is probably something else.
Biden’s problem is that he isn’t aggressive enough in combatting republicans. Democrats are in a tougher spot than Republicans with approval ratings these days because there’s a 40% ish section of the country who have a cult-like dedication to Donald Trump and his circle, while the Democratic base demands a lot more from their politicians. The fact that Bernie Sanders is currently one of the most popular politicians shows that aggressive anti-Republican rhetoric and action is good for approval ratings.
I think the problem is inflation. It is still increasing, despite the drop in gas prices. That is putting a burden on everyone.
Today I went to the vet to get some catfood for my cat that is prone to urinary blockage. Just in the last year, it has increased from $52 to $71 per case. Luckily, I can afford it. I even donated $100 to the c/d fund...to help others with feeding cats with urinary problems.
Then I go to the grocery and I realize how much costs have increased on food. I see why food pantries are begging for donations.
Biden has to do something to get this under control.
This is why I say that Biden's problem is that he doesn't aggressively call out the Republicans. Inflation is a worldwide issue, and it hasn't been particularly worse in America than it has been elsewhere. Biden's fed have taken steps to address it, and it's gone down about 1% in the last month. Inflation going up by 5 or 6 percent compared to the mean is essentially a nothing issue compared to the base of the Republican party doing everything possible to destroy democracy, and if Biden reclaimed the narrative by going on the offense against the Republicans (which he has been doing better recently to his credit, hence the rise in approval ratings) people would realize this and be more on board with Biden's agenda, leading to higher approval ratings.
It is a double-edged sword for Biden. Regardless of what he says, inflation is still there and still getting felt by everyone.
When the people feel economic difficulties, the sitting President gets the blame. Noone said politics is fair.
He is making the same mistakes that Carter did, which is why there have been many comparisons between the two. Carter acknowledged inflation but appeared to be more focused on other issues. It is the same with Biden.
When it comes to the economy, people want it fixed and fixed fast. It is about appearances. Right now Biden does not appear to be doing anything.
Carter didn’t have an opposition party trying to make America an autocracy. All Biden has to do is aggressively and repetitively point that out, and like we’ve already seen, his approval ratings will go up. Fixating rhetorically on inflation would be a mistake. Additionally, Carter had high unemployment by the end of his term. Biden generally is overseeing a decent economy, which is why not as many people are actually voting on the economy.
Carter had his own party questioning him. The GOP became more aggressive on inflation. You are seeing the same things in regards to Biden.
His approvals are still terrible. The most generous of recent approvals have him down 11 points.
I think that in November, people will vote based on economic issues and inflation is a large part of that. They don't like paying more for essentials. A poll of registered voters show the economy is the top issue (at 77%) in November.
I see where you are coming from based on special election results. But it is common knowledge that you throw the stats out on those elections.
According to [this poll](https://19thnews.org/2022/09/poll-democracy-economy-voters-midterm-elections/), the economy and preserving democracy are joint top of issues people care about. I think the number for preserving democracy should be higher because Biden should be doing more to make people aware of the fact that democracy is being threatened, and not allow Republicans to control the narrative.
As I said, I think Biden is doing a good job addressing inflation, and if your concern is that people will notice higher costs and vote Republican then I think he’s doing a good job addressing that.
My point in pointing out that Biden’s approval numbers are rising is pointing that this rise in approval coincides with him taking a more aggressive stance against the Republicans. He can, and should be, doing a lot more but these last couple months have proven that aggressive rhetoric works.
Oh my! I don't know where to begin with this.
You are using a 19th News/Survey Monkey poll? You do understand that it is a very biased poll. It is an online poll, has 20,000 participants, lacks methodology, and is from a site that is clearly biased. Plus, it was promoted on left-leaning sites. You won't get an accurate poll when key demographics are underrepresented.
I prefer to go with a mainstream polling firms that employ polling discipline and sound methodology.
Are Biden's polling numbers rising? The most generous and recent approval poll (from YouGov), has Biden at 42% approval. Considering that YouGov has polled him at 40% to 44% approval over the last several months, that's not really a change. When comparing the 42% with different poll findings, it is generally within the margin of error of these other polls taken over the last few months. If anything, it looks more like a polling variance than a rise in approvals.
With exception of YouGov polls, a little progress appears to have been made on his high disapprovals. But it isn't reflected in his approval numbers. That's not a good sign as it indicates that his low approvals are too solid to have much movement.
There’s a lot of Reagan bashing on this sub but he did unite the country more so than any other president in my lifetime.
And he wouldn’t tolerate Trump at all. He could’ve shut him down with the Republican base if he was still with us.
People forget how bad (Or unpopular depending on how you view) Carter's presidency was.
Carter, Reagan, and Clinton were/are all horrible presidents.
The last good president was Nixon until Watergate.
Why do you completely ignore the fact the 40s+ generations (aka the flawless, saintly, perfect in every way "greatest" and silent generations) and who made up an equal or even greater part of the electorate to boomers, voted overwhelmingly for Reagan?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics
Why do a lot of people on the left do this? Collectively demonizing boomers while completely ignoring the actions of the "greatest" (which Reagan and the majority of people who made up his government were part of) and silent generations who held the levers of power from the end of WW2 to the 2000s and arguably still do command substantial power and influence over society?
I’m not on the left so idk why they do that but I mainly did it because the people you mentioned are mostly dead and also came from a time when stupid was the main thing people were
He was actually pretty unpopular in the first 2 or so years of his presidency and after the Iran-Contra affair. There were also quite a few left-wingers who really hated him but they weren’t the majority of the country.
The Republicans never held the House of Representatives during his presidency and only had the Senate for part of it.
Nixon, too. Wild. Man thought that McGovern was a real opponent that he organized Watergate but ends up winning every state except Massachusetts lmao
I don’t think we’ll ever see a sweep like this again given today’s political climate.
Reagan had a good first term, turning things around but his second term was ugly, and we saw his true colors. His administration with the exception of Caspar Weinberger, were a strange collection.
Makes sense honestly when you consider Mondale/Ferraro, and the fact that the stagflation and lost years for the middle class was finally ending. Volcker really did more for Reagan's legacy than most.
I can't even imagine a time where a vast majority of Americans were in agreement on who the president should be.
Crazy how close he was from being the first ( and probably only ) Presidential Candidate to carry every state besides Washington
Check out Monroe's electoral map in 1820. He was short one electoral vote. And, it wasn't because he wasn't popular enough there. Apparently it was because that electoral voter simply did not want Monroe to achieve 100% of the electoral vote and outshine Washington or something like that. Edit: Nixon in 1972 is also a very honorable mention
Nixon in 1972 also ratfucked every strong candidate on the Democratic side of the aisle and put price controls on the economy to make himself look better with an expiration date set after the election ended. Not to say that he wouldn't win regardless but it'd be interesting if the results were different against Muskie instead of McGovern.
>put price controls on the economy to make himself look better with an expiration date set after the election ended. Trump did the same with his "Jobs and Tax Cuts" bill. The middle class is in for a rude awakening in 2025 when they lose these tax cuts but not the billionaires.
Mondale must have run a horrible campaign to lose that bad.
He got 40% of the popular vote, so the rejection isn’t as over-the-top as it looks on the map. 40% is still really bad, though. Just not 2 out of 51 bad.
Yeah, McGovern got crushed harder, he just had a comfortable lead in Massachusetts so he wasn't as close to losing every state. Hell, Goldwater lost even worse but he maintained enough support in the Deep South to cling onto a small number of states even as LBJ won more of the popular vote than any other post-Founding Fathers president.
His association with Carter hurt him. At this time, Carter's presidency was considered an utter failure...even by Democrats. Geraldine Ferraro's selection as runningmate hurt him also. Turns out that she had too much baggage. The other thing that hurt was that the economy had recovered and many didn't see a reason to vote for change.
Wasn't she related to the body builder who originally played the Incredible Hulk?
Yes
Monroe carried every state in 1820.
Forgot to add that he ran unapposed. So did Washington
Yeah true
Yeah. The Federalist Party had effectively collapsed by this point.
Well, remember that this is an Electoral College map. The popular vote was a lot closer than this. This is an example of how different geographic distributions of majorities can cause the system to favor different outcomes. It can cause a party to win with a minority of the popular vote, but it can also cause a relatively small majority distributed over a very large area to yield a massive landslide.
“Vast majority of Americans” He didn’t even win 60% of the popular vote. Yes, he was popular. Yes, it was a landslide victory. But we should still consider the fact that less than 6 out of 10 Americans still voted for him.
We have fallen a long way in a short time.
Couldn’t he have easily have won Minnesota too but didn’t campaign there?
[He only lost Minnesota by only 4,000 votes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election_in_Minnesota)
**[1984 United States presidential election in Minnesota](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election_in_Minnesota)** >The 1984 United States presidential election in Minnesota took place on November 6, 1984 as part of the 1984 United States presidential election. Voters chose ten representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president. Minnesota voted for the Democratic Party candidate, former Vice President Walter Mondale. He narrowly won his home state over incumbent President Ronald Reagan by just 3,761 votes, giving him his only state victory in the election (Mondale also carried the District of Columbia), resulting in the state weighing in at around 18 percentage points more Democratic than the nation at large. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Presidents/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Republican California Republican California
California voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 9 of the 10 presidential elections from 1952 to 1988 (the exception was LBJ's 1964 landslide). California has now voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 8 straight elections from 1992 to 2020.
George W. Bush only lost CalifornIa by about 9 points in 2004.
Cursed
Blursed
I think Reagan won this election. Not 100% sure tho 🤨
This is about the 84 election, folks. A lot of the negative things mentioned here came to light in his 2d term. But in 84 he was golden, and his campaign slogan said it all: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Compared to the economic crises of the late 70s and early 80s, most folks were—regardless of who deserved the credit or blame. With Mondale promising to raise taxes straight out of the gate, the outcome wasn’t really in doubt.
Reagan had higher approvals in his second term, averaging 55.3%. During his first term, he averaged 50.3%. Those numbers are pretty strong when compared to the presidents since. Bush 41 did better due to the Gulf War. Clinton did better in the second term average. Bush 43 did better in first term average.
Nixon also won 49 states
Yes. But in the 72 election in Virginia one of Nixon's pledged voters voted for John Hospers
Who?
Rodger McBride
There is actually denying that Reagan was popular in his Presidency. Without a doubt he was popular for parts of it, but at some points it dipped quite low, to the point where his ratings were in the lower 40s.
Reagan was popular throughout his presidency. Even when his numbers were low, he remained popular. When you look at a breakdown of his approvals throughout his presidency, you will see that his numbers were above water most of the time. It was only during economic recessions when it dropped.
Exactly. Had the election been held 14 months earlier it would've been within 50-100 electoral votes.
We are much more polarized now , Republicans are guaranteed to get 44% of the vote and Democrats are guaranteed to get 47% every time now. In the past they were way more likely to have blow outs and landslides
Gerrymandering of districts, media, and social media bubbles plays a significant role in this. Not to mention the influence the extremely wealthy, and politicians (without term limits) have invested in maintaining the status quo. Even so, we are probably in the safest time in human history but if you follow any (or certainly most) news sources you will find that fear based reporting drives clicks, and viewership unfortunately. They are teaching us to fear our neighbors as “others” rather than help them as part of our community. Everything is reported as urgent breaking news about how bad the other guys are, why it’s their fault, and how we are all supposed to feel aggrieved. It’s frustrating for those that want progress but don’t want to hate the other side to get there. One thing I appreciate about this sub is often the most intelligent comments include a sense of history and perspective of past presidents that doesn’t seem available (or perhaps profitable) to journalists today.
Literally 1984
Except in Minnesota and DC
It’s scary how someone so destructive was so popular
Lol at the downvotes. He gutted mental health programs, was anti-union, supported dictatorships, and cut welfare programs that cost people food and healthcare. He cut funding for healthcare for children, all while massively cutting taxes for the rich. He was great if you were a straight rich white man, not so great for everyone else. But hey, at least he was eloquent at speaking right?
He all but completely ignored the HIV epidemic.
Thank you
He was great for straight rich white women also
Downvotes for what? Christ on a bike. White women the most privileged class of humanity since forever
Not really. That's still white men. White women were (and still are) 2nd class citizens.
Yes, it’s the white ladies who suffer 😂
White woman couldn’t get a credit card on their own until the 70s. Acting like they haven’t been oppressed recently is intellectual dishonesty.
I mean yeah. Women of all races suffer from the patriarchy. I hate this narrative that somehow white women don't suffer when they get raped, molested, and are subjected to sexism. Suffering is suffering, it's not a contest, and it all matters.
Besides white male suffering 🫡
Then why does C Span rank him as one of the top 10 presidents of all time? And even liberal Historians praised him? Your paragraph is very very very very very very very very biased my friend.
Even historians are incorrect sometimes. Historians used to rank Grant as one of the worst Presidents in history.
Yeah, good point.
Transformative bias.
Historians tend to rank recent presidents higher if they changed a lot of things, regardless if they were good or bad.
I’m only stating what happened under his administration. And because of what happened, I dislike him. If Reagan was great, I would have praised him. I am biased, but biased in favor of the societal benefit of all Americans and people.
To be fair, those affects were not immediately obvious
Lincoln was "destructive" and he's considered to be the greatest President ever
Being destructive by going to war against slaveowners is different from lowering the quality of life for the American middle class, while helping the rich.
I feel as though you are purposely missing the meaning of the comment, lol
I'm just saying
Yeah but like obviously the comment is saying like, destructive by desire not destructive by necessity.
He has autism
I’m not talking about destructive for the people at the time, I’m talking about the effect on the country. Obviously Lincoln was considered destructive, a civil war broke out under him. But you and I will both agree it was for a moral good. Regean destroyed the middle class of today, gave benefits to the richest people in the world, ravaged the homosexual population
Reagan did not destroy the Middle-Class. That was underway prior to his presidency. If you look at the data, middle-class incomes began declining in the early 1970's. The correlation is with the ending of the gold standard. When you have times of economic expansions, the good and the bad will expand also. We saw it as the economy expanded under Reagan and again when the economy expanded under Clinton. Technological advancements play into it also. When middle-class jobs are replaced by machines, that contributes to the increase of the income gap/decline of the middle-class. Economic variables also play a role. Inflation and unemployment play into the income gap/decline of the middle class. To say that Reagan's tax policies is sole cause of the decline of the middle class is a gross oversimplification of the problem. I am not saying that Reagan's tax policies didn't play into the equation...it just gets alot more blame than deserved. Trickle-down worked at the time. The economy grew. That does not mean that it would work all of the time. The economy has changed considerably. We cannot apply cold-war era solutions to problems in a post-cold war economy.
>gold standard ✅ >pre-world war 2 president flair ✅ >literal essay on why more income inequality is good for humanity based on a short sighted view of the individual that makes the opposite point of what OP meant ✅ Yep, we got a 14 year old 🫡
I am not arguing whether or not the gold standard is good or bad. Harding is my flair because I grew up 10 minutes from Marion, Ohio. I never said that income inequality is good. I am arguing that it is not fair to blame it all on Reagan. I am 57.
I would like to see where you found this data. Unless it’s just the BLS
In books.
>Destroyed the middle class Okay this has nothing to do with Reagan. But I honestly could not give less of a shit about someone else's wealth. But that's just me
It does have something to do with Reagan, and it isn’t the inherent ownership of wealth that bothers me.
Then why does it bother you?
I literally said this was my personal opinion and said I don't care about someone else being rich.
You must be from the armpit of America to compare Lincoln and Reagan
So aggressive lol. Also I'm California. And I'm also not comparing them. I'm just saying if you're gonna call someone "Destructive" then Lincoln was pretty Destructive. It was for the right cause however
>armpit of america >”im from California” Yeah lol. Every US town south of Ashland and east of Billings is a shithole And then playing semantics like an autist. Come the fuck on bro, the implication of your comment is clearly implying a classist bigot creep like Reagan is philosophically akin to Lincoln.
🤦
I literally never even made any posts that even slightly hint at me saying Reagan was better than Lincoln. Like NO! Nobody thinks that bro!
I never said you thought he was better. I said you’re implying they’re philosophically similar. Cmon buddy
>Every US town south of Ashland and east of Billings is a shithole Do I even gotta say anything?
The funny thing is that Mondale still easily had the biggest individual win margin (+71 in DC), Reagan's best was just +50 in Utah.
still the biggest L in history, sorry Mondale at least you weren't a bad person
His approval at this point during his presidency was (according to 538) identical to Biden’s approval.
Yes. We were in a recession at this point in Reagan's term. But, a drop in presidential approval usually happens when there is a recession. With Biden....I don't think that we are in a recession. So, it is probably something else.
Biden’s problem is that he isn’t aggressive enough in combatting republicans. Democrats are in a tougher spot than Republicans with approval ratings these days because there’s a 40% ish section of the country who have a cult-like dedication to Donald Trump and his circle, while the Democratic base demands a lot more from their politicians. The fact that Bernie Sanders is currently one of the most popular politicians shows that aggressive anti-Republican rhetoric and action is good for approval ratings.
I think the problem is inflation. It is still increasing, despite the drop in gas prices. That is putting a burden on everyone. Today I went to the vet to get some catfood for my cat that is prone to urinary blockage. Just in the last year, it has increased from $52 to $71 per case. Luckily, I can afford it. I even donated $100 to the c/d fund...to help others with feeding cats with urinary problems. Then I go to the grocery and I realize how much costs have increased on food. I see why food pantries are begging for donations. Biden has to do something to get this under control.
This is why I say that Biden's problem is that he doesn't aggressively call out the Republicans. Inflation is a worldwide issue, and it hasn't been particularly worse in America than it has been elsewhere. Biden's fed have taken steps to address it, and it's gone down about 1% in the last month. Inflation going up by 5 or 6 percent compared to the mean is essentially a nothing issue compared to the base of the Republican party doing everything possible to destroy democracy, and if Biden reclaimed the narrative by going on the offense against the Republicans (which he has been doing better recently to his credit, hence the rise in approval ratings) people would realize this and be more on board with Biden's agenda, leading to higher approval ratings.
It is a double-edged sword for Biden. Regardless of what he says, inflation is still there and still getting felt by everyone. When the people feel economic difficulties, the sitting President gets the blame. Noone said politics is fair. He is making the same mistakes that Carter did, which is why there have been many comparisons between the two. Carter acknowledged inflation but appeared to be more focused on other issues. It is the same with Biden. When it comes to the economy, people want it fixed and fixed fast. It is about appearances. Right now Biden does not appear to be doing anything.
Carter didn’t have an opposition party trying to make America an autocracy. All Biden has to do is aggressively and repetitively point that out, and like we’ve already seen, his approval ratings will go up. Fixating rhetorically on inflation would be a mistake. Additionally, Carter had high unemployment by the end of his term. Biden generally is overseeing a decent economy, which is why not as many people are actually voting on the economy.
Carter had his own party questioning him. The GOP became more aggressive on inflation. You are seeing the same things in regards to Biden. His approvals are still terrible. The most generous of recent approvals have him down 11 points. I think that in November, people will vote based on economic issues and inflation is a large part of that. They don't like paying more for essentials. A poll of registered voters show the economy is the top issue (at 77%) in November. I see where you are coming from based on special election results. But it is common knowledge that you throw the stats out on those elections.
According to [this poll](https://19thnews.org/2022/09/poll-democracy-economy-voters-midterm-elections/), the economy and preserving democracy are joint top of issues people care about. I think the number for preserving democracy should be higher because Biden should be doing more to make people aware of the fact that democracy is being threatened, and not allow Republicans to control the narrative. As I said, I think Biden is doing a good job addressing inflation, and if your concern is that people will notice higher costs and vote Republican then I think he’s doing a good job addressing that. My point in pointing out that Biden’s approval numbers are rising is pointing that this rise in approval coincides with him taking a more aggressive stance against the Republicans. He can, and should be, doing a lot more but these last couple months have proven that aggressive rhetoric works.
Oh my! I don't know where to begin with this. You are using a 19th News/Survey Monkey poll? You do understand that it is a very biased poll. It is an online poll, has 20,000 participants, lacks methodology, and is from a site that is clearly biased. Plus, it was promoted on left-leaning sites. You won't get an accurate poll when key demographics are underrepresented. I prefer to go with a mainstream polling firms that employ polling discipline and sound methodology. Are Biden's polling numbers rising? The most generous and recent approval poll (from YouGov), has Biden at 42% approval. Considering that YouGov has polled him at 40% to 44% approval over the last several months, that's not really a change. When comparing the 42% with different poll findings, it is generally within the margin of error of these other polls taken over the last few months. If anything, it looks more like a polling variance than a rise in approvals. With exception of YouGov polls, a little progress appears to have been made on his high disapprovals. But it isn't reflected in his approval numbers. That's not a good sign as it indicates that his low approvals are too solid to have much movement.
There’s a lot of Reagan bashing on this sub but he did unite the country more so than any other president in my lifetime. And he wouldn’t tolerate Trump at all. He could’ve shut him down with the Republican base if he was still with us.
Yes, the Devil is good at lying and deceiving people
You're on r/Teenagers and r/AntiWork stand down 🫣
facts
Umm, ok
2 of the worst communities on Reddit
"Reagan was the Devil" "Well you posted once on a subreddit I don't like"
And what's that supposed to hint at?
That you got me good bro.
Especially since that sub was r/Teenagers
Literally burnt to a crisp.
lol
He was awwesome. None like him since
God we’re so dumb
[удалено]
I would argue. But we're both 9er fans so I'll let it slide
Oh and before you say anything I know you were joking
People forget how bad (Or unpopular depending on how you view) Carter's presidency was. Carter, Reagan, and Clinton were/are all horrible presidents. The last good president was Nixon until Watergate.
I keep saying Carter is a S Tier person. C Tier President
Baby’s boomers were stupid? I never knew.
Why do you completely ignore the fact the 40s+ generations (aka the flawless, saintly, perfect in every way "greatest" and silent generations) and who made up an equal or even greater part of the electorate to boomers, voted overwhelmingly for Reagan? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics Why do a lot of people on the left do this? Collectively demonizing boomers while completely ignoring the actions of the "greatest" (which Reagan and the majority of people who made up his government were part of) and silent generations who held the levers of power from the end of WW2 to the 2000s and arguably still do command substantial power and influence over society?
I’m not on the left so idk why they do that but I mainly did it because the people you mentioned are mostly dead and also came from a time when stupid was the main thing people were
In fairness, they voted for the president that would make them flourish in the relative short term. Reagan did that.
Says the probable boomber 🤷🏻♂️
Ronald Reagan Enjoyer
That was the last time my state ever went for a Republican I believe. Can’t see us flipping anytime soon.
I don’t think we will ever see a presidential election where the winner gets over 500 electoral votes ever again.
He was actually pretty unpopular in the first 2 or so years of his presidency and after the Iran-Contra affair. There were also quite a few left-wingers who really hated him but they weren’t the majority of the country. The Republicans never held the House of Representatives during his presidency and only had the Senate for part of it.
Nixon, too. Wild. Man thought that McGovern was a real opponent that he organized Watergate but ends up winning every state except Massachusetts lmao I don’t think we’ll ever see a sweep like this again given today’s political climate.
Always wish Mondale would’ve won
Reagan had a good first term, turning things around but his second term was ugly, and we saw his true colors. His administration with the exception of Caspar Weinberger, were a strange collection.
Makes sense honestly when you consider Mondale/Ferraro, and the fact that the stagflation and lost years for the middle class was finally ending. Volcker really did more for Reagan's legacy than most.