[lbo-talk] Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan

SA s11131978 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 22 14:04:17 PDT 2009


In the interests of procrastination, I took the liberty of digging up these polls:

---

NORC [April, 1968]

As it stands now, which one of these possible candidates would you personally like to see elected President next November (1968)? Johnson, Kennedy, McCarthy, Nixon, Reagan, Rockefeller, Wallace.

16% Johnson 20 Kennedy 11 McCarthy 21 Nixon 4 Reagan 9 Rockefeller 9 Wallace 3 Other 8 Don't know

---

Gallup Poll [January, 1968]

IF LYNDON JOHNSON WERE THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE AND RONALD REAGAN WERE THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, WHICH WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE WIN THE 1968 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION)? IF 'UNDECIDED OR OTHER', ASK: AS OF TODAY, DO YOU LEAN MORE TO JOHNSON, THE DEMOCRAT OR MORE TO REAGAN, THE REPUBLICAN?

54% JOHNSON 31 REAGAN 3 UNDECIDED OR OTHER, LEANS MORE TOWARD JOHNSON 2 UNDECIDED OR OTHER, LEANS MORE TOWARD REAGAN 11 UNDECIDED OR OTHER, UNDECIDED WHO LEAN TOWARD

SA wrote:
> Michael Pollak wrote:
>
>>> My understanding is that Reagan's 1968 "campaign" was mostly the
>>> work of some of overeager advisers. Reagan didn't actually do much
>>> campaigning. That's because he knew he had no chance of winning.
>>
>> My impression is the opposite -- that he was ahead of Nixon in all
>> the polls. I guess we'll have to go back to our sources.
>
> I'm saying Reagan had no chance of winning the *general* election.
> That's why *despite* being the candidate probably dearest to the
> hearts of rank-and-file GOP delegates, it was always very unlikely the
> party would pick him as its nominee. It would be interesting to see if
> there were any poll match-ups involving Reagan and Humphrey - I feel
> quite confident in saying Reagan would have gotten creamed in such an
> election.
>
> SA
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list