Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118569848
label
Meeting at Camp David 02/05/1982 (Binder) (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118569848
contentType
document
title
Meeting at Camp David 02/05/1982 (Binder) (2)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
137
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
Michael Deaver's Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118569848
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d518702847dd62fb
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual
collections.
Collection: Deaver, Michael
Folder Title: Meeting at Camp David
02/05/1982 (binder) (2)
Box: 36
To see more digitized collections
visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories
visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection.
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives
Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
Decision/Making/Information
A NATIONAL SURVEY OF PUBLIC ATTITUDES
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Presented by
Richard B. Wirthlin
February 1982
Decision/Making/Information
INDEX
I.
Political Climate
Memo
1
Charts
6
Cross-Tabulations
20
II.
The Economy
Memo
33
Charts
37
Cross-Tabulations
46
III.
The Budget
Memo
55
Charts
59
Cross-Tabulations
65
IV.
Foreign Policy
Memo
71
Charts
74
V.
Presidential Performance
Memo
77
Charts
81
Cross-Tabulations
93
GATS
109
VI.
Walter Mondale
GATS
126
VII. Regions
GATS
135
Decision/Making/Informati
POLITICAL CLIMATE
MEMO
-1-
Decision/Making/Informion
Intelligent alternatives
for today's decision makers
1050 Seventeenth Street N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 822-9010
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Richard Richards
FROM:
Richard B. Wirthlin
DATE:
January 29, 1982
SUBJECT: Political Climate
Although support on specific Reagan proposals may have declined
slightly. Americans, in general, are more optimistic about the
future of the country than they were a year ago.
Right Direction/Wrong Track
On the question of whether the country is generally headed in the
right direction or the wrong track, a marked difference is evident
between January 1981 and January 1982. A year ago, only 26% felt
the country was going in the right direction. Twelve months
later, that figure has risen to 50%. It should be noted, however,
that this measure is rather sensitive to the latest news events
which often shape, rather than report, public opinion.
Those who presently feel the country is off on the wrong direction
include senior citizens (52%), single women (61%), those with
less than a high school education (61%), and the lowest incomes
(72%), Blacks (79%), and Democrats.
Number One Problem
Economic issues continue to dominate the list of what the public
considers to be the nation's number one problem; however, the
composition of that economic rating has shifted slightly, over the
last year. As the attached table shows, unemployment has risen
sharply over the last year--from 4% to 17%. However, inflation
remains the single highest response, at 24%. Unemployment
receives its highest marks from Democrats, single men, middle
income, and midwestern respondents.
On the state level, unemployment retains its paramount position,
with 27% responding. This is up from nine percentage points from
last February.
-2-
Decision/Making/Information
Richard Richards
January 29, 1982
Page Two
Hard Time Making Ends Meet
Undoubtedly contributing to existing "wrong track" scores are
concerns over the economy. One question addresses the immediate
financial situation:
In the next six months, do you think it is
very likely, somewhat likely or not very likely
that the average family will have a harder time
making ends meet?
Very likely
71%
Somewhat likely
20
Not very likely
8
Not sure
1
Basically, the same subgroups who feel the country is on the wrong
track (minorities, the poor, women and liberals) express the strongest
"very likely" sentiment on this question.
Average Man Getting Worse
A similar measure asks people to agree or disagree with the following
statement:
In spite of what some people say, the condition of
the average man is getting worse, not better.
Strongly agree
41%
Somewhat agree
26
Somewhat disagree
20
Strongly disagree
12
No opinion
1
Again, those giving the most pessimistic responses include women,
the least educated, blue collar workers, Blacks, Democrats, and
those disapproving of Ronald Reagan's performance.
Predictions for the Next Year
Both in January 1982 and February 1981, respondents were asked
whether they expected the next 12 months to be a time of peace,
or discord, economic prosperity or difficulty. Consistent with
last year's measures, the pessimistic view receives the majority
on both fronts. On the economy 81% currently predict difficulty,
16% predict prosperity. These figures are nearly identical to
those gathered last February. The only subgroup making a strong
showing for "a year of economic prosperity" are strong Republicans,
but even they only generate 28% responding optimistically.
-3-
Decision/Making/Information
Richard Richards
January 29, 1982
Page Three
On the question of a year of peace or a year of discord and
disputes, the discord viewpoint has gained a sizeable advantage
over last year. Presently 79% expect discord with only 18%
predicting peace. Those who are most likely to label 1982 as
a year of disputes and international trouble include young women,
Blacks, and liberals.
Measures of Cynicism and Authoritarianism
Three other questions asked on this study relate to the positive
or negative feelings the public has toward government and its
leaders.
One measure has shown improvement over the last year:
As the government is now organized and operated,
I think it is hopelessly incapable of dealing
with all the crucial problems facing the country
today.
Agree strongly
22%
Agree somewhat
26
Disagree somewhat
27
Disagree strongly
24
No opinion
1
As the attached graph shows, this represents an increase in the
amount of confidence the public places in government. A year ago,
63% agreed with this statement compared to today's 48%.
Another measure has held nearly even over last year:
For the most part the government serves the
interests of a few organized groups such as
business or labor and isn't very concerned
about the needs of people like myself.
Agree strongly
36%
Agree somewhat
29
Disagree somewhat
20
Disagree strongly
14
No opinion
2
As the attached graph shows, there has been very little movement in
this measure since January 1981. Generally speaking, women, blue
collar workers, Blacks and the poor are more likely to agree with
this statement than are other subgroups.
-4-
Decision Making Information
Richard Richards
January 29, 1982
Page Four
The final measure asks respondents to rate the value of strong
leadership to the country:
A few good leaders could make this country
better than all the laws and talk.
Agree strongly
41%
Agree somewhat
29
Disagree somewhat
15
Disagree strongly
13
No opinion
3
Although there has been a slight decline in the strong agreement with
this statement, overall agreement remains high at 70%. Strongest
agreement comes from senior citizens, Blacks, the least educated
and those strongly disapproving of Reagan's performance as President.
THE ECONOMY
MEMO
Decision/Making/Informion
Intelligent alternatives
for today's decision makers
1050 Seventeenth Street N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 822-9010
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Richard Richards
FROM:
Richard B. Wirthlin
DATE:
February 2, 1982
SUBJECT:
The Economy
The Reagan Economic Program
Nearly six out of every ten Americans say the Reagan economic program
will help the national economy but 50% concur with the statement
that the program is not "helpful to people like you." Both figures
have been holding almost steady over the last two months.
Those who give the strongest positive ratings to the program's
impact on the economy tend to be men, people between 25 and 44
years old, and college graduates. Optimism increases with income.
However, it is interesting to note the strongest positive readings
come from those with incomes between $30,000 - $40,000 (74%) while
support drops to 69% among those with incomes over $40,000.
Support from professional workers remains the highest of any
occupational category, with 70% responding help. The "help"
ratings from blue collar workers, on the other hand, have dropped
precipitously over the past year. In February, 1981, 75% of the
blue collar respondents felt the program would help; now only
51% of them feel this way.
Minority respondents remain adversly disposed to the Reagan
economic plan. Among Blacks, for example, only 22% say the programs
will help while 74% say they will hurt.
Perhaps the clearest distinctions of support or opposition to the
Reagan economic program can be seen along partisan and ideological
lines. Among strong Republicans 80% say the program will help.
Strong Democrats, by contrast, yield only 29% saying it will help.
Similarly, among conservatives the program is viewed positively
by 68% of the respondents, but among liberals the figure drops to
44%.
Decision/Making/Informati
Richard Richards
February 2, 1982
Page Two
The Margin of Patience
Of importance here as well is the amount of time the public is
willing to allow before it judges the effects of the economic
program. To test this, respondents were asked, "Just generally,
how long from now do you think it will be before we would begin
to see either the helpful or harmful effects of Reagan's proposed
economic program?" In the aggregate, two thirds of the public
says it will be a year or more; 9%, on the other hand, say the
effects are being felt right now. The remaining 22% give the
program between three to six months.
Women are less generous than men on this dimension as a third of
the women give the program less than a year.
Those with the shortest responses include single women (12% say
"now"), lower income and blue collar respondents. As to be
expected, Republicans give the President's program more time than
do Democrats. Ideologically as well, conservatives give the
program more leeway than do liberals. For example, among the
very liberal, 65% give the program one year or less, with 17%
saying "now." Among the very conservative, on the other hand,
only 9% give the "now" response.
In addition, the economic program was rated on several dimensions
including the effects on inflation and employment.
Reduce Inflation
The program receives somewhat positive scores on the question of
whether or not it will reduce inflation. Overall, 59% say it will
reduce inflation, while 36% say it will not and 5% have no opinion.
Men, professionals and Republicans give higher than average scores.
Slightly lower results are seen in response to the propositions the
Reagan program will improve productivity. On the aggregate, 53%
say the program will stimulate productivity compared to 40% who
say it will not. Subgroups distinctions are nearly the same as
for the previous question.
Increase Employment
On the issue of the program's ability to increase employment. The
results are less conclusive. Presently, 48% say it will increase
employment, while 47% say it will not. Here party affiliation
makes the biggest difference. Among strong Republicans, 77% say
Reagan's economic proposals will improve employment, while only
16% of the strong Democrats feel this way.
_35_
Decision/Making/Information
Richard Richards
February 2, 1982
Page Three
Slippage
Two other dimensions most graphically show a gradually deteriorating
support for the economic program. Currently, 45% of the public rates
the program as "helpful to people like you while 50% say it is not
helpful. Those responding the most negatively include single men
and women, minorities, Democrats and liberals. A wide disparity is
also seen on the basis of income. Among those with the lowest
incomes (under $5,000 annually) 77% say the program is not helpful
to them; among those with incomes over $40,000, however, the "not
helpful" rating drops to 33% while "helpful" rises to 62%.
Also showing deterioriation over the last year is the consideration
of the program as fair or unfair. Last February, nearly three
quarters of the public considered the program to be fair. Now 60%
feel the program is fair while 35% feel it is unfair. Those who
are most likely to consider the program unfair are again the lower
income, minority and liberal respondents.
Contributing to the negative perceptions of the economic program is
the predominant view that Reagan's plans favor the rich. Respondents
were asked:
Overall, would you say Ronald Reagan's
economic program best meets the needs
of
poor and lower income people
middle income people upper income
people
or would you say his
economic program equally meets the needs
of all people?
Poor/lower income
2%
Middle class
13
Upper income
59
All people equally
24
None
1
No opinion
2
Those who feel most strongly that the program benefits the rich include
single women (69%), Blacks (83%), residents of the northeast (63%),
and liberals (71%).
Income distinctions are somewhat predictable. The lower the incomes,
the more likely to say the program favors the rich. The higher the
income, the more likely to say the program's benefits are equally
distributed.
Decision/Making/Informati
THE BUDGET
MEMO
Decision/Making/Information
Intelligent alternatives
for today's decision makers
1050 Seventeenth Street N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 822-9010
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Richard Richards
FROM:
Richard B. Wirthlin
DATE:
January 29, 1982
SUBJECT: The Budget
When faced with four pre-structured budgeting options, Americans
would rather cut non-defense spending than raise revenues or face
an unbalanced budget.
Specifically, respondents were asked:
As you may know, the government has a number of goals
which it would like to fulfill, such as balancing
the budget, reducing inflation and providing
necessary services. Sometimes, in order to reach
one of these goals, certain tradeoffs have to be
made. I'm going to read you a list of four
options the government may have to face. I'd like
you to rank these four actions, that is please
tell me which one you would choose first if you
had to choose, the second, third and finally
which action you would be least likely to
choose.
First Second Third Fourth
Choice
Choice
Choice
Choice
Postponing the tax
cut
26%
31%
25%
14%
Reducing defense
spending
22
20
23
32
Reducing all federal
spending except
defense
34
24
22
16
Not balancing the budget
15
21
26
34
Certain deviations from the norm are evident upon further analysis.
For instance, older respondents place a higher premium on defense;
consequently they are likely to inverse the normal order and list
decreased defense spending as the least likely to be first choice.
Decision/Making/Information
Richard Richards
January 29, 1982
Page Two
Single women also generate some different patterns. Cutting federal
spending and postponing the tax cut each receive 27% of the mentions
as their first choice.
Postgraduates list cutting defense spending as their highest priority
as do Blacks and the very liberal.
To get a close look at the issue of federal spending, respondents
were asked how much they would like the government to spend on
specific programs.
Let's talk for a few minutes about government
spending on some specific programs. I'm going
to read you a list of these programs. For each
one, please tell me, in your opinion, whether
the federal government should spend more or
should spend less on each program. I'm going
to read the whole list first, and then will
go over each one and get your opinion.
(IF RESPONDENT SAYS "SPEND MORE", ASK:) And
would you be willing to have your own taxes
increased to support this program or not?
Total "Spend More"
Crime
75%
Education
67
Energy
59
Medicaid
54
School
50
Defense
50
Unemployment
41
AFDC
36
Food Stamps
23
Foreign Aid
12
The attached graphs show the comparison between ten programs tested
in this study. The table shows the comparison of eight of these
programs with figures collected last year. Note the significant
changes in support for defense spending (a move toward less spending)
and unemployment compensation (a slight shift toward more spending).
The proposals ranked in order of current total "spend more" support,
are discussed briefly below:
Important Subgroups Demonstrating
Greatest Support For Increased
Rank
Program
Spending
1
Crime prevention
Very liberal, Blacks, senior citizens,
working women
Decision/Making/Information
Richard Richards
January 29, 1982
Page Three
Important Subgroups Demonstrating
Greatest Support For Increased
Rank
Program
Spending
2
Education
Blacks, younger voters, liberals,
upper income
3
Energy Conservation
Programs
Postgraduates, Mountain states residents,
younger respondents
4
Medicaid
Blue collar, liberals, 25-34 year olds,
lower income
5
School lunches
Minorities, those disapproving of
Reagan, liberals, 18-34 year olds
6
Defense
Southern residents, conservatives,
Reagan supporters, Blue collar,
veterans, older men
7
Unemployment
Compensation
Liberals, Blacks, union members, Blue
collar, lower incomes, working women
8
Aid to Families
with Dependent
Children
Liberals, New England residents, Blacks,
younger men
9
Food Stamps
Less educated, lower income, liberals,
Blue collar workers, women
10
Foreign Aid
Jewish, liberals and Black respondents
but in no subgroup does "spend more"
get over 23%
-58-
Decision/Making/Information
FOREIGN POLICY
MEMO
71
Decision/Making/Information
Intelligent alternatives
for today's decision makers
1050 Seventeenth Street N.W., Suite 1100, Washington. D.C. 20036, (202) 822-9010
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Richard Richards
FROM:
Richard B. Wirthlin
DATE:
January 29, 1982
SUBJECT:
Foreign Policy
Most Americans approve the actions Ronald Reagan has taken
in response to the situation in Poland. In particular, the
respondents were asked:
As you may know, Ronald Reagan recently
announced a number of economic and
diplomatic sanctions against the Soviets
as a response to their actions in Poland.
In your opinion, are these sanctions
...
too strong about right ... or not
streng enough?
Too strong
14%
About right
43
Not strong enough
33
No opinion
10
Subgroups varying significantly from the average include:
Veterans--41% feel the actions are not
strong enough
Blacks--23% respond "too strong"
Liberals--29% respond "too strong" while conservatives
generate 38% "not strong enough"
In addition, a marked difference is evident between men and women:
Too
About
Not strong
No
Strong
Right
Enough
Opinion
Male
15%
39%
40%
6%
Female
14
46
27
13
-72-
Decision, Making Information
Richard Richards
January 29, 1982
Page Two
Another question dealing with sanctions imposed on the Soviet Union
asked the respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the
following:
Imposing a grain embargo against the Soviet
Union is the only economic action that would
really affect the Soviets.
Agree strongly
15%
Agree somewhat
19
Disagree somewhat
25
Disagree strongly
32
No opinion
8
As to be expected, opposition to this statement is highest in the
farm belt states, reading a regional high of 69% disagreement.
Other subgroups generating strong opposition to this statement include
men (64% disapprove), college graduates (67%), military veterans and
Reagan suporters.
-73-
Decision/Making/Information
PRESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE
MEMO
-77-
Decision/Making/Information&
Intelligent alternatives
for today's decision makers
1050 Seventeenth Street N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 822-9010
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Edwin Meese III
James A. Baker, III
Michael K. Deaver
FROM:
Richard B. Wirthlin
DATE:
February 2, 1982
SUBJECT:
Reagan Performance
President Reagan has started off the new year with a moderately
high rating from the American public. Six out of every ten
Americans approve of the job Reagan is doing as President, a figure
which has held relatively steady this winter.
As we have seen in the past, Reagan's strongest supporters are the
more conservative, upper income and white respondents. What has
been happening over past months, however, is the creation of an
increasingly partisan base of support. Subgroups which previously
gave this base some diversity have been lowering their approval
of the President at a faster rate than in the aggregate. These
groups include older, middle income and blue collar workers.
A comparison with where Reagan stood a year ago is seen on one of
the attached charts. As to be expected, more people have now
formed an opinion of the President. Also echoing an historic
trend, is the decline in the President's job rating. More often
than not, a president loses approval during his first term
in office. What has varied is the amount of that loss (or gain).
Reagan has dropped only two percentage points during his first
term, as measured by Gallup. When compared to the past seven
Presidents, Reagan's loss is negligible. Only two of our modern-
day presidents--Kennedy and Nixon--actually gained in popularity
during their first term. Eisenhower broke even while the other
five have shown a loss. Of those, Reagan's drop is minimal--only
two percentage points compared to Truman's -37 points or Ford's
-25.
Reagan was also assessed on his handling of specific issues. On
the economy, the President receives a 57% approval rating. Again,
it is the Republicans, the upper income, white collar professionals
Decision/Making/Information
Meese, Baker, and Deaver
February 2, 1982
Page Two
that respond well on this dimension. Conversely, blue collar, low
income, liberal Democrats give Reagan his lowest ratings in this
regard.
Although Reagan fares well on this general economic job rating, he
lags behind on his handling of some specific economic problems. For
instance only a third of the public approves of his handling of
unemployment. Only among Republicans and those considered as the
least cynical about politics does Reagan receive a majority
approving of his handling of this issue. In all other subgroups,
the approval is below 50% of the population. Among strong
Democrats, Hispanics and Blacks, for instance, the disapproval
rating for Reagan's handling of unemployment is greater than 80%.
On inflation, the President receives better ratings. In the
aggregate, he holds on to a bare majority with 51% approving of
his handling of inflation. Approval falls below a third among
high cynics, the very liberal, Blacks and those with the lowest
incomes.
Reagan receives his highest marks on his handling of government
waste with over two-thirds of the American public approving and
only 22% disapproving. In nearly every subgroup, Reagan retains
a majority approval on this issue. The only groups generating
less than 50% approval are strong Democrats, Blacks and those
with incomes under $10,000.
On a related question, respondents were asked, "From what you've
heard and read, has Ronald Reagan cut government spending ... enough
...
more than enough,
...
or not enough during his first year as
President?"
The general consensus is that President Reagan does not need to
cut government spending any more, with nearly six out of ten feeling
he has cut "enough" or "more than enough." However, 37% of the
people feel that Reagan has not cut enough.
People feeling that Reagan has cut more than enough are those who
are most directly affected by cuts in social programs, and include
55-64 year olds, low income respondents and Blacks. Democrats
and liberals also feel that Reagan has been too severe on cutting
government spending.
Respondents who are in the high income categories, live in the
mountain states, and Lutherans feel stronger than average that
President Reagan has not cut enough in government spending.
The other specific issue tested is Reagan's handling of foreign
affairs. In the aggregate, 59% of the people approve of Reagan's
performance in this regard. The same support pattern emerges as
-79-
Decision/Making/Information
Meese, Baker, and Deaver
February 2, 1982
Page Three
for most of the other issues: strong support by the conservatives,
Republicans and upper income people on one end versus disapproval
from the Democrats, Blacks and liberals.
Other characteristics of Reagan are also tested. Responses to the
question "What do you like most about Ronald Reagan?" show that the
public continues to admire Reagan for his strong leadership. Since
last February, this quality has risen seven points.
On the opposite dimension, nearly four out of ten people name
ideology or stands on issues as what they least like about Ronald
Reagan. Fourteen percent (14%) also name his job performance as
a problem.
Respondents also assessed President Reagan on certain characteristics
associated with his job. Overall, he receives a good rating as a
strong leader, effective in getting things done and being trustworthy.
He receives these high ratings from his usual Republican supporters,
college graduates, veterans, men and older respondents.
Reagan also promotes a favorable image when compared to the characteristic
such as starting an unnecessary war.
Reagan receives criticism in the areas of showing too much business
favoritism and caring about the needs of the elderly and the poor.
In these areas his ratings hover around the "only fair" category.
Finally, Reagan's stand can be compared with other national political
figures. As the attached chart shows, Reagan continues to get a
higher rating than either Walter Mondale or Ted Kennedy. Reagan's
rating has remained nearly constant when compared to last year,
as have Kennedy's and Mondale's. Rankings which have shown some
movement include those for the Republican party (up 1½ points)
and the Democratic party (up nearly 5 points, on a 100 point
scale).
-80-
Decision/Making/Information
PRESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE
CROSS-TABULATIONS
Decision/Making/informati
1981 SUMMARY OF NATL ATTITUDES / 3151 /EAGLE I-TR7 PAGE
13
TABLE 154
2. FULL DEMOGRAPHICS
VS
27.
JGB RATING: REAGAN
ANSWERS TO
di
27:
1) STAUNGLY APPROVE
3) SOMEWHAT APPROVE
3) SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE
:1 STRONGLY DISAPPROVE
5) NO OPINION
(1)
(2)
(2)
(4)
(5)
-
%
%
%
R
%
TXTX
-------------------------
CAGGREGATE RESULTS)
36
31.
11.
13.
0
TABLE 154 IS Q. 89 X Q. 27
SEX/AGE
YOUNGER WOMEN(19-44) (3712)
29
23
14.
16.
9.
(AVG. If 2. 2.18 BIG. MIGHR ***)
OLDER WOMEN (45+) C4582:
33
29
13.
15.
10
(AVG. = 2.11 SIG HIGHR ***)
YOUNGER MEN (19-44) <5070>
38
34
of
11.
oi
(AVG. = 1.93 SIG. COWER (+)
/
OLDER MEN (45+) <4273>
45.
25
10.
13.
of
(AVG. = 1.89 BIG LOWER ****
CHISG= 413.78 W/
7 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 100.00 %.
TABLE 155 IS G. 14 X G 27
EDUCATION
SOME HIGH SCHOOL C35605
27
29
15.
20.
0
(AVG. = 2.31 SIG. HIGHR ***)
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE <6740>
34.
30
12.
12.
a
(AVG. = 2.02 NO SIG DIFF
:
SOME COLLEGE/VOCATNL (3331)
38.
31.
11.
12.
B.
(AVG. = 1.98 SIG. LOWER ***)
COLLEGE GRADUATE (3022)
44.
27
D
10.
00
(AVG. = 1.84 SIG. LOWER ***)
POST-GRADUATE WORK <1739)
40.
2B.
9.
14.
9
(AVG. = 1.98 SIG. LOWER **)
CHISQ= 394.72 W/ 12 0. F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 100.00 %.
***
1981 SUMMARY OF NATL ATTITUDES / 3151 /EAGLE I-TR7 PAGE
86
TABLE 156
2. FULL DEMOGRAPHICS
VS.
27.
JOB RATING: REAGAN
ANSWERS TO
di
27:
1)
STRONGLY APPROVE
2) SOMEWHAT APPROVE
3) BOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE 4) STRONGLY DISAPPROVE
5)
NO OPINION
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
3
%
%
%
%
%
----
====
CAGGREGATE RESULTS>
36.
01.
11.
13.
9
TABLE 156 IS G. 19 X G.
27
INCOME
UNDER $5,000 <1268>
21.
27.
16.
26.
9
(AVG. = 2.52 SIG. HIGHR ***)
$5,000 TO $9,999 <2029>
25.
30.
16.
20.
7
(AVG. in 2.33 SIG. HIGHR ***)
$10,000 TO $14,999 <3248>
30.
32.
13.
16.
?
(AVG. = 2.15 2. SIG. HIGHR ***)
$15,000 TO $19,999 (3424)
35.
32.
12.
13.
9
(AVG. = 2.05 NO SIG. DIFF )
$20,000 TO $29,999 <4600>
40.
32.
10.
10.
a
(AVG. = 1.89 SIG. LOWER ***)
$30,000 TO $39,999 <2218>
43.
31.
9.
7.
B.
(AVG. = 1.84 316 LOWER ***)
$40,000 OR MORE <2036>
51.
28.
7.
8.
a
(AVG. = 1.70 SIG. LOWER ***)
CHISQ 842.96 W/ 13 D.F IS SIGNIFICANT AT 100.00 %.
-95-
Decision/Making/Information
1981 SUMMARY OF NATL ATTITUDES / 3151 /EAGLE I-TR7 PAGE 620
TABLE 1163
110. 9-PT DECPOLITICAL
VS
27. JOB RATING: REAGAN
ANSWERS TO
Q.
27:
1)
STRONGLY APPROVE
2) SOMEWHAT APPROVE
3)
SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE
4) STRONGLY DISAPPROVE
5) NO OPINION
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(3)
%
%
%
%
%
====
====
*****
NEW ENGLAND <1174>
36.
32.
12.
11.
9
(AVG. = 1.99 NO S10. DIFF )
MIDDLE ATLANTIC <3646>
31.
31.
12.
16.
11.
(AVG. = 2.15 SIG. HIGHR ***)
SOUTH ATLANTIC <3755>
36.
30.
12.
14.
-D
(AVG. = 2.05 SIQ. HIGHR +)
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL <1462>
37.
30.
12
15.
is
(AVG. = 2.06 NO SIG DIFF )
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL (2362)
41.
29.
11.
11.
7.
(AVG. = 1.92 SIG LOWER ***)
EAST NORTH CENTRAL <4123>
33.
33.
12.
13.
9
(AVG. = 2.05 SIG. HIGHR * )
WEST NORTH CENTRAL (1634)
37.
34.
12.
10.
3.
(AVG. = 1.93 SIG. LOWER ***)
MOUNTAIN (1085)
45.
32.
9.
B.
6.
(AVG. = 1.78 SIG LOWER ***)
PACIFIC <2940>
36.
29.
11.
14.
10
(AVG. If 2.03 NO SIG. DIFF
)
====
FREE
====
:
FREE
CAGGREGATE RESULTS)
36.
31.
11.
13.
9.
CHI-SQUARE = 184.61 WITH 24 DEGREES OF FREEDOM.
***
THE SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL FOR THIS TABLE IS 100.00 %.
1981 SUMMARY OF NATL ATTITUDES / 3151 /EAGLE I-TR7 PAGE 622
TABLE 1164
111. 20-PT GEOPOLITICAL
VS. 27 JOB RATING: REAGAN
ANSWERS TO
Q.
27:
1)
STRONGLY APPROVE
2) SOMEWHAT APPROVE
3)
SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE
4) STRONGLY DISAPPROVE
5) NO OPINION
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
%
%
%
%
%
FFEE
====
####
RESS
MASSACHUSETTS < 5435
31.
34.
13.
13.
P
(AVQ. = 2.09 SIG. HIGHR +)
ME/VT/NH/CT/RI < 631>
40.
30.
11.
10.
10.
(AVQ. # 1.90 SIG. LOWER ***)
NEW YORK <1741>
30.
31.
11.
17.
11.
(AVG. If 2. 17 SIG, HIGHR ***)
NEW JERSEY < 726)
34.
28.
11.
15.
12.
(AVG. = 2.07 NO SIG. DIFF )
PENNSYLVANIA <1179>
29.
33.
12.
16.
a
(AVG. = 2.17 SIQ. HIGHR ***)
OHIO <1063>
35.
30.
12.
12.
10
(AVG. = 2.03 NO SIG. DIFF }
ILLINOIS <1141>
33.
34.
11.
13.
a
(AVG. = 2.05 NO SIG. DIFF )
MICHIGAN < 9283
31.
32.
13.
15.
of
(AVG. = 2.13 SIG. HIGHR ***)
IND & WISC < 990>
35.
34.
11.
12.
8.
(AVG. R 2.01 NO SIG. DIFF )
MN/ND/SD/NB < 356>
45.
34.
8.
5.
7
(AVG. = 1.71 SIG. LOWER ***)
IOWA/MO/KS < 962>
33.
34.
13.
11.
7.
(AVG. = 2.03 NO SIQ. DIFF )
FLORIDA < 947>
44.
29.
9.
10.
8.
(AVG. If 1.84 SIG. LOWER ***)
NC/SC/GA <1465>
34.
30.
13.
14.
9.
(AVG. = 2.07 SIG. HIGHR +)
-97-
Decision/ Making Information
RNC NATIONAL TRACKING / 5511 / JANUARY 1982
PAGE
69
TABLE 139
1. SHORT DEMOGRAPHICS
vs. 113. LIKE MOST/PEAGAN/C
ANSWERS TO
Q. 113:
1) STRONG LEADERSHIP
2) OTHER PERSONAL QUAL
3) JOB PERFORMANCE
4) STAND/ECONOMIC ISSUE
5) STAND FOREIGN AFFAIR 6) STAND/OTHER ISSUES
7) GENERAL POSITIVE
8) NEED MORE TIME/NEUTL
9) GENERAL NEGATIVE
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
⑇
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
====
====
:
:
:
:
====
====
FEES
<AGGREGATE RESULTS>
19.
20.
14.
12.
5.
4.
3.
7.
16.
TABLE 139 IS 2. 100 X Q. 113
SEX
MALE < 728>
22. 17. 13. 16. 7. 5. 3. 5. 13.
FEMALE < 772>
17.
22.
15.
9.
3.
4.
3.
9.
18.
CHISQ= 49.13 W/ 8 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 100.00 %.
***
TABLE 140 IS C. 107 x Q. 113
AGE/C
18 - 24 < 217>
26.
11.
13.
9.
12.
4.
4.
7.
14.
25 - 34 < 387>
22. 19. 9. 12. 6. 5. 3. 6. 17.
35 - 44 < 293>
18. 20. 15. 14. 4. 5. 2. 7. 14.
45 - 54 < 217>
19. 20. 13. 16. 2. 6. 3. 9. 12.
55 - 64 < 184>
15.
21.
20.
11.
5.
2.
4.
5.
18.
65 AND OLDER < 197>
11.
31.
19.
10.
1.
2.
4.
6.
17.
CHISQ= 111.94 N/ 40 O.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 100.00 %.
***
TABLE 141 IS Q. 122 X Q. 113
MARITAL STATUS/SEX
MARRIED MEN < 539>
20.
18.
13.
16.
6.
5.
2.
5.
13.
MARRIED WOMEN < 518>
19.
23.
16.
9.
3.
4.
3.
9.
15.
NON-MARRIED-MEN < 190>
25.
14.
11.
14.
8.
3.
3.
5.
15.
NON-MARRIED-WOMEN < 253> 13. 21. 14. 9. 4. 3. 5. 9. 22.
CHISQ= 69.88 N/ 24 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 100.00 %.
***
TABLE 142 IS Q. 87 X Q. 113
EDUCATION
SOME HIGH SCHOL/LESS< 205> 11. 19. 14. 10. 5. 3. 5. 11. 22.
HIGH
SCHOOL
GRADUATE<
539>
16.
20.
14.
9.
6.
3.
4.
7.
20.
SOME COLLEGE/VOCATNL 381> 24. 18. 14. 12. 5. 6. 2. 6. 12.
COLLEGE GRADUATE < 233>
23.
22.
15.
18.
4.
4.
2.
4.
3.
POST-GRADUATE WORK < 141>
22.
23.
14.
17.
4.
5.
1.
5.
9.
CHISQ= 87.65 w/ 32 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 100.00 %.
***
-98-
RNC NATIONAL TRACKING / 5511 / JANUARY 1982
PAGE
70
TABLE 143
1. SHORT DEMOGRAPHICS
VS. 113. LIKE MOST/REAGAN/C
ANSWERS TO
2. 113:
1) STRONG LEADERSHIP
2) OTHER PERSONAL QUAL
3) JOB PERFORMANCE
4) STAND/ECONOMIC ISSUE
5) STAND FOREIGN AFFAIR 6) STAND/OTHER ISSUES
7) GENERAL POSITIVE
8) NEED MORE TIME/NEUTL
9) GENERAL NEGATIVE
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
FEER
:
====
====
FEES
====
====
====
SHEP
<AGGREGATE RESULTS>
19. 20. 14. 12. 5. 4. 3. 7. 16.
TABLE 143 IS Q. 95 X Q. 113
INCOME
UNDER $ 5,000 < 70>
7. 15. 16. 7. 3. 1. 8. 8. 37.
$ 5,000 TO $ 9,999 < 143> 3. 25. 10. 5. 6. 1. 7. 12. 26.
$10,000 TO $14,999 < 219> 16. 17. 18. 12. 5. 3. 3. 8. 17.
$15,000 TO $19,999 < 223> 18. 19. 16. 11. 4. 4. 3. 10. 14.
$20,000 TO $29,999 < 323> 24. 20. 12. 12. 7. 6. 2. 4. 13.
$30,000 TO $39,999 < 207> 26. 23. 8. 16. 6. 5. 1. 5. 3. 9. 9.
$40,000 OR MORE < 197>
22.
20.
18.
18.
4.
5.
1.
CHISQ= = 165.70 W/ 48 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 100.00 %.
#**
TABLE 144 IS Q. 110 X Q. 113
OCCUPATION/C
PROFES>IONAL < 308>
22.
18.
14.
15.
7.
6.
1.
5.
11.
OTHER WHITE COLLAR < 437> 24. 23. 14. 12. 5. 4. 2. 6. 10.
BLUE COLLAR < 345>
18. 15. 13. 10. 5. 4. 6. 8. 21.
RETIRED < 281>
12. 27. 16. 12. 2. 3. 4. 6. 18.
OTHER/REFUSED < 130>
12. 10. 14. 10. 9. 4. 3. 13. 24.
CHISQ= 110.95 W/ 32 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 100.00 %.
***
TABLE 145 IS Q. 90 x Q. 113
LABOR FAMILY
YES < 322>
16. 17. 13. 9. 7. 4. 3. 6. 24.
NO <1174>
20. 20. 15. 13. 5. 4. 3. 7. 13.
CHISQ= 29.94 W/ 8 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 99.98 %.
***
TABLE 146 IS Q. 115 x Q. 113
ETHNICITY
WHITE <1123>
21. 22. 15. 14. 5. 5. 3. 6. 11.
BLACK < 180>
10. 8. 9. 5. 6. 3. 7. 11. 43.
HISPANIC < 48>
12. 18. 6. 12. 8. 0. 2. 12. 31.
OTHER < 122>
22. 15. 18. 11. 4. 6. 2. 8. 15.
CHISQ- 177.50 N/ 24 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 100.00 %.
***
-99-
Decision/
Making
1981 SUMMARY OF NATL ATTITUDES / 3151 /EAGLE I-TR7 PAGE 635
TABLE 1169
110. 9-PT. GEOPOLITICAL
VS
92. LIKE MOST/REAGAN/C
ANSWERS TO
a.
92:
1)
STRONG LEADERSHIP
2) OTHER PERSONAL GUAL
3) JOB PERFORMANCE
4) STAND/ECONOMIC ISSUE
5) STAND FOREIGN AFFAIR
6) STAND/OTHER ISSUES
7) GENERAL POSITIVE
8) NEED MORE TIME/NEVIL
91 GENERAL NEGATIVE
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(3)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
%
%
%
X
%
%
%
%
%
NEW ENGLAND <1025>
20.
23.
17.
11.
3.
6.
3.
9.
9.
MIDDLE ATLANTIC <3199>
19.
21.
16.
7.
4.
6.
3.
11.
12.
SOUTH ATLANTIC <3293>
18.
19
17.
10.
4.
7.
3.
11
11.
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL
<1278>
15-
20
17.
9.
4.
8.
4.
12.
11.
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL
(2070)
18.
20.
19.
10.
4.
7.
3.
9.
10.
3.
11.
EAST NORTH CENTRAL
(3613)
17.
21.
17
11.
3.
7.
11
WEST NORTH CENTRAL
<1432>
18.
23
16.
12.
3.
7.
2.
11
8.
MOUNTAIN < 951>
19.
22.
20.
12.
5.
5.
2.
8.
D
PACIFIC <2568>
20.
22.
18.
10.
4.
6.
3.
9.
10.
<AGGREGATE RESULTS>
18.
21.
17.
10.
4.
6.
3.
10.
10.
CHI-SQUARE =
157.08
WITH
64 DEGREES OF FREEDOM.
THE SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL FOR THIS TABLE IS 100.00 %.
ACTUAL N'S
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(B)
(9
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
IN
###
NEW ENGLAND <1025>
207.
232.
173.
116.
26.
66.
31.
89.
82.
MIDDLE ATLANTIC <3199>
597. 658. 510. 281. 129. 177. 83. 368. 397.
-100-
Decision/Making/Information
RNC NATIONAL TRACKING / 5511 / JANUARY 1982
PAGE 72
TABLE 150
1. SHORT DEMOGRAPHICS
VS. 114. LIKE LEAST/REAGAN/C
ANSWERS TO
Q. 114:
1) PERSONAL QUALITIES
2) JOB PERFORMANCE
3) STAND/ECONOMIC ISSUE 4) STAND FOREIGN AFFAIR
5) STAND/OTHER ISSUES 6) GENERAL NEGATIVE
7) NEED MORE TIME/NEUTR 8) GENERAL POSITIVE
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
of
3
%
%
%
%
%
%
====
:
:
:
:
::::
<AGGREGATE RESULTS>
9.
14.
25.
9.
3.
3.
12.
20.
TABLE 150 IS Q. 100 X Q. 114
SEX
MALE < 728>
7. 16. 24. 10. 7. 3. 11. 21.
FEMALE < 772>
10. 11. 26. 8. 10. 3. 13. 20.
CHISQ= 16.38 W/ 7 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 97.81 %.
**
TABLE 151 IS Q. 107 X Q. 114
AGE/C
18 - 24 < 217>
7. 13. 27. 16. 12. 2. 9. 14.
25 - 34 < 387>
9. 13. 28. 11. 8. 1. 11. 13.
35 - 44 < 293>
9. 14. 20. 8. 9. 4. 16. 22.
45 - 54 < 217>
10. 11. 27. 3. 5. 4. 11. 25.
55 - 64 < 184>
10. 13. 26. 6. 8. 2. 12. 22.
65 AND OLDER < 197>
8.
18.
20.
5.
6.
3.
15.
24.
CHISQ= 63.48 N/ 35 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 99.77 ..
***
TABLE 152 IS Q. 122 X Q. 114
MARITAL STATUS/SEX
MARRIED MEN < 539>
7.
16.
23.
9.
6.
3.
12.
23.
MARRIED WOMEN < 518>
10. 11. 25. 7. 9. 2. 14. 23.
NON-MARRIED-MEN < 190>
8.
14.
29.
13.
3.
3.
8.
17.
NON-MARRIED-WOMEN < 253>
11.
13.
27.
12.
10.
4.
11.
13.
CHISQ= 42.36 J/ 21 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 99.62 %.
***
TABLE 153 IS Q. 87 X Q. 114
EDUCATION
SOME HIGH SCHOL/LESS< 205>
7.
13.
27.
5.
6.
5.
18.
20.
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE< 539>
9.
11.
24.
8.
10.
3.
12.
21.
SOME
COLLEGE/VOCATNL
381>
10.
13.
28.
11.
7.
1.
10.
20.
COLLEGE GRADUATE < 233>
7.
19.
21.
10.
8.
2.
13.
21.
POST-GRADUATE WORK < 141> 11. 17. 25. 13. 7. 1. 10. 17.
CHISQ= 42.66 N/ 28 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 96.25 %.
**
-101-
Decision/Making/Information
RNC NATIONAL TRACKING / 5511 / JANUARY 1982
PAGE
73
TABLE 154
1. SHORT DEMOGRAPHICS
VS. 114. LIKE LEAST/REAGAN/C
ANSWERS TO
Q. 114:
1) PERSONAL QUALITIES
2) JOB PERFORMANCE
3) STAND/ECONOMIC ISSUE 4) STAND FOREIGN AFFAIR
5) STAND/OTHER ISSUES 6) GENERAL NEGATIVE
7) NEED MORE TIME/NEUTR 8) GENERAL POSITIVE
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (3)
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
:
SEE:
:
====
:
====
====
<AGGREGATE RESULTS>
9. 14. 25. 9. 8. 3. 12. 20.
TABLE 154 IS Q. 95 X Q. 114
INCOME
UNDER $ 5,000 < 70>
4. 16. 37. 10. 5. 5. 11. 12.
$ 5,000 TO 3 9,999 < 143> 10. 16. 25. 5. 12. 6. 12. 14.
$10,000 TO $14,999 < 219> 9. 9. 29. 9. 8. 5. 10. 20.
$15,000 TO $19,999 < 223> 8. 13. 23. 8. 8. 1. 18. 21.
$20,000 TO $29,999 < 323> 7. 16. 26. 10. 7. 2. 12. 20.
$30,000 TO $39,999 < 207> 3. 13. 22. 9. 10. 1. 10. 26.
$40,000 OR MORE < 197> 12. 13. 24. 11. 7. 1. 11. 20.
CHISQ= 59.84 W/ 42 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 96.36 %.
**
TABLE 155 IS Q. 110 x Q. 114
OCCUPATION/C
PROFES>IONAL < 308>
12.
15.
21.
12.
8.
2.
10.
20.
OTHER WHITE COLLAR < 437> 8. 13. 26. 10. 7. 1. 11. 25.
BLUE COLLAR < 345>
10. 11. 27. 8. 11. S. 11. 16.
RETIRED < 281>
7. 17. 22. 5. 7. 3. 16. 23.
OTHER/REFUSED < 130>
6. 13. 31. 12. 8. 4. 16. 10.
CHISQ= 69.48 W/ 28 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 100.00 %.
***
TABLE 156 IS Q. 90 x Q. 114
LABOR FAMILY
YES < 322>
9. 14. 27. 9. 10. 4. 11. 17.
NO <1174>
7. 13. 24. 9. 3. 2. 13. 21.
CHISQ= 8.64 N/ 7 D.F.
TABLE 157 IS Q. 115 X Q. 114
ETHNICITY
WHITE <1123>
9.
13.
23.
9.
8.
2.
14.
23.
BLACK < 180>
S. 17. 34. 10. 12. 7. 6. 9.
HISPANIC < 43>
16. 18. 33. 8. 8. 4. 8. 6.
OTHER < 122>
6. 16. 31. 12. 6. 4. 10. 16.
CHISQ= 72.46 N/ 21 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 100.00 %.
****
Decision/Making/Information
1981 SUMMARY OF NATL ATTITUDES / 3151 /EAGLE I-TR7 PAGE $40
TABLE 1171
110. 9-PT. GEOPOLITICAL
VS.
93. LIKE LEAST/REAGAN/C
ANSWERS TO
di
93:
1)
PERSONAL QUALITIES
2) JOB PERFORMANCE
3) STAND/ECONDMIC ISSUE 4) STAND FOREIGN AFFAIR
51 STAND/OTHER ISSUES
6) GENERAL NEGATIVE
7) NEED MORE TIME/MEUTR 8) GENERAL POSITIVE
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(S)
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
####
====
====
BEED
###
====
====
NEW ENGLAND <1025>
16.
8.
13.
10.
13.
1.
19.
21.
19.
MIDDLE ATLANTIC <3199>
14.
10
16.
is
14.
2.
19.
SOUTH ATLANTIC <3293>
15.
10.
16.
5.
14
2
19
20.
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL
<1278>
15.
7.
16.
4.
15.
2.
19.
23.
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL
<2070>
15.
9.
14.
3.
13.
2.
19.
23.
EAST NORTH CENTRAL
(3613)
17.
7.
13
6.
13.
1.
19.
20.
22.
19.
WEST NORTH CENTRAL
<1432>
15.
9.
13.
6.
13.
1.
MOUNTAIN < 951>
15.
7.
13.
7.
12.
1.
20.
25.
PACIFIC <2568>
17.
10
14.
8.
12.
2.
17
19
====
====
====
PERE
CARE
====
CAGGREGATE RESULTS>
16.
9.
15.
6.
13.
2.
19.
20.
CHI-SQUARE = 186.84 WITH 56 DEGREES OF FREEDOM.
***
THE SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL FOR THIS TABLE IS 100.00 %.
ACTUAL N'S
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(S)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
====
====
EXP:
====
CERE
-
####
NEW ENGLAND <1025>
160.
84.
130.
98.
134.
12.
191.
215.
MIDDLE ATLANTIC <3199>
446.
316.
528.
199.
452.
71.
595.
392.
SOUTH ATLANTIC <3293>
493.
318.
520.
173.
458.
61.
616.
653.
1981 SUMMARY OF NATL ATTITUDES / 3151 /EAGLE I-TR7 PAGE 625
TABLE 1163
110. 9-PT. GEOPOLITICAL
VS. 42. ECONOMY REAGAN
ANSWERS TO
Q.
42:
1)
STRONGLY APPROVE
2) SOMEWHAT APPROVE
3)
SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE
4) STRONGLY DISAPPROVE
5)
(NO OPINION)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(3)
%
%
%
%
%
III
----
====
====
:
NEW ENGLAND < 889>
29.
34.
15.
14.
8.
(AVQ. If 2.15 NO SIG. DIFF )
MIDDLE ATLANTIC <2788>
25.
32.
15.
19.
8.
(AVG. If 2.31 SIG. HIGHR ***)
SOUTH ATLANTIC <2886>
29.
32.
15.
17
5.
(AVG. = 2.22 SIG, HIGHR +)
18.
6.
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL <1119>
30.
32.
15.
(AVG. if 2.22 NO SIG. DIFF )
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL <1821>
37.
29.
13.
15.
7.
(AVG. = 2.07 SIG. LOWER ***)
EAST NORTH CENTRAL (3160)
28.
34.
15.
17.
6.
(AVG. = 2.23 SIG. HIGHR **)
WEST NORTH CENTRAL <1253>
29.
37.
14.
12.
of
(AVG. = 2.09 SIG. LOWER ***)
MOUNTAIN < 824>
39.
33.
13.
10.
6.
(AVQ. = 1.93 SIG. LOWER ***)
PACIFIC <2249>
28.
32.
16.
17
7
(AVG. = 2.23 SIG. HIGHR +)
****
----
====
CSEE
CAGGREGATE RESULTS>
29.
33.
15.
16.
7
CHI-SQUARE = 167.97 WITH 24 DEGREES OF FREEDOM.
THE SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL FOR THIS TABLE IS 100.00 %.
-104-
1981 SUMMARY OF NATL ATTITUDES / 3151 /EAGLE I-TR7 PAGE
627
TABLE 1166
111. 20-PT GEOPOLITICAL
VS. 42. ECONOMY: REAGAN
ANSWERS TO
Q.
42:
1)
STRONGLY APPROVE
2) SOMEWHAT APPROVE
3) SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE
4) STRONGLY DISAPPROVE
3)
(NO OPINION)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
%
%
%
%
%
SPEE
REER
:
MASSACHUSETTS < 411>
26.
35
16.
15.
9
(AVG. = 2.22 NO SIG. DIFF )
ME/VT/NH/CT/RI < 478>
33.
33.
14.
13.
7.
(AVG. if 2.09 SIG. LOWER **)
NEW YORK (1331)
25.
31.
16.
18.
9
(AVG. = 2.31 SIG, HIGHR ***?
NEW JERSEY C 554>
26.
34.
16.
17.
7.
(AVG. ff 2.25 NO SIG. DIFF )
PENNSYLVANIA < 902>
25.
33.
13.
21.
7.
(AVQ. = 2.33 SIG. HIGHR ***)
OHIO < 810>
29.
32.
16.
16.
7.
(AVG. = 2.22 NO SIQ. DIFF )
ILLINOIS < 878>
27.
35.
14.
18.
6.
(AVG. = 2.26 SIG. HIGHR
*)
MICHIGAN < 715>
27.
33.
16.
18.
6.
(AVG. If 2.26 SIG. HIGHR #)
IND & WISC < 758>
28.
37.
15.
15.
5.
(AVG. = 2.19 NO SIG. DIFF )
MN/ND/SD/NB < 278>
39.
34.
10.
7.
a
(AVG. # 1.84 SIG. LOWER ***)
IOWA/MO/KS < 737>
25.
38.
15.
14.
B.
(AVG. = 2. 19 NO SIG. DIFF )
FLORIDA < 723)
32.
35.
13.
13.
6.
(AVG. at 2. CB SIG. LOWER ***)
NC/SC/GA <1115>
30.
32.
16.
16.
6.
(AVG. #. 2.20 NO SIG. DIFF )
-105-
Decision/Making/Information
1981 SUMMARY OF NATL ATTITUDES / 3151 /EAGLE I-TR7 PAGE 628
TABLE 1166 (CONTINUED)
111. 20-PT CEOPOLITICAL
VS. 42. ECONOMY: REAGAN
ANSWERS TO
G.
42:
1)
STRONGLY APPROVE
2) BOMEWHAT APPROVE
3)
SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE
4)
STRONGLY DISAPPROVE
5)
(NO OPINION)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
%
%
%
%
%
SEEP
####
####
#
====
MD/DE/DG/VA/WV <1048>
26.
29.
17.
21.
7
(AVQ. = 2.35 SIG. HIGHR ***)
KY/TN/ALAB/MS <1119>
30.
32.
15.
18.
6.
(AVG. = 2.22 NO SIG. DIFF )
TEXAS <1076>
38.
30.
14.
12.
6.
(AVG. = 2.01 SIGNLOWER ***)
ARK/LA/OKLA < 7450
35.
26.
12.
19.
1.
(AVG. = 2.16 NO SIG. DIFF )
MT/ID/NV/UT/CO/AZ/NE (1062)
37.
J.
13.
10.
in
(AVG. = 1.96 SIG. LOWER ***)
CALIFORNIA <1775>
28.
32.
16.
13.
7.
(AVG. = 2.24 SIG. HIGHR **)
WASH ix ORE < 474>
29.
34
15.
15.
7
(AVG. is 2. 17 NO SIG. DIFF )
####
####
====
CAGGREGATE RESULTS>
29.
33.
15.
16.
7
CHI-SQUARE = 254.92 WITH 57 DEGREES OF FREEDOM.
THE SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL FOR THIS TABLE IS 100.00 %.
ACTUAL N'S
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
N
N
N
N
N
FREE
BALE
SEEF
---
MASSACHUSETTS < 411>
105.
143.
66.
61.
36.
ME/VT/NH/CT/RI < 478>
156.
158.
69.
62.
33.
106
1981 SUMMARY OF NATL ATTITUDES / 3151 /EAGLE I-TR7 PAGE 630
TABLE 1167
110. 9-PT. GEOPOLITICAL
VS.
43. FOREIGN AFFAIRS: REAGAN
ANSWERS TO
G.
43:
1)
STRONGLY APPROVE
2) SOMEWHAT APPROVE
3)
SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE
4) STRONGLY DISAPPROVE
5)
(NO OPINION)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
%
%
%
%
X
****
====
FREE
FRSH
NEW ENGLAND < 889>
26.
34.
13.
12.
16.
(AVG. = 2.13 NO SIG. DIFF :
MIDDLE ATLANTIC <2788>
26.
32.
14.
13.
14.
(AVG. = 2.17 SIG HIGHR **)
SOUTH ATLANTIC <2886>
28.
33.
13.
11.
15.
(AVG. = 2 08 SIG LOWER **)
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL <1119>
26.
06.
14.
11.
13.
(AVG. # 2.13 NO SIG. DIFF )
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL <1821>
31.
34.
11.
10.
14.
(AVG. = 2.00 2. SIG. LOWER ***)
EAST NORTH CENTRAL <3160>
24.
36.
14.
12.
14.
(AVG. = 2. 18 SIG. HIGHR ***)
WEST NORTH CENTRAL (1253)
25.
34.
15.
B.
18.
(AVG. = 2.08 2. BIG. LOWER +)
MOUNTAIN ( 824>
28.
38.
10.
9.
15
(AVG. = 2.00 SIG. LOWER ***)
PACIFIC <2249>
24.
33.
15.
14.
13
(AVG. = 2.22 SIG. HIGHR ***)
:
PERS
====
I
CAGGREGATE RESULTS)
26.
34.
14.
12.
15.
CHI-SGUARE = 104.34 WITH 24 DEGREES OF FREEDOM.
THE SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL FOR THIS TABLE IS 100.00 %.
-107-
Decision/Making/Information
RNC NATIONAL TRACKING / 5511 / JANUARY 1982
PAGE
75
TABLE 161
2. FULL DEMOGRAPHICS
VS. 12. RR CUT GOVT SPENDING
ANSWERS TO
Q.
12:
1) CUT ENOUGH
2) MORE THAN ENOUGH
3) NOT ENOUGH
4) NO OPINION
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
%
%
%
%
:
====
====
:
<AGGREGATE RESULTS>
41.
18.
37.
4.
TABLE 161 IS 2. 100 X Q. 12
SEX
MALE < 723>
41.
17.
38.
4.
FEMALE < 772>
40.
20.
37.
4.
CHISQ= = 1.53 N/ 3 D.F.
TABLE 162 IS Q. 107 X Q. 12
AGE/C
18 - 24 < 217>
48.
19.
33.
C.
25 - 34 < 387>
43.
18.
36.
2.
35 - 44 < 293>
39.
15.
39.
6.
45 - 54 < 217>
38.
17.
39.
6.
55 - 64 < 184>
36.
23.
37.
4.
65 AND OLDER < 197>
36.
20.
40.
4.
CHISQ= 30.11 N/ 15 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 98.85 %.
**
TABLE 163 IS Q. 108 x Q. 12
SEX/AGE
YOUNGER NOMEN(18-44) < 436>
43.
19.
36.
3.
OLDER WOMEN (45+) < 331>
36.
20.
38.
5.
YOUNGER MEN (18-44) < 461>
43.
16.
37.
3.
OLDER MEN (45+) < 268>
38.
19.
39.
4.
CHISC= 9.40 N/ 9 D.F.
TABLE 164 IS Q. 122 X Q. 12
MARITAL STATUS/SEX
MARRIED MEN < 539>
40.
17.
39.
4.
MARRIED WOMEN < 513>
42.
18.
36.
5.
NON-MARRIED-MEN < 190>
44.
19.
35.
2.
NON-MARRIED-WOMEN < 253>
36.
23.
37.
3.
CHISQ= 9.62 N/ 9 D.F.
TABLE 165 IS Q. 87 X Q. 12
EDUCATION
SOME HIGH SCHOL/LESS < 205>
37.
24.
32.
7.
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE < 539>
40.
21.
36.
3.
SOME COLLEGE/VOCATNL < 381>
41.
16.
40.
3.
COLLEGE GRADUATE < 233>
45.
13.
40.
2.
POST-GRADUATE WORK < 141>
41.
15.
37.
7.
CHISQ= 29.88 W/ 12 D.F. IS SIGNIFICANT AT 99.71 %.
***
108.
Decision/Making/Informati
PRESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE
GATS
-109-
Decision/ /Making/Information
1981 NATIONAL SUMMARY / 3151 / FEMALES / E1-TR7
PAGE
3
GROUP ANALYSIS TABLES: THERMOMETERS
THERMOMETER: PRESIDENT REACAN
(*****)
WARM
MID
COLD
AVG.
FAV. TOTAL
RANK
POPULATION
80+ 60-79
21-40
20-
THERM
POPULATION
(60+)
I.D.
+
+
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
10.
4.
B.
71.3
MOUNTAIN
65.
87.
1.
MOUNTAIN
45.
20.
2.
W.S.
CENTRAL
44.
17.
11.
3.
11.
68.9
W.N.
CENTRAL
61.
87.
3.
W.N.
CENTRAL
38.
23.
12.
6.
7.
67.7
W.S.
CENTRAL
61.
86.
15.
7.
mi
66.1
*AGGREGATE*
56.
86.
4.
NEW ENGLAND
35.
21.
5.
SO.
ATLANTIC
38.
18.
13.
6.
11.
65.2
SO.
ATLANTIC
56.
86.
6.
**AGGREGATE*
37.
19.
13.
5.
11.
64.7
NEW
ENGLAND
56.
B6.
13.
7
11.
64.0
E.N.
CENTRAL
35.
87.
7.
E.N. CENTRAL
35.
20.
8. E.S. CENTRAL
35.
17.
15.
6.
12.
63.4
MID
ATLANTIC
53.
87.
9. PACIFIC
33.
20.
14.
7.
13.
61.5
E.S.
CENTRAL
53.
B7.
10.
MID ATLANTIC
33.
20.
13.
7.
13.
61.5
PACIFIC
52.
86.
Decision/Making/Information
1481 NATIONAL CLMMARY / 3151 FEMALES / E1-TR/ E1
PAGE
(J)
YROUP AMAL 315 FABLES: THERMOMETERS
THERMOHETER PRESIDENT REAGAN
WARM
TID
COLD
AVG
PANK POPULATION
FAV. TOTAL
90-
&C-79
21-40
20-
THERM
POPULATION
(60+) 1.0
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
1. STR APP PEGN
(%)
(X)
09
12
2.
and
L.
...
87 0
STRONG REFUB
81.
2. BTRONG REPUB
87.
69
12
3
1
2.
56.2
STR APP REGN
3. VT REAGAN BO 59.
81.
83.
20
5
in
1.
92.0
VT REAGAN 80
4. LOW CYNICISM
79.
ET
35.
17
6.
ni
3.
79.5
NT STRNG REP
5. NT STRNG REP
76.
89
54.
23
7.
of
3.
77.8
LEAN REPUB
74.
b. LEAN REPUB
BB.
53.
21.
ri
2.
+
77.1
LOW CYNICISM
7. FARM/FOREMAN
72.
83.
46.
18
14
of
N
73.1
ABOVE $40K
B ABOVE NOM
69.
89
47.
21
it
5
7.
72.9
BW APP REAGN
7. FARM CWN/MGT
68.
86.
44.
B
11
4.
in
72.6
FARM OWN/MGT
67
10. OW APP REAGN
86
38.
30
12.
of
ni
72.6
MANAGERS/CFL
65.
11.
PPESBYTERIAN
B7
45.
18.
11
in
6.
71.8
WHITE ETHNIC
64
12. VERY CONSERV
89.
49,
13.
9
4.
of
71.5
FARM, FOREMAN
53.
13. MANAGERS/CFL 40
86.
25.
10
9.
K
70.3
PRESSYTERIAN
$3.
14. LUTHERAN
85.
39.
21
10
4
N.
70.0
VERY CONSERV
15. CTH PROTSTNT
63.
85.
40.
19
11
sity
mi
69.9
SMIST CONSERV
52.
16.
EPISCOPALIAN
86.
40
JO.
10
3.
5.
67.9
$20X TO $30K
62
17 SMWT CONSERV
SB.
41.
21
12.
4.
7.
69.4
$30K TO $40K
60,
18. WHITE STANIC
27.
42.
21
12.
in
ori
69.2
VETERAN
60
19. 53 64 1RS
91.
38.
20
14
5
7.
67.9
EPISCOPALIAN
60
EO. $30K TO $40K 40
83.
20.
12
N
3.
67.8
LUTHERAN
60
80.
21 $20K ro $ 30K
40.
22
12.
5.
8
57.7
OTH PROTSTNT
22. 55 +
60.
84.
10
177
11
in
11.
57.2
CLERK/SALES
59
20. METHODIST
88.
10.
19
10
5.
11.
66.7
METHODIST
59.
24 RETIRED
86.
08
17
12.
to
10
66.4
SOME COLLEGE
59.
25 SOME COLLEGE
87.
38.
21
1.2
5.
10
65.0
COLLEGE GRAD
58.
87
26. CATHOLIC
35.
20
12.
6.
is
63.7
PROFEBSIONAL 58 87
27 COLLEGE DRAD
09
13
12.
a
4)
63.7
55 - 64 YRS
S9.
28. 'BORN AGAIN"
83
37.
18
12
in
11.
654
POST-GRAD WK
57
29
88.
43 - 34 YRS
38.
m
14
7.
10
65.4
65 +
57.
54.
30. CLERK/SALES
37.
22
10.
5.
10.
65.3
$15K TO $20K
57.
31. REGISTRD vor
37.
37.
19
13.
6.
11.
63.1
REGISTRD VOT
56.
32.
PROFESSIONAL
86.
37.
20
12.
5.
11
65.0
OTHER ETHNIC
56.
33. HGH SCHL GRD
89.
36.
20
14.
5.
11.
64.8
CRAFT/FOREMN
56.
34. VETERAN
88.
36.
24
11.
mi
11.
64.8
*AGGREGATE*
56.
35. *AUGREGATE*
86.
37.
19
13.
5.
11.
64.7
HGH SCHL GRD
56.
36. $12K TO #2CK
86.
36.
21.
13.
7.
11.
64.7
RETIRED
37. OTHER ETHNIC
36.
34.
36.
20.
14.
9.
9.
64.6
35 - 44 YRS
36.
38. CRAFT/FOREMN
87.
36.
21.
15.
7.
10.
64.6
"SORN AGAIN"
39. MOD CYNICIEM
56.
84.
33.
20.
14.
r.
10.
64.4
49 - 54 YRS
40. PENTECOSTAL
55.
86.
38.
15.
14.
b.
12.
64.0
CATHOLIC
41.
INDEPENDENT
55.
82.
34.
21.
13.
5.
11.
64.0
INDEPENDENT
42. 35 - 44 YRS
54.
93.
37.
19.
12.
7.
12.
63.9
25 - 34 YRS
43. POST-GRAD WK
54.
87.
36
21
13.
7.
10.
63.6
44. MODERATE
WOMEN WORK/Y
54.
86.
32.
20.
13.
6.
11.
63.4
45. WOMEN WORK/Y
MOD CYNICISM
54.
34.
84.
20.
13.
6.
12.
63.0
46. HISPANIC ETH
PENTECOSTAL
53.
38.
85.
13.
14.
7.
14.
62.5
47. GOVT EMPLOYD
NOT REGISTRD
53,
97.
35.
17
14.
7.
13.
62.4
48. NOT REGISTRD
MODERATE
52.
33
20
82.
15.
6.
13.
62.2
BLUE COLLAR
32.
86.
Decision/Making/Information
1991 NATIONAL SUMMARY / 3151 / FEMALES / E1-TR7
PAGE
6
GROUP ANALYSIS TABLES: THERMOMETERS
THERMOMETER PRESIDENT REAGAN
(CONTINUED)
WARM
MID
COLD
AVG.
FAV.
TOTAL
RANK POPULATION
SO+ 30-19
21-40
20-
THERM.
POPULATION
(60+)
I.D
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
49.
BLUE COLLAR
34
17
14.
7.
13.
62.0
GOVT EMPLOYD
52.
86.
50.
$10K TO $13K
32.
19
15.
7
12.
62.0
18 - 24 YRS
52.
37.
51.
25 - 34 YRS
33.
21
13.
7.
13.
61.8
HISPANIC ETH
52.
87.
52.
OPERATIVES
34.
17
13
7.
15
51.4
OPERATIVES
51.
96.
53.
LABR FAMLY/Y
31.
19.
15.
mi
14
50.1
$10K TO $15K
51.
86.
54. NT STRNG DEM
27.
22.
17.
ai
12.
60.1
LABR FAMLY/Y
51.
97.
55.
SMWHT LIBERL
30.
20
15.
B.
13.
60.0
SMWHT LIBERL
50.
87.
56.
18 - 24 YRS
31.
20
13.
7.
15.
59.5
NT STRNG DEM
50.
86
57.
SERVC/LABOR
31.
1B.
15.
6.
15.
58.8
SERVC/LABOR
49.
87.
58. SM HGH SCHOL
32.
15
U
5.
1B.
58.7
JEWISH
49.
99.
59.
$5K TO $10K
31.
18
13.
5.
18.
58.5
$5A TO $1CK
49.
86.
60.
AGNOST/ATHE
28.
19
13
3.
13.
58.2
AGNOST/ATHE
47.
34.
61. BAPTIST
31.
13
14.
7.
18.
57.2
SM HGH SCHOL
47.
B3
62.
HOUSWF/STUDT
27.
13
15.
7.
17.
56.8
BAPTIST
46.
95.
63. JEWISH
21
28
14.
11
15.
56.3
HOUSWF/STUDT
46.
35.
64. UNDER $5K
27.
15
ni
mi
20.
54.1
UNDER $SK
42.
83.
65. VT ANDRSN SO
16.
25
19
13.
14
52 7
VT ANDREN 80
41.
87.
66.
LEAN DEMOCRT
17.
22.
21.
10.
19.
51.1
in
LEAN DEMOCRT
39.
90.
67.
UNEMPLOYED
25
11
15.
8.
25.
49.7
VERY LIBERAL
36.
87.
68.
VERY LIBERAL
24.
12
15
12
25.
49.3
UNEMPLOYED
36.
84.
69. HIGH CYNICSM
20.
13
13
10.
21.
49.0
HIGH CYNICSM
33.
79.
70. SW DAP REAGN
10
oz
27.
15.
14.
48.8
VT CARTER 80
32.
86.
71.
VT CARTER 80
14.
18.
20.
11.
23.
45.9
STRONG DEM
31.
86.
72.
STRONG DEM
15
15
19.
11
24
45.6
BW DAP REAGN
31.
87
73.
BLACK ETHNIC
12.
11
18.
11
39
35 6
BLACK ETHNIC
22.
89.
74. STR DAP REGN
3.
7.
17.
16.
45.
25.7
STR DAP REGN
7.
B7.
-112-
Decision/Making/Information
1981 NATIONAL SUMMARY / 3151 / FEMALES / E1-TR7
PAGE
1
GROUP ANALYSIS TABLES: THERMOMETERS
THERMOMETER: PRESIDENT REAGAN
NARM
MID
COLD
AVG.
FAV. TOTAL
RANK POPULATION
30+ 50-79
21-40
20-
THERM.
POPULATION
(60+)
I.D
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
1.
V CONERV COP
67.
:
W
2.
2.
84.8 8
$ CONSRV GOP
81.
88.
2. VERY LIB GOP
69.
9
6
2.
4.
83.3
V CONSRV GOP
BO.
87.
3. S CONSRV COP
63.
13
1.
1.
1
92.9
VERY LIB COP
78.
70
4. MODERATE GOP
35.
19
B.
1.
2.
80.5
RIGHT DIRECT
77.
88.
5. RIGHT DIRECT
57.
20.
7.
of
2.
79.8
SMWT LIB GOP
76.
88.
6. SMWT LIB GOP
36.
20
7
3.
3.
73.5
MODERATE GOP
75.
86.
7. CHANGO PARTY
55.
17
7.
4.
6
75.5
3141 MAY 17
74.
100.
72.
39
B.
MN/ND/50/NB
49.
19
12.
of
5.
73.4
CHANGD PARTY
9. 3171 JUNE 16
45.
20
18.
5
3.
72.7
3121 APR 12
70.
98
10. FARMERS
44
22
11.
3.
5.
72.7
3191 AUG 16
69
99.
11. V CONSRV IND
43.
10
11
4.
7.
71.4
3201 SEPT 15
68.
99.
12. FLORIDA
47.
16
13
4.
to
71.2
SCANDINAVIAN
68
89
13. GERMAN
45.
21
11
5.
6.
71.1
MN/ND/SD/NB
68.
S8.
14. 3141 MAY 17
53.
12
11
7
7
71.1
FARMERS
66.
86.
15.
MT/ID/UT/AZ
44
20
10
5-
a.
70.4
GERMAN
50.
69.
16. 3121 APR 12
50.
21
14
5.
B
10.2
3221 OCT 14
56.
99
45.
20
11.
5
8.
70.2
3171 JUNE 16
55.
92.
17. ENGLISH
18. TEXAS
46.
15
12.
3.
10
70.1
ENGLISH
55.
89.
19.
SCANDINAVIAN
38
29
is
5.
is
70 0
ORIENTAL
65
90.
20.
ME/VT/NH/CT
40
18
14
7
a
69.3
3231 OCT 26
65.
99
21. $ CONSRV TND
39.
23
12
4
N
69.2
MT/ID/UT/AZ
54.
87
22. IRISH
40
22
12
51
B.
13 8
2981 MAR 29
63.
96.
23. FRENCH
40
13
10.
+
7
68.3
FRENCH
63.
PO.
24. 3191 AUG 16
40.
23
:3
D.
11
57 6
5 CONSRV IND
62.
Bo.
25.
ARK/LA/OKLA
41.
20
10.
-
12
67.2
FLORIDA
62.
87.
26.
3201 SEPT 15
47.
21
1.2.
7
12
56.3
3181 JULY 18
62.
99.
65.4
3251 DEC 7
62.
98.
27.
IND & WISC
39.
18
13.
B.
1.
28.
3241 NOV 18
24.
11
3
3.
-
56.1
IRISH
62.
88.
29.
OHIO
37
22.
12.
N
10.
65.8
V CONSRV IND
62.
84.
30. 2981 MAR 29
40.
20
13.
R
U.
63.8
2761 FEB 3
62.
94.
31.
IOWA/MO/KS
34.
25.
13.
7
B.
63.7
TEXAS
61.
86.
32. 3221 OCT 14
44.
22
13.
7
12.
65.7
ARK/LA/OKLA
60.
B6.
33.
2761 FEB 3
39.
23
16.
7.
5.
65.5
VETERANS
60.
91.
34.
'BORN AGAIN'
37.
18
12.
51
11
63.4
IOWA/MO/KS
59.
87.
35. ORIENTAL
33
32
10.
7.
7.
65.4
NT CHG PARTY
59.
90.
36. NC/SC/GA
36.
19.
13.
b.
11
65.2
ME/VT/NH/CT
58.
85.
37. VETERANS
36.
24
11
ri
11
64.8
CHIO
58.
68.
38. NT CHG PARTY
39.
20
13.
6.
12.
547
IND % WISC
57
35.
39.
*AGGREGATE*
37.
19.
13.
5.
11.
64.7
ITALIAN
56.
89.
40. E. EUROPEAN
37.
18.
17.
6.
11.
64.4
*AGGREGATE*
56.
86.
41. 3231 OCT 26
43.
21.
13.
5.
16.
63.7
3211 SEPT 29
56.
99.
42. NEW JERSEY
34.
22.
13.
5.
12.
63.5
NEW
JERSEY
56.
86.
43. ITALIAN
34.
22.
14.
5.
12.
63.5
AMER INDIAN
56.
90.
44. 3181 JULY 18
39.
23.
14.
9.
13.
63.5
E. EUROPEAN
56.
90.
45.
KY/TN/AL/MS
35.
17.
15.
6.
12.
63.4
NC/SC/GA
36.
95.
46. MODERATE IND
30.
24.
13.
6.
10.
63.2
'BORN AGAIN'
56.
84.
47. MASS.
29.
24.
16.
7.
10.
62.6
3271 DEC 17
55.
99.
48. MICHIGAN
35.
20
12.
6.
14.
62.6
MICHIGAN
55
B7
Decision/Making/Information
1981 NATIONAL BUMMARY i 3151 / PEMALES / E1-TR7
PAGE
2
GROUP ANALYSIS TABLES THERMOMETERS
THERMOMETER: PRESIDENT REAGAN
(CONTINUED)
NARM
MID
COLD
AVG
FAV.
TOTAL
RANK POPULATION
BO+ 60-79
21-40
20--
THERM.
POPULATION
1 D.
+
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
49.
HISPANIC
38.
13
14
7.
14.
62.5
3291 DEC 21
54.
98.
50
HISPANIC
38
13.
14
7.
14
62.5
MODERATE IND
54
B3
51
GOVT EMPLOYD
35.
17
14.
7.
13.
62.4
NEW YORK
54
87.
32.
AMER INDIAN
37.
19.
14.
7.
14.
62.4
JEWISH
53
96.
53.
3251 DEC 9
38.
24.
14.
9.
10.
62.4
MASS.
5.3.
86
34
WASH & DRE
28.
24.
17.
7.
10.
61.8
2611 JAN 12
53.
94
55.
ILLINIOS
32.
20.
15.
5.
13.
61.7
WASH & DRE
53.
37
36. CALIFONIA
34.
18.
13.
7.
14.
61.4
KY/TN/AL/MS
30.
87.
57. NEW YORK
33.
21.
12.
7.
14.
61.3
GOVT EMPLOYD
52.
as.
38. MD/DE/VA/WV
33.
18.
13.
9.
13.
51.1
ILLINIOS
52.
98.
59
SMWT LIB IND
31.
21
15.
7.
13.
60.8
CALIFONIA
52.
B6
60
PENNSYLVANIA
33.
18.
15.
7.
13.
60.4
HISPANIC
52.
87
61
3211 SEPT 28
36.
20
18.
3.
17
59.8
HISPANIC
52.
87.
62.
3281
DEC
21
32.
23
18.
9.
16
59.6
MD/DE/VA/WV
51
96.
63.
2611
JAN
12
30.
23.
13.
7-
15
58.4
SMWT LIB IND
51
86
64. 3271 DEC 17
35.
20
15.
9.
20
57.8
PENNSYLVANIA
51
87
$5. S CONSRV DEM
24.
22.
19.
a
13
57 4
$ CONSRV CEM
46.
86.
56. JEWISH
23.
30
15.
12.
16.
56.5
V CONSRV DEM
41.
64
57.
MODERATE DEM
22.
17.
13.
9.
17
53.9
WRONG TRACK
41
86.
68. V CONSRY DEM
25.
15.
16.
7
20.
50.4
SMWT LIB DEM
39
a7
69.
WRONG TRACK
23.
18.
17.
0
19
52.9
MODERATE DEM
39
80
70.
SMWT LIB DEM
19
20.
19.
11.
18.
52.1
3241 NOV 18
38
SQ
71.
VERY
LIB
IND
22.
11
16.
10
28.
46.7
VERY
LIB
IND
33.
97
72.
VERY
LIB
DEM
13.
14
16.
16
D8
41.3
VERY LIB DEM
27.
37
73. BLACK
12.
11
18.
11.
39.
35 $
BLACK
22
89
-114-