What caused Ford's late charge vs Carter in 1976?

[sg0508]

I know after reading books about that election that Carter was up a ridiculous 62-29% in popular pools after the DNC and of course, that was overinflated by the convention itself, but slowly the polls closed and Carter lead around 55-40 with a few weeks left.

Then, it the last 2-3 weeks, Ford dramatically charged back and the final polls were very similar to the actual results, 50-48%.  He probably stole the Pacific coast states in that charge as well as Maine, CT, NJ and gave him a shot at NY, PA and OH, the three states that cost him the race (besides Hawaii and MS).

What caused the late charge?  Had the election gone on for another few weeks, would Ford have stolen it?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Carter is one of those guys who seems appealing at first then you realize what you're getting into. Sort of like how Obama stumbled through the late primaries.

Ford really should have won. he was a good moderate, who had a conscience and din't bother to play politics. I assume he lost because he did the right things (like pardoning Nixon, etc). Watergate was blown way out of proportion and damaged Ford, who really wasn't involved.

[sg0508]

Try to remember though, that McCarthy gave us a few extra wins that otherwise, we would have lost.

ME, IA, OR come to mind and it almost made the difference in OH.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I also think that Ford lacked a true incumbency advantage because of the turmoil of the time. Bob Dole didn't help much with the ticket. But people realized that Ford was better, just not enough people realized in time.

Ford would've done wonders, and we could avoid the rise of the Relgiious Right.

[sg0508]

Yep.  Sigh.  Dole did help us in the Plains though although Rockefeller would have been a bigger asset to us in the northeast with NY/PA being tough losses.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Yep.  Sigh.  Dole did help us in the Plains though although Rockefeller would have been a bigger asset to us in the northeast with NY/PA being tough losses.

Yeah but the plains were never in too much danger.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yep.  Sigh.  Dole did help us in the Plains though although Rockefeller would have been a bigger asset to us in the northeast with NY/PA being tough losses.

Yeah but the plains were never in too much danger.

It's hard to say. Like 1960 and 1968, almost every state was in play in 1976.

[Sasquatch]

Although I believe that Carter was the last honest man to sit in the Oval Office, in retrospect it would have been better if Ford would have won. We would have avoided the dominance of the "Reagan Revolution" and the real rise of the religious right.

[Хahar 🤔]

Carter was the last honest man to sit in the Oval Office

This is why I hope for President Biden.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Carter was the last honest man to sit in the Oval Office

This is why I hope for President Biden.

lol both are bums

[Mr.Phips]

Ford was actually leading in some polls on election eve.  As the election returns came in on election night, it actually looked as if Ford won until Carter went into the lead around 3AM in Ohio and Mississippi. 

[memphis]

Ford was a much better candidate (except for the no Soviet domination of Poland blunder). Carter happenned to be in the right place at the right time. There's a reason we don't usually elect Sunday School teachers to be president (and that's not a religion bash).

[sg0508]

I was always surprised how Ford was able to be even close in MS considering the rest of the south was pretty much a blowout, outside of LA and VA, which he won.  The deep south though?

Also, OH would not have been enough.  He needed HI too, or one of the industrial states (PA/NY) to get him over the top.  That's where choosing Dole was a big mistake and how the tough primary did him in.  He had to try to appease the Reagan wing.

[12th Doctor]

Although I believe that Carter was the last honest man to sit in the Oval Office

Well, then you believe wrongly.  Carter's public image was one of the most artificially crafted of all the recent Presidents.  As anyone who worked on his staff, or especially the White House staff, and the Secret Service, and they will tell you that he was nothing like the man on TV, and often outright lied about what he was doing in the White House.

For instance, in a cheap stunt to win the White House and embarrass the Fords, Carter often claimed during the 76 campaign that "there would be no alcohol in his White House", a reference to Betty Ford's notorious problem with the bottle.  Dozens of people have claimed, afterwords, that while no alcohol was served at state functions, the Carter's themselves drank often.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Or like Dukakis in 1988 leading by landslide margins in the summer and then totally blowing it. Candidates leading by large margins then blowing it, usually typical for democrats.

Have you heard of a fellow named Thomas Dewey?

[Saxwsylvania]

Basically: Republicans coming home, and the Playboy interview, which dropped Carter in the polls by like 15 percent.  Evangelicals didn't like his "lusted in my heart" comment.  Combined with pardoning draft dodgers.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Or like Dukakis in 1988 leading by landslide margins in the summer and then totally blowing it. Candidates leading by large margins then blowing it, usually typical for democrats.

Have you heard of a fellow named Thomas Dewey?

There are more democrats than republicans that have done it. I could list a handful of democrats that have done it. Why do you think that they won only five presidential elections of the fourteen elections between 1952 and 2004?

And I can mention that Bill Clinton was running third in 1992, yet he somehow won the election.
The political environment plays the bigger role, not some metaphysical reason that makes Democrats more prone to act stupidly and lose their leads.

If Reagan in 1988 had the same approval ratings as W. in 2008, then Dukakis would have won in a landslide, no matter how much dirt threw at him Lee Atwater or how many gaffes he made during the debates.

[Phony Moderate]

"There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be, under a Ford Administration."

If he hadn't have said this, i think he would have won.

[Psychic Octopus]

"There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be, under a Ford Administration."

If he hadn't have said this, i think he would have won.

Yes.


Ford was a great man, and honest man, and I wish he won.

[phk]

"There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be, under a Ford Administration."

If he hadn't have said this, i think he would have won.

Yes.


Ford was a great man, and honest man, and I wish he won.

[The Age Wave]

Ford didn't make the case for re-election. Carter providid something different, Ford didn't seem to have a vision.

[Nym90]

1. The economy was starting to show some signs of life as the election neared, and became less of a burden to the GOP. The effects of the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 were wearing off (though they would return of course after the second embargo in 1978).

2. Carter was inexperienced, and this showed in the campaign, creating some doubts about him.

3. The 70's and 80's were, generally speaking, a GOP era in Presidential elections.

Those would be the primary reasons.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Although I believe that Carter was the last honest man to sit in the Oval Office, in retrospect it would have been better if Ford would have won. We would have avoided the dominance of the "Reagan Revolution" and the real rise of the religious right.

Very true.

[Bo]

Ford's criticisms about Carter's inexperience made many people who previously supported Carter to think twice about him. Also, I think that people might have began to feel a slight improvement in the economy and decided to go for Ford. Finally, I think some people were forgetting about Watergate and leaving it in the past and beginning to focus more on current issues, and thus some voters unhappy with Ford's pardon of Nixon might have changed their minds and decided to vote for him.         

[Psychic Octopus]

In a way, Ford's gaffe can be interpreted in two ways; The conventional way in which he didn't really know what the hell he was talking about, (He did, in fact know what he was talking about), or in the way that Ford probably thought, that by saying this, he can contest Eastern Europe and try to show American "interests" and "power" in a Soviet-dominated region.

Not sure exactly what he meant by it, but the former is certainly less likely.