What really happened in 1980

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Obama has not, in fact, run from his record, and I think you yourself have actually accused him of being rather vague about what precisely he'd want to do that's new in a second term.

Of course he has.  How many times was unemployment mentioned at the convention.

I'm sorry, but I don't even understand what point you're trying to make here. It isn't as if unemployment has increased since Obama's policies actually took effect, you know (or maybe you don't, since you're supporting a ticket that at its own convention blamed Obama for something that took place in 2008 at least once). Does 'not running from one's record' embrace 'accentuating the so far moderately disappointing parts of one's record' for you?  If so, why is Romney running from the fact that when he was Governor of Massachusetts construction projects took like three times as long as he said they would and he once tried to balance the budget by charging people for being blind?

[Politico]

Carter was one of the more forgettable Presidents that we had in the 20th century -- one with few achievements and, unlike the successful incumbent he ran from his record and had to make fresh promises.

Sounds familiar...

Obama has not, in fact, run from his record, and I think you yourself have actually accused him of being rather vague about what precisely he'd want to do that's new in a second term.

Obama is clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. He is making fresh promises of "forward" and "change from outside," both of which have no substance (he's just a good speaker and campaigner; he is a president who is in over his head). I suppose I do retract the claim that he is making fresh promises (well, I suppose he is playing political football with the emotions of gay people by trying to make gay marriage a wedge issue again; fortunately, Romney is not biting like they thought he would). He's really only left with clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. Once people are asked whether or not they want the next four years to look like the past four years, it's lights out for O just like the last Democrat to lose re-election (i.e., Obama's teenage idol, Jimmy Nonstarter).

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As opposed to Romney's platitudes? or the few details he has given... suggest a deeply contradictory agenda neither side of which he can afford. He tries to implement the Ryan Budget or even a watered-down version of it, he'll get massacred electorally... if he doesn't the bat-s**t wing will primary him in 2016.

I don't call him George H. W. Bush 2.0 for nothing...


I read the book of one of Carter's campaign strategists and what she says is that Carter was ahead, largely due to the very fractious GOP primary. Kennedy then started to make life difficult for him. The surge after the DNC was due to Carter getting Kennedy out of the way and Kennedy endorsing him. Reagan also got the surge for similar reasons.

I'm not going by the public polls, I'm going by the internal tracking the book spoke about. It says, but I am paraphrasing, at BEST, post-DNC, Carter was never better than within the margin of error against Reagan. His best numbers actually came 2-3 days before the Oct 28 debate. I put that down to incumbency, despite all the issues made of where the undecideds go, Carter was getting a late surge of undecided voters, which they put down to Reagan not entirely convincing them and Carter already being there. The power of incumbency is not to be underestimated and the onus is on the challenger to make the case...

Then the debate happened and the even tracking the campaign had saw it blow out to a 7 point Reagan lead in two days.

[J. J.]

I read the book of one of Carter's campaign strategists and what she says is that Carter was ahead, largely due to the very fractious GOP primary. Kennedy then started to make life difficult for him. The surge after the DNC was due to Carter getting Kennedy out of the way and Kennedy endorsing him. Reagan also got the surge for similar reasons.

The 1980 GOP Primary was less contested than either 1976 or 2008.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only thing we can actually see, and discuss are the public polls, either now or in 1980.  Those showed it close, but as late as a fortnight before the election Carter was leading by 3 and was at 45%.

Some of the tracking polls did show a sharp shift.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yes, but in that time, the convention still held time to be more than just a coronation.

I would say a 3% Carter lead would be within the MoE... that time was Carter's best post DNC polling period in the internals too. Considering Carter refused to debate both Reagan and Anderson, it wasn't until October 28 that Carter and Reagan actually faced off.... Carter failed, Reagan looked presidential... and the rest is history.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Carter was one of the more forgettable Presidents that we had in the 20th century -- one with few achievements and, unlike the successful incumbent he ran from his record and had to make fresh promises.

Sounds familiar...

Obama has not, in fact, run from his record, and I think you yourself have actually accused him of being rather vague about what precisely he'd want to do that's new in a second term.

Obama is clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. He is making fresh promises of "forward" and "change from outside," both of which have no substance (he's just a good speaker and campaigner; he is a president who is in over his head). I suppose I do retract the claim that he is making fresh promises (well, I suppose he is playing political football with the emotions of gay people by trying to make gay marriage a wedge issue again; fortunately, Romney is not biting like they thought he would). He's really only left with clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. Once people are asked whether or not they want the next four years to look like the past four years, it's lights out for O just like the last Democrat to lose re-election (i.e., Obama's teenage idol, Jimmy Nonstarter).

And how many times have you claimed that point would come now that it hasn't?

[Politico]

Carter was one of the more forgettable Presidents that we had in the 20th century -- one with few achievements and, unlike the successful incumbent he ran from his record and had to make fresh promises.

Sounds familiar...

Obama has not, in fact, run from his record, and I think you yourself have actually accused him of being rather vague about what precisely he'd want to do that's new in a second term.

Obama is clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. He is making fresh promises of "forward" and "change from outside," both of which have no substance (he's just a good speaker and campaigner; he is a president who is in over his head). I suppose I do retract the claim that he is making fresh promises (well, I suppose he is playing political football with the emotions of gay people by trying to make gay marriage a wedge issue again; fortunately, Romney is not biting like they thought he would). He's really only left with clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. Once people are asked whether or not they want the next four years to look like the past four years, it's lights out for O just like the last Democrat to lose re-election (i.e., Obama's teenage idol, Jimmy Nonstarter).

And how many times have you claimed that point would come now that it hasn't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw#t=01m56s

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Carter was one of the more forgettable Presidents that we had in the 20th century -- one with few achievements and, unlike the successful incumbent he ran from his record and had to make fresh promises.

Sounds familiar...

Obama has not, in fact, run from his record, and I think you yourself have actually accused him of being rather vague about what precisely he'd want to do that's new in a second term.

Obama is clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. He is making fresh promises of "forward" and "change from outside," both of which have no substance (he's just a good speaker and campaigner; he is a president who is in over his head). I suppose I do retract the claim that he is making fresh promises (well, I suppose he is playing political football with the emotions of gay people by trying to make gay marriage a wedge issue again; fortunately, Romney is not biting like they thought he would). He's really only left with clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. Once people are asked whether or not they want the next four years to look like the past four years, it's lights out for O just like the last Democrat to lose re-election (i.e., Obama's teenage idol, Jimmy Nonstarter).

And how many times have you claimed that point would come now that it hasn't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw#t=01m56s

I can't stay mad at you. That song is badass.

[pbrower2a]

Carter had gone through the critical 44% mark  (incumbents have about a 50% chance of re-election at that point, and the chance rises to nearly 100% at 50% approval and falls to near zero at 40% approval) early in March. He would never recover. He slipped below 40% late in April. He tied with Reagan late in May... and we know what sort of campaigner Reagan was. By July his approval rating was in the 20s.

Ah, Carter had 45% on Gallup within a fortnight of the election.  He was within the MOE a week before the election.  http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1981_011.pdf

A fortnight before the election? The reference to the '44% approval allows an equal chance of winning' (Nate Silver) applies early in the campaign season. March qualifies as 'early'. Carter may have had high approval ratings as the hostage crisis developed, but as it wore on it tore at his approval ratings. Carter was vulnerable to a strong campaigner... and Reagan was as strong as they get.

45% approval two weeks before the election? That is too late unless the opponent is unusually weak. The Carter campaign still imploded.   

 

[Dan the Roman]

I read the book of one of Carter's campaign strategists and what she says is that Carter was ahead, largely due to the very fractious GOP primary. Kennedy then started to make life difficult for him. The surge after the DNC was due to Carter getting Kennedy out of the way and Kennedy endorsing him. Reagan also got the surge for similar reasons.

The 1980 GOP Primary was less contested than either 1976 or 2008.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only thing we can actually see, and discuss are the public polls, either now or in 1980.  Those showed it close, but as late as a fortnight before the election Carter was leading by 3 and was at 45%.

Some of the tracking polls did show a sharp shift.

Your own linked article does not back you up. Of more than a dozen polls two weeks out, the single Gallup one is the only one to have Carter ahead. In fact, Gallup did another pre-debate poll with Carter down in the chart provided by the article.

Reagan would have been leading the RCP average by about 5% heading into the debates if it had existed then.

[Badger]

Carter was one of the more forgettable Presidents that we had in the 20th century -- one with few achievements and, unlike the successful incumbent he ran from his record and had to make fresh promises.

Sounds familiar...

Obama has not, in fact, run from his record, and I think you yourself have actually accused him of being rather vague about what precisely he'd want to do that's new in a second term.

Obama is clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. He is making fresh promises of "forward" and "change from outside," both of which have no substance (he's just a good speaker and campaigner; he is a president who is in over his head). I suppose I do retract the claim that he is making fresh promises (well, I suppose he is playing political football with the emotions of gay people by trying to make gay marriage a wedge issue again; fortunately, Romney is not biting like they thought he would). He's really only left with clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. Once people are asked whether or not they want the next four years to look like the past four years, it's lights out for O just like the last Democrat to lose re-election (i.e., Obama's teenage idol, Jimmy Nonstarter).

And how many times have you claimed that point would come now that it hasn't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw#t=01m56s

I can't stay mad at you. That song is badass.

You both have lame-ass taste in music.

[Skill and Chance]

Again, I want to emphasize that no one since 1936 has ever beaten an incumbent without a substantial lead during the summer before the election.  Kerry lost despite leading by 5 during the summer (you could claim he only tied among LV, I suppose).  Romney only managed a tie.  So did Mondale in 1984.

For a late swing, something would have to change very dramatically, probably on the scale of 09/2008.  Negative jobs growth or negative Q3 GDP could push Romney ahead.

[Politico]

Again, I want to emphasize that no one since 1936 has ever beaten an incumbent without a substantial lead during the summer before the election.  Kerry lost despite leading by 5 during the summer (you could claim he only tied among LV, I suppose).  Romney only managed a tie.  So did Mondale in 1984.

For a late swing, something would have to change very dramatically, probably on the scale of 09/2008.  Negative jobs growth or negative Q3 GDP could push Romney ahead.

Clinton trailed Perot and/or Bush for half of the summer, and did not take his first lead until Perot's endorsement (which he obviously retracted when he re-entered the circus)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Carter was one of the more forgettable Presidents that we had in the 20th century -- one with few achievements and, unlike the successful incumbent he ran from his record and had to make fresh promises.

Sounds familiar...

Obama has not, in fact, run from his record, and I think you yourself have actually accused him of being rather vague about what precisely he'd want to do that's new in a second term.

Obama is clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. He is making fresh promises of "forward" and "change from outside," both of which have no substance (he's just a good speaker and campaigner; he is a president who is in over his head). I suppose I do retract the claim that he is making fresh promises (well, I suppose he is playing political football with the emotions of gay people by trying to make gay marriage a wedge issue again; fortunately, Romney is not biting like they thought he would). He's really only left with clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. Once people are asked whether or not they want the next four years to look like the past four years, it's lights out for O just like the last Democrat to lose re-election (i.e., Obama's teenage idol, Jimmy Nonstarter).

And how many times have you claimed that point would come now that it hasn't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw#t=01m56s

I can't stay mad at you. That song is badass.

You both have lame-ass taste in music.

I said 'badass' (which it is), not 'good' (which it isn't).

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Would Teddy have done any better?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I just want to say this reminds me of J. J.:

[Rooney]

When will people learn that history seldom repeats itself? The muses never have writer's block and never jump the shark. Some lessons of history mimic one another but they never repeat.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

When will people learn that history seldom repeats itself? The muses never have writer's block and never jump the shark. Some lessons of history mimic one another but they never repeat.

Some people need to find 'patterns'....

[pbrower2a]

When will people learn that history seldom repeats itself? The muses never have writer's block and never jump the shark. Some lessons of history mimic one another but they never repeat.

If a country in economic distress with inflamed nationalism finds a putative leader who shows contempt for a 'model minority', claims that labor peace can be had by outlawing strikes, shows contempt for parliamentary government, and exhorts the 'racial' superiority of most of the people, then watch out. Likewise, beware of anyone who bears a hammer-and-sickle device. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Carter had gone through the critical 44% mark  (incumbents have about a 50% chance of re-election at that point, and the chance rises to nearly 100% at 50% approval and falls to near zero at 40% approval) early in March. He would never recover. He slipped below 40% late in April. He tied with Reagan late in May... and we know what sort of campaigner Reagan was. By July his approval rating was in the 20s.

Incumbents whose approval ratings are in the 30s before the campaign season begins usually do not run for re-election. Carter started out reasonably popular and became unpopular. He recovered some, but far from enough. Before the debates he was about 5% away from Reagan, which might have been good for about a 52-48 split of the popular vote. Instead he faltered and his approval went back to the mid-30s.

He added about 6% to his late approval rating to get to his vote share of 41%, which is poor for an incumbent and close to the floor for results for the person who gets the second-largest number of popular votes (I do not include the 1912, 1968, or 1992 because of strong third-Party or independent challengers).

I have frequently suspected that except in a late-campaign collapse (breaking scandal? military debacle?) in what otherwise is until then a close election, the undecided tend to go ineffectively toward the eventual loser. Carter missed the 38% floor for a challenger facing a strong incumbent and the 39% floor for a failed incumbent facing a strong challenger, but not by much.

Carter was one of the more forgettable Presidents that we had in the 20th century -- one with few achievements and, unlike the successful incumbent he ran from his record and had to make fresh promises.

The Obama-Romney contest has been remarkably stable for most of the summer. The incumbent President has had approval ratings ranging from the mid-40s to the low 50s, and Mitt Romney has almost always lagged him. There has been no Obama collapse, and there probably won;t be one. Like previous incumbents successful in winning re-election, and much unlike Carter, the President is running on his record.    

Carter was not devoid of accomplishments.  He brokered the Camp David Accords and got the Panama Canal Treaty ratified.  The latter, however, was unpopular, and the former lost luster in the wake of the Hostage Crisis in Iran.  Carter was nowhere near as incompetant as he has been portrayed.

Carter lost because (A) his political party did not like him, and (B) he was thrust into an unprecedented foreign crisis that made him look impotent.  Carter's handling of the Hostage Crisis was, IMO, proper and prudent, but there was a large constituency among his own Southern base, and in the country, that wanted a far, far more aggressive response.  He also lost because he was perceived as impotent in the face of record inflation; this, too, was an unprecedented situation that was not Carter's fault.  Had Carter not been challenged in a primary, and had John Anderson not run as an independent, I believe that Carter would have prevailed against Reagan, albeit by a narrow margin.  Carter was not a great President, but he was not a failure; he was not James Buchanan or Franklin Pierce.

[PrisonerOfHope]

Another thing being ignored: The effect of Ted Kennedy's primary challenge, which probably explains much of Carter's troubles in the summertime. Kennedy did not give up until the day of his convention speech.

Take away the Ted Kennedy factor, and Reagan probably would have trailed the entire year until the debate.

The reason the Kennedy and Anderson campaigns existed at all was dissatisfaction with Carter.  The patriotic support only goes so far, as both Bushes can attest.  I lived through the election as a young adult and can attest that 'support' for Carter in any poll was either paper thin or given begrudgingly to avoid the right-wing.  Yeah, it would have been possible without those two to poll well right up till people cast their vote, but the outcome would be the same.

This is not the case with Obama.  He is liked and given due credit except by the extreme right.  The idea of an Obama collapse from 'false' polling responses is a chimera.