If Election 1976 was two weeks longer, does Ford win?

[sg0508]

President Ford trailed by 33 points after the DNC and chipped away at Jimmy Carter's lead all throughout the summer and into the fall.  The Eastern Europe comment during one of the debates halted the president's momentum, but then he closed bigtime in the final weeks.  I believe I read that many polls actually had the candidates dead even in the popular vote going into Election Day. 

Clearly, Ford appeared to have the momentum in the final few weeks and the election race came down to close margins (won by Carter) in OH, WI, MS, HI, PA and NY. 

Had the race lasted two more weeks, do you think Carter hangs on, expands his margin or does Ford complete one of the largest political rallies in American history given the polling margins subsequent to the DNC?

On a sidenote, Ford's defeat in NY was largely due to a relatively poor showing in the suburbs of Long Island (where I'm from).  Typically, Nassau and Suffolk county provided the GOP in the high 50% range (near 60%) in terms of the vote until the island changed in the 90s, but Carter got 47%.

[muon2]

I was in a college poli sci class in the fall of 76 and the course was devoted to the presidential race. The class consensus (as well as some pollsters) was that Ford would have won if the election were three days earlier. He peaked at the end of the week before the election and Carter had a bit of a rebound at the start of election week. Ah for a German Sunday election ...

[sg0508]

I was in a college poli sci class in the fall of 76 and the course was devoted to the presidential race. The class consensus (as well as some pollsters) was that Ford would have won if the election were three days earlier. He peaked at the end of the week before the election and Carter had a bit of a rebound at the start of election week. Ah for a German Sunday election ...

Good point since the challenger usually gets the last little bump from the "undecided" voters in the last day or so.

[buritobr]

Except 1980, the incumbent usually has a better result after the votes are counted than the result predicted by the last polls.
In 2012, no polls in the second half of October and beginning of November showed Obama 4% better than Romney. In October/November 2008, there were polls showing Obama having a lead of 10%. In the final pool of 2004, Bush and Kerry were tied. In October/November 2000, polls predicted that Bush would win the popular vote. And one of the most famous examples of unexpected result for the incumbent is Truman in 1948.

Maybe, most of the voters thatr decide only on the election day choose the incumbent.

[DS0816]

This isn't easy for me to answer.

I side with a Democratic pickup victory for Jimmy Carter. It had to do with the Nixon White House years sinking Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon won re-election in 1972 nationally by R+23.15, carriage of 49 states worth 521 electoral votes. (A faithless elector reduced it to 520.) The 1976 vote shifted 25.21 percent away from the incumbent party … and that gave the 1976 Democratic pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote to Carter by a national margin of D+2.06.

It was the last years on record there was no gender gap. Was it the last year in which the Democrats nationally carried the vote of whites? (Or was that Lyndon Johnson in 1964.)

I referred to this site for the 1976 U.S. presidential election. Turns out Gerald Ford's home state Michigan provided his largest margin in terms of raw vote. He carried Michigan by 197,028 votes and by a margin of R+5.39.

The question: "Had the race gone on longer, and Carter would have won anyway (my answer), what would the margin and/or map have been?" I think [Jimmy Carter] would have had an increase of an average of 20,000 votes per state for an additional raw-vote margin of about 1 million. So, instead of winning nationally by 1,683,247 it would have been closer to 2,683,247.

Results:
Gerald Ford (R) | 38,648,634 | 47.40%
Jimmy Carter (D) | 41,331,881 | 50.69%
Total (all): 81,531,584
National margin: D+3.29 (adjustment of D+1.23)

Looking at states with 20,000 or less in the margin of raw votes, states that would have carried not to Gerald Ford (as they did) but as Democratic pickups for Jimmy Carter (based only on uniformity): Oregon, Maine, South Dakota, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Oklahoma, and North Dakota. That's a total of eight [8] states then-worth 40 electoral votes. That would have been 31 states, plus District of Columbia, for 337 electoral votes.

Of course, I don't truly believe this think that all states would have shift with exact uniformity. In all this, I believe the Dakotas would have had the same result [Republican holds for Gerald Ford]. But that California and Illinois, then big-time bellwether states, may have taken their place [Democratic pickups for Jimmy Carter]. That would have still meant eight [8] states, yes, but ones worth 104 electoral votes. (Carter's 297 electoral votes divided by 23 carried states averaged 12 electoral votes per state without a remainder. 104 electoral votes divided by 8 states would have averaged 13 electoral votes per state without a remainder.) That would have still amounted to carriage of 31 states plus District of Columbia, yes, but good for 401 electoral votes.

[Fuzzy Bear]

In retrospect, I see the 1976 campaign as a harbinger for Carter.  The more people saw of him, the less they liked him.  Most Democrats really didn't like him.  Southern Democrats were very distant from him personally, viewing him as something of a scalawag.  Northern Democrats didn't really like him, as he was not a movement liberal.  But he had the blessings of black voters, he wasn't going to drag Southern Democrats down at the polls, and he looked like a winner to Northern Democrats.  Carter and the Democrats were a marriage of convenience that unraveled halfway into his term.

Had the campaign continued on the trajectory it was on, I believe that Ohio would have gone for
Ford.  I also think that 1 or 2 more Southern states would have gone to Ford; Texas and Florida being the most likely candidates.  Ohio and Texas would have been enough to sink Carter.  I can't really see another state that Carter lost that he would have picked up had the campaign kept going.

[Liberalrocks]

In retrospect, I see the 1976 campaign as a harbinger for Carter.  The more people saw of him, the less they liked him.  Most Democrats really didn't like him.  Southern Democrats were very distant from him personally, viewing him as something of a scalawag.  Northern Democrats didn't really like him, as he was not a movement liberal.  But he had the blessings of black voters, he wasn't going to drag Southern Democrats down at the polls, and he looked like a winner to Northern Democrats.  Carter and the Democrats were a marriage of convenience that unraveled halfway into his term.

Had the campaign continued on the trajectory it was on, I believe that Ohio would have gone for
Ford.  I also think that 1 or 2 more Southern states would have gone to Ford; Texas and Florida being the most likely candidates.  Ohio and Texas would have been enough to sink Carter.  I can't really see another state that Carter lost that he would have picked up had the campaign kept going.

Mississippi was actually closer then Texas and Florida and many thought on Election night could narrowly go to Ford if the winds blew his way. Had he carried Ohio and Mississippi he would have won. I likely would have voted for Ford if I had been around in 76'

[barfbag]

2 weeks is an eternity in politics. With the trends at that time he should've won, but you never know.

[barfbag]

Good news for Ford in the final day or so before the election, the polls were not tied in the popular vote. Thats always something to look for and hope for in that position.

I say he picks up HI and possibly WI or even MS. Any of these three would've been enough to put him over the top.

[MATTROSE94]

In retrospect, I see the 1976 campaign as a harbinger for Carter.  The more people saw of him, the less they liked him.  Most Democrats really didn't like him.  Southern Democrats were very distant from him personally, viewing him as something of a scalawag.  Northern Democrats didn't really like him, as he was not a movement liberal.  But he had the blessings of black voters, he wasn't going to drag Southern Democrats down at the polls, and he looked like a winner to Northern Democrats.  Carter and the Democrats were a marriage of convenience that unraveled halfway into his term.

Had the campaign continued on the trajectory it was on, I believe that Ohio would have gone for
Ford.  I also think that 1 or 2 more Southern states would have gone to Ford; Texas and Florida being the most likely candidates.  Ohio and Texas would have been enough to sink Carter.  I can't really see another state that Carter lost that he would have picked up had the campaign kept going.

Carter might've picked up Maine if he kept campaigning, as it was one of the closest states in 1976. Furthermore, Ford most definately would've pick up Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Ohio and maybe South Carolina or Wisconsin if the election of 1976 occured two weeks later than in RL.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Good news for Ford in the final day or so before the election, the polls were not tied in the popular vote. Thats always something to look for and hope for in that position.

I say he picks up HI and possibly WI or even MS. Any of these three would've been enough to put him over the top.

Really?

If you assume that if Ford does better, then he inevitably picks up Ohio. In that case all Ford needs is one additional state and no faithless electors.  If Ford wins only Ohio and Hawaii in addition, but still has that faithless elector in Washington, then the result is 269-268-1 and the election is decided in the House. Carter easily wins in the House:33-11-6

[barfbag]

Ok I was already giving Ohio to Ford.

[Dancing with Myself]

I think Ford would have won if the election was delayed to either the date 1972 fell on or later in the week of the actual election.

Carter was a very folksy candidate who avoided the issues where possible, he gave a lot of vague answers. Like in his fall campaign brochure:

"Jimmy Carter and a Democratic Administration are pledged to bring about the changes we need:

THE ECONOMY: To get the economy moving again by providing a job for every American who wants to work and by bringing inflation under control."

He gave his ideas out but did not give answers as to how to fix it. He was putting his all into the outsider gimmick, he had nothing else. His ads were very cheesy by modern standards, his final one was pretty good, that may have been what won it for him. But campaign wise in modern terms it wasn't very good but he won somehow.

Ford had bad luck from the pardon to picking Dole as his VP. But he was coming back because he seemed Presidential, he had a great campaign and better ads than Carter. He started too late really, he should have attacked Carter from the start of summer for what he was, regardless of the convention fight with Reagan. He had to go through a lot of parody from SNL in the like, but he kept charging.

Around here everyone was for Carter due to him being from the South but the Ford voters knew what was coming. My mom campaigned for Ford that year, and said everyone knew Ford would have been the better choice but they wanted to vote for the southern boy. It was a gimmick campaign, or like the poster said which I agree with, a marriage of convenience.  He had a successful primary campaign like McGovern did.

I would have easily voted for Ford though, gaffs or no.

[sg0508]

The choice of Dole as his running mate was a disaster.  Dole provided little, but given the brutal primary, Ford had little choice.  He had to appease the conservative wing.