What really happened in 1980
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:44:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  What really happened in 1980
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: What really happened in 1980  (Read 5130 times)
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 22, 2012, 02:20:35 PM »

Are you ready? Listen up. Last time we do this.


What is interesting about the polls in 1980 is that they really weren't that far off the final outcome. Reagan on average led all summer. The spoiler was Anderson who was polling 9-10% in the final polls and who got 7% in the General. Indeed the 'eve of poll' polls were also underestimating Carter. DMI gave him 34% and CSR 36% though they got the actual vote right giving Regan an 11% and a 10% lead

The other respected pollster was Harris who had Reagan up 5 when Gallup only had him up 3. The odd one out was actually Gallup. They had Reagan leading by 1% on 30th October when a clutch of 6 polls had an average lead of 4% (Harris had 5%, DMI had 10%) On 26th October Gallup had Carter 3 points ahead when Harris had Reagan ahead by 3 points.

The pollster that got it right was DMI. It had Reagan up 8% back in mid-October, had him fall back to 7% by late October but had him correctly ahead by 10-11 points in the final push.

Indeed Gallup was the most pro-Carter pollster
in that final push. When the 'gold standard' gets it wrong then it's not the gold standard.

For the record, looking at the eve of election polls it appears that Reagan got 2-3 points from declared Anderson voters (who were either going to vote for Reagan all along or genuinely switched) and Carter won about 63% of undecided voters.


Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2012, 02:57:11 PM »

If Republicans want to have a silly fantasy, let them. Romney is going to lose handily, regardless of what happened in 1980.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2012, 04:27:44 PM »

So Carter was polling at 65% in January ? Huh
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2012, 04:40:23 PM »

So Carter was polling at 65% in January ? Huh

Rally around the flag.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2012, 07:20:12 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2012, 08:15:43 PM by Politico »

You're working under the false assumption that all of the polls were equally credible with the same margin of error, sample size, statistical techniques (i.e., wording, models, etc.), etc..

1980 was a much different time from 2012 when it comes to polling. Gallup was pretty much THE professional poll of the era. In fact, Gallup correctly predicted the winner of every election in the 20th century (post-WW II) except 1976 (they gave Ford a  one or two point lead in their final poll). If they said Reagan was behind BEFORE the 1980 debate in late October (in fact, they showed Reagan trailing after Carter's convention up through the debate), implying he would have lost had the election taken place at that time, they were probably right.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2012, 08:08:25 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2012, 08:40:35 PM by J. J. »

You're working under the false assumption that all of the polls were equally credible with the same margin of error, sample size, statistical techniques (i.e., wording, models, etc.), etc..

1980 was a much different time from 2012 when it comes to polling. Gallup was pretty much THE professional poll of the era. In fact, Gallup correctly predicted the winner of every election in the 20th century (post-WW II) except 1976 (they gave Ford a  one or two point lead in their final poll). If they said Reagan was behind BEFORE the 1980 debate in late October (in fact, they showed Reagan trailing after Carter's convention), implying he would have lost had the election taken place at that time, they were probably right.

And the evidence:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/111451/late-upsets-rare-happened.aspx

Basically you didn't have Rasmussen, PPP, ARG, SurveyUSA, or even Zogby.  You had Gallup. You had Harris.  You had newspaper polls.

Interestingly, someone at that [sarcasm]conservative bastion[/sarcasm], CBS, did a paper on it in 1981, noting the last week swing.  http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1981_011.pdf
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2012, 08:18:48 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2012, 08:21:53 PM by Politico »

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.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2012, 08:27:52 PM »

1980 was a much different time from 2012 when it comes to polling. Gallup was pretty much THE professional poll of the era.

And yet the other pollsters in 1980 were apparently more accurate in predicting the result. Strange that.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2012, 08:41:48 PM »

1980 was a much different time from 2012 when it comes to polling. Gallup was pretty much THE professional poll of the era.

And yet the other pollsters in 1980 were apparently more accurate in predicting the result. Strange that.

Actually, if you look at the link I posted, there was a noticeable last minute shift.
Logged
m4567
Rookie
**
Posts: 220
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2012, 08:49:14 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2012, 08:51:26 PM by m4567 »

The comparisons don't really make sense.

It's a totally different election, when you really compare the two.

Also, for the candidates: Romney is not nearly the politician Reagan was.  

If you're unbiased, you know Obama isn't nearly as bad as Carter was.

Even if Obama loses, he's still not Carter, and Romney is not Reagan.

Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2012, 08:57:38 PM »

The comparisons don't really make sense.

It's a totally different election, when you really compare the two.

Also, for the candidates: Romney is not nearly the politician Reagan was.  

If you're unbiased, you know Obama isn't nearly as bad as Carter was.

Even if Obama loses, he's still not Carter, and Romney is not Reagan.



Unemployment is slightly worse now, though inflation was much worse then.

In many ways, this election might be similar to 1980.  I've actually been making the case that 2012 could look a lot like 1980, since 1/31/08.  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0
Logged
m4567
Rookie
**
Posts: 220
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2012, 09:06:45 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2012, 09:11:54 PM by m4567 »

The comparisons don't really make sense.

It's a totally different election, when you really compare the two.

Also, for the candidates: Romney is not nearly the politician Reagan was.  

If you're unbiased, you know Obama isn't nearly as bad as Carter was.

Even if Obama loses, he's still not Carter, and Romney is not Reagan.



Unemployment is slightly worse now, though inflation was much worse then.

In many ways, this election might be similar to 1980.  I've actually been making the case that 2012 could look a lot like 1980, since 1/31/08.  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0

Aa far as the economy goes: The recession was much fresher in 1980. In 2012, it's a slow recovery. It's a lot better than it was. It's more about the trend. Not quite on the same level, but similar to 1936 and 1984.

It's not 1980. Plus, the candidates are very different.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2012, 09:30:58 PM »

Arguably, at this point, we didn't know that we were technically in recession, or had just realized.  The prior recession ended in May 1975, so there was a greater length of time.

I will agree that Obama lacked the prior executive experience of Carter. 

The trending got worse under Obama, and has not improved to his start numbers.  To use a really Carteresque number, his Misery Index number was lower than it been, but still higher than when he entered office:  http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx  Ah, so is Obama's.


Obviously, Carter and Obama are not the same person, but they both have struck similar note.  Carter's 1976 slogan was, "A Leader, for a Change."  Both had represented what had been, or became, a major part of the New Deal Coalition. 

Reagan was regarded as representing a reactionary wing of the GOP (and likely to start a war).  Romney is considered to be from a "county club" wing of the GOP (and likely to benefit the rich).

As noted, there are major similarities.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2012, 09:42:11 PM »

Obviously, Carter and Obama are not the same person, but they both have struck similar note.  Carter's 1976 slogan was, "A Leader, for a Change."  Both had represented what had been, or became, a major part of the New Deal Coalition.

This is as much to say that they are Democrats.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is as much to say that they are Republicans.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2012, 09:46:48 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2012, 09:48:57 PM by ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ »

It was awfully convenient for Reagan that the hostages weren't released until his inauguration. While there isn't the kind of proof that we have for Nixon sabotaging the 1968 Vietnam peace talks, the Iran-contra scandal certainly makes things more suspicious.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2012, 09:55:00 PM »

Obviously, Carter and Obama are not the same person, but they both have struck similar note.  Carter's 1976 slogan was, "A Leader, for a Change."  Both had represented what had been, or became, a major part of the New Deal Coalition.

This is as much to say that they are Democrats.

Southerners are no longer part of that coalition.  Carter was also seen as a groundbreaking because he was really the first president elected directly from the South since prior to the Civil War.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is as much to say that they are Republicans.
[/quote]

No, both were seen, by the media at least, as not being mainstream, as an isolated part of their party, too extreme.  They were not seen as "playing to the middle."  Reagan captured the middle as it moved to the right.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2012, 09:57:06 PM »

It was awfully convenient for Reagan that the hostages weren't released until his inauguration. While there isn't the kind of proof that we have for Nixon sabotaging the 1968 Vietnam peace talks, the Iran-contra scandal certainly makes things more suspicious.

And what does that have to do with the subject?  Reagan didn't take the hostages.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2012, 10:01:18 PM »

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.    

Logged
Niemeyerite
JulioMadrid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,803
Spain


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -9.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2012, 10:02:39 PM »

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.

So, you're talking about a 1980 what-if. LoL. What TL did you read before posting this? Some that had Carter unopposed in the dem primary, or what?

Oh, and 1980 =/= 2012. We have internet, mobile phones... they had libertarians and democrats for Reagan. Carter was an unispiring candidate, Obama isn't. Reagan was a man the conservative base loved, Romney isn't. That year they had Anderson, now we have Goode and Johson. And something you are forgetting to mention. Obama is still leading in key swing states, and his lead is not exactly dropping. At this time, in 1980, the race was leaning Reagan.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2012, 10:08:20 PM »

Using historical polling, I would say that the best rule  is that the challenger has to be leading the polling averages by double digits coming out of his convention to beat an incumbent.  That would give you the correct call for everything from 1952 to the present.  Truman sneaked through in 1948.

Kerry led the polling averages for most of summer 2004, but never by more than 5%.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2012, 10:37:08 PM »

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

Logged
m4567
Rookie
**
Posts: 220
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2012, 10:55:52 PM »

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.

So, you're talking about a 1980 what-if. LoL. What TL did you read before posting this? Some that had Carter unopposed in the dem primary, or what?

Oh, and 1980 =/= 2012. We have internet, mobile phones... they had libertarians and democrats for Reagan. Carter was an unispiring candidate, Obama isn't. Reagan was a man the conservative base loved, Romney isn't. That year they had Anderson, now we have Goode and Johson. And something you are forgetting to mention. Obama is still leading in key swing states, and his lead is not exactly dropping. At this time, in 1980, the race was leaning Reagan.

Right on.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2012, 11:35:18 PM »

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...
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2012, 11:37:13 PM »

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.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2012, 11:43:37 PM »



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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 13 queries.