What really happened in 1980

[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

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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

[J. J.]

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.

[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.