What really happened in 1980

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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).

[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

[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)