What really happened in 1980

[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.

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.    

[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.   

 

[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.