Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 18, 2017, 04:20:27 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  What happened in 1976 that caused Carters 32 p lead to almost completely vanish?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: What happened in 1976 that caused Carters 32 p lead to almost completely vanish?  (Read 602 times)
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 681


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

P
View Profile
« on: September 12, 2017, 07:59:41 pm »
Ignore

It makes no sense.
Logged


I never use toss ups.

Current predictions:

Senate 2017/2018:

Here

Governor 2018/2019:

Here

Solid D
Likely D
Lean D
Lean R
Likely R
Solid R
Jalawest2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 558


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2017, 09:23:23 pm »
Ignore

It makes no sense.
Carter was a godawful campaigner.
Logged
Left-Libertarian
canis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 575


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2017, 09:40:25 pm »
Ignore

The playboy interview iirc
Logged



 Endorsements
VA Governor Ralph Northam
NJ Governor Phil Murphy
CA Governor Gavin Newsom
AL Senate Doug Jones
2020 Presidential Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren and Steve Bullock
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7537


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2017, 09:59:26 pm »
Ignore

Reagan's supporters got behind Ford
Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
Hydera
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1135


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2017, 11:16:53 pm »
Ignore

They were tied back in March and after March his support started falling but started recovering after July then by September and it was a dead heat race so those who intended to vote for Ford who abandoned him probably because as mentioned the GOP primary was bitterly contested started coming home. Also consider that inflation was halved from 12% in Early 1975 to 6% on election day which other than the Nixon pardon was one of the biggest issues so carter couldnt campaign on it.

Plus Ford ran a campaign with lots of attacks on Carter on him being inexperienced for the Presidency which were effective in narrowing his lead back to nothing. And while Carter didnt respond to the with the same intensity of attacks that Ford was putting against him and instead ran a campaign on fixing Washington, his folksy character, etc.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 11:24:13 pm by ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡) »Logged
Mumph
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 325


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2017, 01:08:25 am »
Ignore

The poll was taken simultaneously while Carter was getting a convention bounce and it was unclear whether Ford would even be nominated again. Once the RNC happened and Reagan supporters got behind Ford and Carter started tripping up everywhere but the debates it became a dead heat again.

Without the "Ford to city: Drop dead" fiasco and maybe the Eastern Europe moment Ford probably would have narrowly beaten Carter.
Logged

Zyzz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1028


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2017, 04:31:04 pm »
Ignore

If Ford had pulled off coming back from a 32 point deficit, he would certainly be nicknamed the comeback kid.
Logged

Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12322
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2017, 12:41:06 pm »
Ignore

The American electorate was a lot more fickle in the 20th century.

- A Dukakis lead of 17% in the summer turned into an 8% Bush victory.
- Perot was leading in the summer of '92
- Nixon held a huge lead following the 1968 DNC, yet came very close to losing
- Truman made a great comeback against the 'inevitable' Dewey
- Even in 1964, Goldwater reduced a 60 or so point LBJ lead into a mere 23-point defeat.
Logged
twenty42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 275
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2017, 10:40:13 pm »
Ignore


- Even in 1964, Goldwater reduced a 60 or so point LBJ lead into a mere 23-point defeat.

Is a 60-point national victory mathematically realistic though? LBJ getting 80% of the PV in 1964 would have resulted in Goldwater getting zero votes in DC and RI using uniform swing. I mean I guess it's theoretically possible, but it doesn't seem feasible within the nature of the two-party system.
Logged
L.D. Smith, Aggie! It's Real Expenses Again
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13155
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2017, 11:13:39 pm »
Ignore

Playboy interview.
Logged

Atlas PM Score:

S: 3.7
E: -7.4
( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
Hydera
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1135


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2017, 11:35:33 pm »
Ignore


- Even in 1964, Goldwater reduced a 60 or so point LBJ lead into a mere 23-point defeat.

Is a 60-point national victory mathematically realistic though? LBJ getting 80% of the PV in 1964 would have resulted in Goldwater getting zero votes in DC and RI using uniform swing. I mean I guess it's theoretically possible, but it doesn't seem feasible within the nature of the two-party system.



Goldwater was a unknown economic radical from Arizona and had huge unfavorability as well as low name recognition. There was a asty primary fight between him and the so called establishment moderates and he won. By the time of the RNC in july a lot of moderate republicans still didnt want to vote for Goldwater but he got a lot of them back (the ones that werent planning on voting for LBJ anyways). Same reason why according to this thread, Gerald ford rebounded because the Reagan supporters who said they would stay home or vote for Carter to spite ford decided to come home which allowed him to rebound.

Plus the Kennedy assassination started fading.


« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 11:54:55 pm by ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡) »Logged
twenty42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 275
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2017, 01:03:12 am »
Ignore


- Even in 1964, Goldwater reduced a 60 or so point LBJ lead into a mere 23-point defeat.

Is a 60-point national victory mathematically realistic though? LBJ getting 80% of the PV in 1964 would have resulted in Goldwater getting zero votes in DC and RI using uniform swing. I mean I guess it's theoretically possible, but it doesn't seem feasible within the nature of the two-party system.



Goldwater was a unknown economic radical from Arizona and had huge unfavorability as well as low name recognition. There was a asty primary fight between him and the so called establishment moderates and he won. By the time of the RNC in july a lot of moderate republicans still didnt want to vote for Goldwater but he got a lot of them back (the ones that werent planning on voting for LBJ anyways). Same reason why according to this thread, Gerald ford rebounded because the Reagan supporters who said they would stay home or vote for Carter to spite ford decided to come home which allowed him to rebound.

Plus the Kennedy assassination started fading.




What I'm saying is that regardless of candidates, an 80-20 NPV margin in a presidential election seems highly unfeasible unless all 50 states are voting virtually identical to one another. That doesn't happen in reality, though. Like I said, you'd have Goldwater receiving ZERO votes in DC and RI, and LBJ winning 1932 SC margins in a handful of other states.

I really don't think any presidential candidate could ever realistically win more than 70% of the NPV, just due to Duverger's Law. After that, you start to get into scenarios of candidates receiving zero votes in certain states, and that is nonviable.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41688


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2017, 01:12:16 am »
Ignore


- Even in 1964, Goldwater reduced a 60 or so point LBJ lead into a mere 23-point defeat.

Is a 60-point national victory mathematically realistic though? LBJ getting 80% of the PV in 1964 would have resulted in Goldwater getting zero votes in DC and RI using uniform swing. I mean I guess it's theoretically possible, but it doesn't seem feasible within the nature of the two-party system.

Uniform swing is obviously dumb to use in that situation.
Logged

twenty42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 275
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 01, 2017, 02:11:51 am »
Ignore


- Even in 1964, Goldwater reduced a 60 or so point LBJ lead into a mere 23-point defeat.

Is a 60-point national victory mathematically realistic though? LBJ getting 80% of the PV in 1964 would have resulted in Goldwater getting zero votes in DC and RI using uniform swing. I mean I guess it's theoretically possible, but it doesn't seem feasible within the nature of the two-party system.

Uniform swing is obviously dumb to use in that situation.

Read my subsequent post before you start with the insults.

My point was that too wide of a margin in the NPV becomes mathematically unrealistic at a point. An 80-20 NPV margin may be possible in a national presidential election, but there is no such thing as a national presidential election. In a presidential election year, there are 51 presidential elections that take place simultaneously on Election Day. While we can debate the pros and cons of the electoral college all day long, the current system makes it next to impossible for a single candidate to receive more than 70% of the NPV.

No matter how you cut the cake, an 80-20 NPV margin would require a candidate to receive zero votes in certain states. Like I said...it is theoretically possible, but totally unrealistic.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41688


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2017, 02:49:25 am »
Ignore


- Even in 1964, Goldwater reduced a 60 or so point LBJ lead into a mere 23-point defeat.

Is a 60-point national victory mathematically realistic though? LBJ getting 80% of the PV in 1964 would have resulted in Goldwater getting zero votes in DC and RI using uniform swing. I mean I guess it's theoretically possible, but it doesn't seem feasible within the nature of the two-party system.

Uniform swing is obviously dumb to use in that situation.

Read my subsequent post before you start with the insults.

My point was that too wide of a margin in the NPV becomes mathematically unrealistic at a point. An 80-20 NPV margin may be possible in a national presidential election, but there is no such thing as a national presidential election. In a presidential election year, there are 51 presidential elections that take place simultaneously on Election Day. While we can debate the pros and cons of the electoral college all day long, the current system makes it next to impossible for a single candidate to receive more than 70% of the NPV.

No matter how you cut the cake, an 80-20 NPV margin would require a candidate to receive zero votes in certain states. Like I said...it is theoretically possible, but totally unrealistic.

But you can't apply uniform swing to say that if the Democrats did 10% better nationwide, they'd get 101% in DC. Something like the logistical function might make more sense for modeling swings, but that's too much math for most political people.
Logged

People's Speaker North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37312
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2017, 02:58:42 am »
Ignore

By the 1970's neither party had secure blocks of 47%-48% like they do now. Partisanship was less, both parties nominees were more moderate and all regions of the country were competitive. There was over 30 states that would by today's standards be termed swing states, based on the margins.

1976 looks much like 1968 and 1960 in that sense.


It is easy to win landslide in that backdrop, but it also easier to erase those leads and regain ground.
Logged

People's Speaker of the Atlasian House of Representatives

Fuzzy Bear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5192


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2017, 06:10:37 am »
Ignore

Reagan supporters were never going to vote for Jimmy Carter. 

Carter campaigned as a "moderate", injecting both liberal and conservative themes into his campaign.  This created an image that Carter was "wishy-washy"; a "Wishy-Washy" ad theme was created by Ford's team and it was effective.

One way that the ad was effective was in reducing Carter's margins in the South.  Carter ended up losing Virginia, and he carried other Southern states by far less than what Democrats running for Governor and Senator in those states usually won by.  Much of this is due to white Southern voters seeing Carter over time as a liberal Democrat and not a Southern Democrat. 

At the same time, Carter's "moderate" campaign caused him to lose support amongst liberals in California.  The GOP surged in the fall in California that provided narrow wins there not only for Ford, but for S. I. Hayakawa in the Senate race (displacing Democratic Senator John Tunney, reportedly the model for Robert Redford's character in "The Candidate".)  His comments about LBJ cost him in Texas (which he still won).  But his overt religiosity cost him in New England. 

That's the problem with running as a "moderate" in a Presidential race.  Carter was a true moderate; he was not a liberal even by the standards of the 1976 Democratic Party, and his candidacy was, to some degree, the counterpoint to the McGovern insurgency in 1972.  He was inevitably going to appear as a person with a record out of sync with his platform.  Many say that if the campaign went on for two (2) more weeks, Ford would have won, and that might have been true.  There was widespread support for Carter within the Democratic Party in 1976, but little depth for that support, and that was a problem Carter never really rectified until after he left the Presidency.
Logged

"The family cannot be constituted like the liberal state, nor can it be governed entirely by that state's principles. Yet the family serves as the seedbed for the virtues required by a liberal state. The family is responsible for teaching lessons of independence, self-restraint, responsibility, and right conduct, which are essential to a free, democratic society. If the family fails in these tasks, then the entire experiment in democratic self-rule is jeopardized."-Barbara Dafoe Whitehead
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines