Replies

"Three days out from election, the CBS/NYT poll had Reagan up by ONE point. Reagan won by TEN."

Ummm ... we're on the same side, but let's be honest about 1980. Reagan won by 10% but his vote total was only a tad above 50%, at 50.7%. He won by 10 because independent John Anderson had 7% of the vote. These are voters who specifically didn't want Reagan, voters who were extremely displeased with Washington DC, and voters who, had Anderson not been running, would've voted reluctantly for Carter or just stayed home.

None would've voted for Reagan. Why? Because if they were leaning Reagan, they would've known that a vote for Anderson was a vote against Reagan already.

My guess is that without Anderson, the vote would've split 80% Carter and 20% stay at homes.

Curiously, this means a margin for Reagan of about 4 points (51-47), which is about as good as we might expect from Romney.

Implications:

Reagan's revolution didn't really cement until after the economy got worse and then turned around. Regardless of how well we loved him.

Americans don't like to fire their Presidents, even Presidents as incompetent as Obama.

None would've voted for Reagan. Why? Because if they were leaning Reagan, they would've known that a vote for Anderson was a vote against Reagan already.

LOL, what??

One could use the same false logic and claim...

"none would have voted for Carter because if they were leaning Carter, they would have known that a vote for Anderson was a vote against Carter."

You’re 100% correct.
Even more important, the demographics of 1980 were MUCH more favorably disposed toward Republicans than the demographics of 2012.
That’s why the pollyanas predicting a huge Romney win are sadly deluded.
At best, he wins very narrowly - and given how horrendous Obama has been, that’s a sad commentary on the America of 2012.

Remember that Romney, while a decent candidate and person, is no Reagan, and the political dynamics are vastly different. The media in 1980 were running an “America Held Hostage” count every day on the news, and those people blindfolded and held captive in Iran got a lot more press than our four dead in Libya have gotten this year. Carter never was the media darling that Obama is. The media, as we have seen, are moving Heaven and Earth to get Obama re-elected. They were not so willing with Carter. Obama is the kind of politician the media have wet dreams about, ultra-liberal, black (sort of), and nothing but a teleprompter-reading nincompoop who is clay in their hands. Carter was a cracker hick from Georgia, ex-Navy officer, who wasn't their ideal of a liberal American politician. As usual, in this election, the ‘Pub candidate has had to wage a battle against two enemies, the ‘Rats and the media, but with Obama, it has been that on steroids.

Americans don't like to fire their Presidents, even Presidents as incompetent as Obama.

Yep. For one to vote against the guy one voted for four years prior is to admit a very big error. Not just that, but it means admitting that error to one's self. Not many people would like to introspect along the lines of "I helped eff-up the country's last four years."

However, a decent portion of the people that realize their error still won't vote for the guy that screwed up and voted for four years prior. They're the ones that stay home. There'll be a lot of them this Tuesday.

Your assumption is incorrect. The folks who voted for ANderson would NOT have split 80/20 Carter....your reasoning that they didn’t vote for Reagan can as easily be applied to Carter. They didn’t like either. You have no clue as to who they didn’t like the most. For all you know they disliked Carter enough to either stay home or hold their noses and vote for Reagan.

Nice try but your whole analysis is not only flawed but pointless