Skip to comments.Summer of 1980 Poll Flashback: Carter 39%, Reagan 32%, Anderson 21%
Posted on 07/10/2012 3:11:38 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: I want to remind you of some history. In June of 1980, basically the same period in the campaign where we are now, minus a month or so, in June of 1980 Jimmy Carter led Ronaldus Magnus 39 to 32. John Anderson, third-party candidate, independent candidate at 21%. Even into August and early September, Jimmy Carter was leading Ronaldus Magnus in the polls. Now, what I'm leading up to is that Reagan won that election in a landslide. Jimmy Carter conceded on election night before the polls in California had closed, 1980. The preelection polls into September did not indicate anything of the sort. In fact, there was not one poll that showed the landslide that happened.
Now, a quick question. The Carter presidency was a disaster in June of 1980. It was a disaster in June of 1979. The Carter presidency was a disaster in June of 1978. The Carter presidency was a disaster for three of the four years. In truth, the Carter presidency was a disaster from the moment Jimma was sworn in. It was an utter disaster and everybody knew it. The misery index was created in order to give life to the devastation. Unemployment was sky-high. Interest rates -- I confuse interest rates with the inflation rate. But they were both in the teens. Or maybe it was unemployment was in the teens and the inflation was high, whatever. It was disastrous. Interest rates. People couldn't buy homes. It was an utter disaster.
Now, in June of 1990, Carter led Reagan by seven points. My point to you is, I don't believe any of this rotgut. I don't believe Carter was up by seven points in June of 1980. I think Carter was destined to lose in a landslide from that entire campaign. I don't think the polls were that wrong. I think people talking to the pollsters were not being that honest, for whatever reason. If there were a disaster, a landslide for Carter reflected in the polls, there would have been a massive cover-up for all the polls to lie about it. I think we've got a carbon copy going on here. Now, we didn't have nearly as many people comfortably unemployed in 1980 as we do now. We didn't have as many people comfortably in economic distress as we do now. But we arguably are in a worse circumstance today than we were then, because the country was not hanging in the balance like it is today and like a majority of people think that it is today.
It is why I say to you every day, if the election were held today, I think that Romney would win in a landslide. And I mean it, I'm not just whistling Dixie, and I'm not trying to be falsely optimistic or anything of the sort. And, by the way, Ronaldus Magnus was outspent by Jimmy Carter in 1980. Carter had the media on his side just like Obama does. And up until the last couple of days of the 1980 campaign, pollsters had it close. It was a toss-up. In the final days, the polls had it a toss-up. Carter leading, even, in a couple of polls. October 26, Gallup poll, 1980, two weeks before the election, Gallup had it Carter 47, Reagan 39. It ends up a landslide.
Well, what the hell happened? People just didn't decide with two weeks to go that they wanted to get rid of Carter. They knew it months ahead of this, just as they know it now. But the one thing that's constant today and 1980 and that is the media -- and I'm here to tell you, they are scared, off camera, off mic, unseen while they're writing whatever they write, they are scared to death. Common sense, which they all have a little of, they all know this country's a disaster. They all know this economy's a disaster. They all know it's not Bush's fault. They all know that Obama hasn't the slightest clue what he's doing. None of that matters to them. Keeping Republicans out of power is all that matters to them. No matter what else happens, that's all that matters.
And so the coverage and what's not covered news-wise each and every day is going to be structured in such a way as to reflect, "Hey, it's the new norm, nobody cares, it's fine. We wish the job situation was a little bit better, and we wish that the debt situation was a little bit better, but we're gonna have health care for everybody pretty soon." Just cast this circumstance as normal as when the country is robustly healthy, all by design. 'Cause that's what they want it to be.
Living in such a vastly different ‘information age’ compared to just two or three decades ago, I sometimes wonder how valid such analogies are, regardless of whether they portend either positive or negative outcomes.
It did not turn for Reagan until the weekend before the election.
I’ve been looking for these poll figures. I remember the shock on the Dems when Reagan won, as he was not the predicted winner, according to the polls.
I wasn’t even paying attention this in 1980. Not until I heard RWR at the convention. Then I was there at Liberty State Park in JC, NJ Sept. 1. But at 16 I was not even aware of the polls.
Pieces like this one are why Rush drives many liberals to distraction.
Back in 1980, there were cautious voices in the Conservative media (which consisted of National Review and Paul Harvey) expressing optimism for the upcoming election. One of them (I remember distinctly) was Grover Norquist, long before he picked up his current baggage. Norquist was very upbeat about RR’s chances, never wavered, and turned out to be right.
Todays Conservative Media is two or more orders of magnitude more powerful than it was back then, and the influence of the MSM punditry has lost much of its power.
That said, I’m not confident because I’m not confident in Romney. Why won’t he fight? President Lincoln had to go through a whole posse of generals before he found one that would fight. We only get to go through one general every four years. McCain wouldn’t fight. So far Romney is not showing me a single thing.
By this time in 1980, Reagan had already drawn Carter’s blood. Romney’s playing pitty-pat.
They had Reagan loosing until the Sunday before the election...lot easier to fudge the polls back then....the msn was in control
You're write software for a living, I'm guessing.
Ronald Reagan was the first president I voted for, though I voted for Anderson in the primaries. Needless to say I voted to reelect President Reagan in both the primary and the general election in 1984
Anderson? Any reason you recall for voting for Anderson over Reagan?
Of course I voted for Reagan in 84 and he carried Hudson County and NJ. ( Well he was 49 out of 50)
The campaigns employ the best pollsters, who come up with the real numbers, as opposed to the popular and published polls, which mostly exist to shill or fill space. After the 1980 election, one writer noted that both Carter and Reagan knew it wasn’t going to be close, that Carter was headed for an epoch-making ass-kicking, and no amount of media spin would turn it around.
Cause he looked like an owl?
Wasn’t Anderson the guy who wanted to pass a big federal gasoline tax?
I would have voted for Pat Paulson over Anderson.
I mean, Rush puts the lie to himself! His Concern Trolling all day Monday means nothing in the context of "if the election were held today, I think that Romney would win in a landslide." -- if it's a tie game 47-47 from ABC's laughable Dem-jammed poll, where the hell does he think the 6% Undecided are going to break between now and then? The Incumbent Rule puts minimum 80% in Mitten's pocket!
BTW I never vote for the eventually presidential nominee during the primaries unless he is running for reelection. And so there is no misunderstanding, I never vote for a rat candidate and never will. Also I consider a vote for a third party candidate in the general election a total waste
"Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions 'yes', why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have."
That broke the dam by fulfilling the second requirement of the Incumbent Rule, and the Undecideds broke for Reagan like a tidal wave. Both Caddell and Powell have claimed that they broke the news to Carter the weekend before the election that he was going to lose -- badly.
Thanks for your wonderful memory of how it was.
That really was an incredible election wasn’t it. Reagan’s first two-and-a-half years were joyful.
There are alot of little pieces to the Carter failure. On economics, he just plain didn’t have a plan. For management style, he had lousy techniques. For the Afghanistan invasion, the US stand was marginal at best. For the first twelve months...there were a number of actions started in Congress, but they really couldn’t sustain anything after that first year. I don’t think it mattered what he did in the last year of the administration....it was a done deal. And Anderson may have been the hidden trick to deduct votes away from Reagan, but there were a fair number of Democrats who just gave up and voted for Anderson because they couldn’t vote for Carter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.