Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Flashback: Gallup Had Carter Up 4 Points Over Ronald Reagan in September 1980
Gateway Pundit ^ | 9-8-2012 | Jim Hoft

Posted on 09/08/2012 8:51:38 PM PDT by smoothsailing

September 8, 2012

Flashback: Gallup Had Carter Up 4 Points Over Ronald Reagan in September 1980

Jim Hoft

Gallup polling today put Obama ahead of Mitt Romney by 4 points after the godless DNC Convention.

Back in 1980 Gallup had Jimmy Carter up over Ronald Reagan by 4 points in September.

Ronald Reagan ended up winning by 9 points and taking 44 states.

(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections
Personally I think the Axelrod-Holder intimidation has more to do with Gallup's reporting of employment statistics than it does Romney-Obama polling.
1 posted on 09/08/2012 8:51:43 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
It was the debates and in particular the third debate that changes things. Both sides decided having the final debate so close to the election was a bad thing. So it seems to me the only polls that have any validity will be those during the week before the vote..
2 posted on 09/08/2012 9:05:13 PM PDT by montanajoe (Blame Flame Shame or Beg I won't vote for R/R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

Which makes sense if pollsters want to look good for future customers.


3 posted on 09/08/2012 9:10:06 PM PDT by PghBaldy (Obama asks that instead of applause, people wave their legs in the air in support.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

I’m pretty unphased by the polls showing an (relativly small) Obama bounce. Candidates virtually always get a bounce from their convention and that bounce is virtually always gone in two week (just ask pathetic John McCain, most forget but he was actually about 5 points of Obama in the week following the convention).


4 posted on 09/08/2012 9:20:03 PM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

I can’t believe Obama is actually polling ahead. It shouldn’t be even close at this point. I’m worried that he isn’t really ahead at all, and that they’re only publishing these fictitious polls so that rampant voter fraud in the real election, when it happens, doesn’t seem to have tipped the balance.

On the other hand, if the polls are real, then we’re done for as a country. There are too many leeches that are living off of my hard work. F*ck ‘em. I’ll leave. I’m ready.


5 posted on 09/08/2012 9:21:11 PM PDT by ChiefJayStrongbow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: apillar

I agree, honest polls are snapshots in time, little more.

This thing has gotten me interested because of the stories about Axelrod and Holder apparently trying to strongarm Gallup because they don’t like their methodology and results.


6 posted on 09/08/2012 9:26:46 PM PDT by smoothsailing (President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people - Clint Eastwood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

I was just a kid during the 1980 election, but I remember the visceral hatred that the liberal media had for Reagan.

All I heard was that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union over and over again.

It gave me nightmares.

This is the first election in my memory where the media hasn’t painted the GOP candidate as a war-monger or a moron or both.

In this election, the liberal media is painting Romney as an effete, tax-dodging elitist, or the GOP version of John Kerry, which is preferable to war-mongering moron.

Nevertheless, this campaign will be a statistical dead heat until the end like 2000, and it will come down to GOTV in the swing states.


7 posted on 09/08/2012 9:35:32 PM PDT by radpolis (Liberals: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChiefJayStrongbow
I’m worried that he isn’t really ahead at all, and that they’re only publishing these fictitious polls so that rampant voter fraud in the real election, when it happens, doesn’t seem to have tipped the balance.

It all has to do with party affiliation of those polled compared to party affiliation of those that vote. It seems in just about every poll lately that the Romney's support among Republicans is greater than Obama's support among Democrats. And Romney has more support among Independents. However, the polls also tend to put more Democrats than Republicans in the sample of voters asked...so that the polls look fairly tight. The reason the polls skew toward polling Democrats is that historically there are more voting Democrats than voting Republicans. However, there are indications (such as a Rasmussen study I have seen) that this is now actually backwards, and that there are now more Republican voters than Democrat voters. I am cautiously optimistic that this means Romney will win in a land slide...since it will mean that more Republicans will vote than Democrats...that fewer Republicans will cross over and vote for Obama than Democrats crossing over and voting for Romney, and more Independents will vote for Romney. Result: there ain't enough fraud they can do to keep Obama from being stomped flat!

8 posted on 09/08/2012 9:39:21 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

Amen Andy! You are exactly correct on this.

Also when a tyrant is in power it becomes dangerous to dissent. 100% support was recorded for Mussolini. “Bagdad Bob” expressed the opinion that 110% support for Saddam was possible.

Here in the United States people have been successfully brainwashed to believe that if you don’t support the dictator, you must be a racist.

As a result of this fear, people poll much higher support for Obama than actually exist.

He has destroyed the economy destroyed our net worth, and governed a free people as a imperial monarch. So the actual vote will be like the 2010 vote, much more conservative than


9 posted on 09/08/2012 9:50:17 PM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton (Go Egypt on 0bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Reagan carried his own state California, but Romney will lose his own state.
This election is not in Romney’s bag.

Obama will carry his state.

Romney’s strategy is not promising, it is defensive. He is treating as normal election, he should exploit current poor economy and make every state in play. Yet to see any ad in Silicon Valley.


10 posted on 09/08/2012 9:50:17 PM PDT by jennychase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: radpolis
the liberal media is painting Romney as an effete, tax-dodging elitist, or the GOP version of John Kerry.

LOL, does that mean that we'll soon be hearing from the Myth Smote Veterans Forsooth?

11 posted on 09/08/2012 9:58:29 PM PDT by smoothsailing (President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people - Clint Eastwood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Worse than that, Gallup had Carter up by eight in October.


12 posted on 09/08/2012 10:35:35 PM PDT by OrangeHoof (Our economy won't heal until one particular black man is unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChiefJayStrongbow

Maybe, but I believe Obama will loseby several points, unless something dramatic happens (Iran or October surprise of Romney scandal).


13 posted on 09/08/2012 10:43:58 PM PDT by PghBaldy (Obama asks that instead of applause, people wave their legs in the air in support.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

After thinking about this the other night I went and looked up the polls. It was all too close to call. I call Romney landslide.


14 posted on 09/08/2012 10:55:31 PM PDT by TheRhinelander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: radpolis
I was just a kid during the 1980 election, but I remember the visceral hatred that the liberal media had for Reagan.

I was a volunteer for the Reagan/Bush staff during the 1984 Republican Convention in Dallas. This was before C-SPAN and the Internet. The RNC ran their own channel covering the event. We would watch it as we were waiting for assignments. It was great because they carried all the speeches for those of us who either didn't have credentials or tickets to attend the convention. That coverage had none of the voiceovers telling us what we had just heard like all the lamestreamers tend to do.

I came home after witnessing first hand Ronald Reagan's speech. I stood not too far from Diane Sawyer while Our President was giving his acceptance speech. And, yet when I got home that evening and caught the evening news I could not believe how biased and negative the coverage was. That was my first awakening. By 1993, I was no longer subscribing to the newspaper.

And they wonder why CNN has only 100,000 viewers.

15 posted on 09/08/2012 11:05:22 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Gallup, Ipsos, Quinnipiac,Field....they have all sucked for a very long time


16 posted on 09/08/2012 11:20:55 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Stunning, wasn’t it? I would watch Reagan give a speech from start to finish, be jazzed up, and then listen to the commentators twist all he said into a pretzel. Later, Time and Newsweek would completely distort his speech. At the time, I was trying to become more informed and this confused the heck out of me, why were the reporters and commentators doing this?? Years later, it took Rush Limbaugh to explain the bias of the media.


17 posted on 09/08/2012 11:31:44 PM PDT by Ladysmith (The evil that's happening in this country is the cancer of socialism...It kills the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ladysmith

...and look where Time and Newsweak are now. A shame it’s taken this long.


18 posted on 09/08/2012 11:51:37 PM PDT by TheRhinelander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ladysmith
Thank God for Rush and all of his compadres. I loved it when Clinton complained about Rush and the lack of a "truth detector."

The Good Lord promised us that we would know the Truth and it would set us free. And, I am sure he was meaning His Truth and not the incessant 24/7 obamababble.

19 posted on 09/08/2012 11:54:05 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ChiefJayStrongbow
On the other hand, if the polls are real, then we’re done for as a country.

That is why every old-school Democrat in the country except Joe Biden is coming out against Obama.

Pat Caddell? Mort Zuckerman? Walter Russell Mead? Bob Woodward? All of them are firing at Obama.

They're also oversampling Democrats at an incredible rate.

Worry in October. Don't worry today.

20 posted on 09/08/2012 11:54:32 PM PDT by superloser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ChiefJayStrongbow

I suspect that the polls are not that far off. Unfortunately, we are not the same country we were in 1980, and it probably is not going back. L&L.


21 posted on 09/09/2012 2:03:37 AM PDT by MachIV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: apillar

Palin was up 5. McCain lost that and more.


22 posted on 09/09/2012 3:40:03 AM PDT by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MachIV
I suspect that the polls are not that far off. Unfortunately, we are not the same country we were in 1980, and it probably is not going back. L&L.

Totally agree. There is now a much larger percentage of the population that votes for a living, rather than working for it.

23 posted on 09/09/2012 4:48:43 AM PDT by Texas Mulerider (Rap music: hieroglyphics with a beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
The polls from the past few days are very typical of a post convention “bounce”; Romney got one too. But neither candidate has ever gotten to that 50%+ plus threshold, which tells me that this is going to be a very close election. But in close elections the undecideds usually break for the challenger. So I'm cautiously optimistic that Obama will be defeated. But we shall see.
24 posted on 09/09/2012 5:43:36 AM PDT by Bridesheadfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

I think the race is essentially tied. I think it all comes down to turnout and the few persuadable undecideds. I think the majority of undecideds will go Repub, so if the Democrat turnout is lower in the battleground states, Obama should lose. All bets are off if Romney gets clobbered in the debates.


25 posted on 09/09/2012 5:50:13 AM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

I woke up to the media bias when I went to the Rally for Life in Washington in April, 1990. It was one of the largest crowds to ever attend a rally in Washington. UPI reported 800,000 people in their first wire report. The next day, CNN said “60,000 attended”(!), and the rest of the media said 150-200,000(when they covered the event at all). It was a real eye opener.


26 posted on 09/09/2012 6:04:48 AM PDT by Bridesheadfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

I think we make a pretty sad crowd if we’re going back to a bad Gallup poll in 1980 to make ourselves feel better.


27 posted on 09/09/2012 6:13:42 AM PDT by paul544
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ChiefJayStrongbow
Chief... you also have to consider when you see these polls that anything reported by percentages can also be misleading...

Here's an example I used in another thread:

If 56 people vote for Obozo out of 100 people voting that's 56%

But

if 23 people vote for Obozo out of 50 people voting that's also 56%

This is why voter turnout for your side is so important. If you only look at the percentages then you wouldn't know 50 less people bothered to show up to vote for your guy.

Right now, Obozo is running ads in California....and several freepers have commented that if this is true than Obozo must be in real trouble.

I as well as others think its voter apathy...they just aren't going to get off their butts to vote.

However, I've also wondered if its the gay marriage evolution by Obozo that's turning them (Blacks and Hispanics in particular) off. After all, they where the ones who made sure the gay marriage prop didn't pass in California to all our astonishment.

28 posted on 09/09/2012 6:16:57 AM PDT by thingumbob (I'm a bitter clinger...I dare you to take my gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: radpolis
All I heard was that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union over and over again.

Nothing new there, the did the same thing with Goldwater.

29 posted on 09/09/2012 6:20:01 AM PDT by Fresh Wind ('People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook.' Richard M. Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

And looking at the chart, had Carter up by 8 points in October.


30 posted on 09/09/2012 6:22:54 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
I came home after witnessing first hand Ronald Reagan's speech. I stood not too far from Diane Sawyer while Our President was giving his acceptance speech. And, yet when I got home that evening and caught the evening news I could not believe how biased and negative the coverage was. That was my first awakening. By 1993, I was no longer subscribing to the newspaper

My political awareness of the bias of the media happened much the same way. I watched Oliver North's testimony to congress on Cspan (I think) and remember coming away thinking that he was a straight shooter and was absolutely being honest and straight forward about what he was saying. THEN later I watched the news and read the newspaper. Night and day. Knew right then I couldn't trust the media to tell me how to think.

31 posted on 09/09/2012 6:26:23 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
I miss the unvarnished days where we could actually listen to the whole speak and nothing but the whole speech.

I also canceled all my newspaper and news magazine subscriptions right around 1993 too. Interesting?....

....and I'd started to listen to Rush in 1992.

Of course, then I watched us kick out the Democrats in the House and Senate in 1994 and laughed all night watching those same media genius's gape at what was happening.

I'm hoping for more of this in this election cycle but I'm pretty sure the Lamestream media are already composing a database full of all the excuses they're going to pump into the teleprompters for election night coverage.

Have you ever noticed that the only time the media actually is "physically working" these days is when they're busy making up excuses for Democratic failures?

32 posted on 09/09/2012 6:35:36 AM PDT by thingumbob (I'm a bitter clinger...I dare you to take my gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas

Well the MSM is going to do everything within their power to make Romney look bad in the debates. I hope he is prepping w/ that in mind. Actually, I fully expect obama to be given the questions in advance so his answers will flow instead of that stumbling, bumbling act he typically displays when speaking off the cuff.


33 posted on 09/09/2012 7:08:42 AM PDT by Josa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Worth remembering. Thanks.


34 posted on 09/09/2012 8:49:14 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Worth remembering. Thanks.


35 posted on 09/09/2012 8:50:34 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennychase

“Romney’s strategy is not promising, it is defensive. He is treating as normal election, he should exploit current poor economy and make every state in play.”

He doesn’t need every state, that would be a waste of resources.

what hasn’t gotten much play yet from the press or pundits, is the ground game or the GOTV campaign.

Romney will have a distinct cash advantage to apply towards a GOTV campaign, and in the end this is always the deciding factor in a close election ex: Bush 2004.

We have to have a little patients and let the Romney campaign unfold. They are not handicapped buy a shortfall of cash.


36 posted on 09/09/2012 9:46:03 AM PDT by WILLIALAL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Yes but as usual, one key point is missed by these guys - the MSM blasted Carter night after night for the hostage crisis. Carter did not own the MSM the way 0 does...


37 posted on 09/09/2012 10:57:31 AM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson