Skip to comments.
SOME REMINDERS FROM 1980 (Most pollsters called the elections a cliffhanger then)
| Steven Hayward
Posted on 10/01/2012 7:21:17 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Some Reminders from 1980
As weve argued here before, this election campaign has many important differences from the Reagan-Carter race of 1980. But there are some important similarities, including the volatile polls, and the medias tilt toward the Democratic Party narrative. In this regard, recall the Washington Posts editorial after the election (Tidal Wave), which said something they may well have to reprint this year:
Something of gigantic proportions happenedmust have been happening for a long whileand the capital and the political wise men were taken by surprise. . . an anti-Washington, anti-establishment political storm warning was missed by Washington and the establishment.
Funny how good Washington is at missing the building anti-Washington moods that build periodically in the country.
You can expect a repeat of these kind of stories in the media, as recalled in my Age of Reagan:
Pollster Burns Roper admitted that The Press, political analysts and political strategists all missed the magnitude and breadth of the sweep. A week before the election, the New Republics Morton Kondracke wrote that it seems more likely by the day that Ronald Reagan is not going to execute a massive electoral sweep. In fact, the movement of the presidential campaign suggests a Carter victory. David Broder had written: There is no evidence of a dramatic upsurge in Republican strength or a massive turnover in Congress. Though polls in the days leading up to the election showed Reagan ahead of Carter, most were near or within the margin of error, and everyone was predicting a late-night nail-biter. The New York Times poll three days out had Reagan ahead by a single point; veteran California pollster Mervin Field said At the moment there is a slight movement toward Carter. George Gallup said This election could very well be a cliffhanger just like 1948.
By the way, theres an interesting tidbit from my narrative about the 1980 election that Romney ought to have absorbed before forming his thoughts about the notorious 47%. It was this: McGovern later said he knew his reelection was lost when two elderly women in the grocery store told him they would vote against him because he is too liberal, and then paid for their groceries with food stamps. The point is, even people taking advantage of entitlement programs may not be fond of liberal dependency, and might respond to better arguments about the future.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 1980; 2012; carter; reagan
Not to be a Gloomy Gus but the country was very,very,*very* different in 1980.Thirty years of wetbacks,new food stamp programs and the discovery of SSDI equal *at least* 47% today.
posted on 10/01/2012 7:31:35 PM PDT
by Gay State Conservative
(Ambassador Stevens Is Dead And The Chevy Volt Is Alive!)
Common sense says that 2012 should be a repeat of 2010, nothing has improved since then, just the opposite. I don’t believe the pro bambi polls for a second, I think he is going to get his skinny commie arse handed to him, and the pubs will keep the house and take the senate.
And then the economy will take off and even liberals will be relieved that the idiot is no longer president.
posted on 10/01/2012 7:37:22 PM PDT
(Praise to the Lord the Almighty the King of Creation)
To: Gay State Conservative
Boy I’ll say it was different. I was 24 in 1980, working in a construction union in NYC. Bought A 1981 Honda Accord at 16% interest.
posted on 10/01/2012 7:50:57 PM PDT
(Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
RE: Common sense says that 2012 should be a repeat of 2010, nothing has improved since then, just the opposite.
The only concern with that argument is this — Voters are LESS likely to vote or pay attention to non-Presidential elections such as the one in 2010. Hence, Democrats were less concerned about it then.
But the Presidential elections, for some reason, tends to energize respective bases more than the non-presidential elections.
Let’s remember that Clinton got re-elected in 1996 after the Dems got totally swept from Congress ( both houses ) in a Republicans landslide that gave the GOP control of the legislature for the first time in 40 years just two years earlier. There was simply no enthusiasm for the Dole/Kemp ticket.
It remains to be seen whether Republicans and Conservatives are more energized in 2012 then Democrats.
If so, then all these polls that sample MORE DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICANS are invalid. If not, then the current sampling showing more Democrat voters in 2012 could be correct.
posted on 10/01/2012 7:56:38 PM PDT
Edit to Add, Clinton NEVER got 50% of the popular vote in both the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections.
In both cases, Ross Perot played the Republican spoiler.
posted on 10/01/2012 7:57:51 PM PDT
If Morton Kondracke would just snivel a little more he’d be respectable.
The only good thing about him is when McLaughlin used to yell at him.
posted on 10/01/2012 8:26:36 PM PDT
(First, Do No Harm)
Clinton had Perot and a good economy going for him. Obama has neither. There are a lot of dissatisfied Obama voters out there, I know several and they were t shirt wearing, bumper sticker Obama fans. They cannot stand him now. And NOBODY who voted for McCain is going to vote for bambi.
The tingle is gone, and so will the clown.
posted on 10/01/2012 8:31:43 PM PDT
(Praise to the Lord the Almighty the King of Creation)
One minor detail: Mitt Romney is not Ronald Reagan.
posted on 10/01/2012 10:27:16 PM PDT
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson