Nov 3, 1980 (NYT): "Reagan and Carter stand nearly even in last polls"

[pmbryant]

Some historical perspective from the New York Times, nearly 24 years ago:

"Ronald Reagan and President Carter, their already close race tightened by their debate last Tuesday, appeared to be running about even in popular support with two days to go until the Presidential election.

...

"Nationally, the Times/CBS News Poll gave Mr. Reagan 44 percent, Mr. Carter 43 percent and John B. Anderson 8 percent of the probable electorate, a measure of the 2,264 registered voters intereviewed that is weighted to reflect the likelihood of voting. Undecided voters who said they leaned toward a candidate were counted in the candidate's total.

"The remaining 5 percent reported that they were still undecided, but these included mainly Democrats and independents, indicating the Mr. Carter would have a better chance than Mr. Reagan of picking up their support."

The final results were Reagan 51%, Carter 41%, Anderson 7%.

Obviously there are plenty of differences between the circumstances in 1980 and those today, but I do think 1980 is a good example of how inaccurate pre-election polls can be when there is an especially motivated electorate.

So don't trust the polls. GOTV, and we may all be pleasantly surprised next Tuesday night.

Or so I can hope, at least.

:-)

Peter

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. I've been thinking of '80 for weeks now.

n/t

[DaveSZ]

2. Anderson pulled off much of Carter's liberal votes

Reagan still would have won without Anderson, but it wouldn't have been an EC landslide.

[David__77]

3. Anderson would have dropped out if Ted Kennedy were the nominee.

I think Kennedy would have won the race, to be honest. He would have lost every southern state, most likely, but would have won with a northeast/midwest coalition. My father, a moderate right-leaning libertarian type, voted for Anderson, thinking Reagan too loony, even though he voted for Goldwater in his first election.

[Zorra]

4. Either the polls were off or the pukes got Reagan in through mass

election fraud.

[dr.strangelove]

6. I think thats the point, the polls were way off

While I'm sure there was some election fraud (there always is) you won't find many people who are surprised with the Reagan Carter election. Carter did not campaign well, and performed poorly at the debate. His last two weeks were a losing battle. I love President Carter and wish he could have saved American from the 12 years of horrible rule that followed his term in office, but I have no doubt about the bad decision the American people made in that election. Voter fraud didn't get Reagan in the White House (though there were reports from Michigan and New Hampshire that I recall), a poor choice by the American people did.

Fortunately for us, this appears to be the case in this election with the incumbent. He is defensive and campaigning like a loser. The polls are way off and are showing the race tighter than it is. I think Kerry will win a decisive victory, though not in the Reagan landslide fashion, but he will get over 300 EV and 53+% of the popular vote to Bush's 45+%.

[pmbryant]

8. Exactly. No one foresaw the size of Reagan's victory.

Some thought Reagan could win the electoral college while Carter won the popular vote.

Amazing in retrospect, since Carter lost by almost 10 points, but the speculation is there in the New York Times archive a couple days before the 1980 election.

I am crossing my fingers for a similar effect this year, even if it is smaller. (Carter didn't have the huge media propaganda machine behind him that Bush does.)

--Peter

[ElementaryPenguin]

5. Thanks for posting this!

Some perspective indeed!

[Raenelle]

7. On the buzzkill side, I don't think Carter had a depress the vote plan