Polls (Some History)

[selmaborntidefan]

So the other day I was on You Tube and watched a video that this guy (I'm pretty sure it's a guy since he uses his own voice, but I didn't verify which bathroom used) made about some of the Presidential elections. And while he occasionally misspells stuff or gets a date wrong (Dukakis obviously did not take his tank ride on December 13, five weeks after the 1988 election), his overall material is really good. He cites polling data, real time stuff, etc.

Well, you can probably guess what was in some of the comments, and you can always tell the MAGAs. They are the ones who claim the media rigs polls, they're fake polls, "this has been going on since blah blah." Dukakis - if you're old enough to remember that race - came out of his Convention with a lead of around 17 points or so. YES, the lead was both soft and a response to the successful Convention he had, but he REALLY DID (in all polls) have a lead of 15-20 points. Artificial, yes, but he had a huge lead.

Naturally, I made the mistake of politely engaging someone who turned out to be the kind of person you need to put "do not eat this" on the desiccant packs. He went with "the proof Dukakis never had this huge a lead is that he lost!" Yes, folks, because Dukakis lost by 7-plus in NOVEMBER, it means the polls in AUGUST were "fake" or "rigged" or the other one-syllable descriptions designed to not tax a MAGA intellect with pronunciation. So since we have polls cited here repeatedly - for good or ill - I thought I'd post some actual AT THE TIME polls that show how quickly things can turn or maybe how artificial they can be.

I'll start with 1980 and here's why - I've seen person after person say things like, "I lost faith in the media when they told me the Reagan-Carter race was close and Reagan buried him." Uh, yeah.

Do you know WHY the media thought the race was close?
As much a critic as I am of the press, they didn't just pull this interpretation out of a hat. What happened was the race was relatively close BUT IN REAGAN'S FAVOR throughout October. Reagan and Carter had their one debate ONE WEEK prior to the election, the only time the country saw them on stage together prior to the election. What basically happened was Reagan performed well enough to convince the "undecided" voters - and there was a huge number of those - to vote for him BUT ALSO you have to remember there was a second Republican in the race (John Anderson) running as an independent. Anderson was the old school New England-style liberal Republican, and he had those voters who thought Reagan was too conservative. (Seriously - Reagan once asked Anderson if he REALLY would prefer Teddy Kennedy as President than Reagan). Once Reagan convinced the old school Republicans - first by picking Bush and then not looking like a complete idiot after he recalibrated his campaign just prior to Labor Day - that he wasn't Barry Goldwater and about to start WW3, those more liberal Republicans fell in line since they knew "a vote for Anderson is a vote for a guy who cannot win", so much so that Reagan actually carried Massachusetts just eight years after it was the only state McGovern won.

This wasn't "the media just made up some polls," and why would they; in 1988, the average poll (per Germond/Witcover's book) cost the media folks $20,000 to complete. Why would they waste money on something they could just make up?

And so let's look at the Lou Harris poll from the end of 1979. Lou Harris, for those who don't know, was once George Gallup's principal rival in the polling industry. He had worked under pollster Elmo Roper (one of the Big Three of Presidential pollsters in the 1960s) and then served as pollster for the Senatorial re-election campaign of JFK in 1958 before getting a bit of fame in 1960 as the campaign's pollster. He then began working for CBS News - and he and Gallup refined polling and learned from some mistakes to the point they were the big guns in polling.

Here's Harris from January 1, 1980:
Carter 59
Reagan 36

Reagan 49
Teddy 46

 

[selmaborntidefan]

On January 10, shortly after Carter's condemnation of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and with Reagan basically sitting on his behind in California and assuming Iowa was in the bag, Gallup provided some even better news for the President:

Carter 63
Reagan 32

Carter 57
Ford 38

Kennedy 50
Reagan 42

Ford 49
Kennedy 44

Now before anyone gets huffy with, "See, that's different from the Gallup Poll," the Harris poll data had covered December 14-16, 1979, BEFORE the Soviet invasion and as Carter was (in fact) becoming more popular with his handling of the Iran hostage crisis (initially).

So hopefully we can lay to rest the "Teddy Kennedy would have done better" myth.

 

[Its On A Slab]

Carter's downfall was the economy, and you can add the lingering Iran hostage crisis that consumed the latter years of his presidency. The prime interest rate was 21%. I can remember my Dad socking all of his available investments into CDs because they paid so well at the time.

Much of the economic problems - he inherited. I still have my Dad's old WIN buttons (Ford's "Whip Inflation Now" program). The oil embargo also contributed.

People dump on Carter because of the state of the nation's economy at the time, but appointing Paul Volcker as Fed chair in 1979 actually helped get us out of the crisis. But it was painful, a huge recession. But Volcker's tight money policy prevailed.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Carter's downfall was the economy, and you can add the lingering Iran hostage crisis that consumed the latter years of his presidency. The prime interest rate was 21%. I can remember my Dad socking all of his available investments into CDs because they paid so well at the time.

Much of the economic problems - he inherited. I still have my Dad's old WIN buttons (Ford's "Whip Inflation Now" program). The oil embargo also contributed.

People dump on Carter because of the state of the nation's economy at the time, but appointing Paul Volcker as Fed chair in 1979 actually helped get us out of the crisis. But it was painful, a huge recession. But Volcker's tight money policy prevailed.

A number of things I've read both contemporary and later basically blame the "malaise" (a word Carter never used but which Kennedy hung on his July 79 speech) on LBJ's high spending both domestically and for the Vietnam War.

And it did consume three Presidencies economically, Nixon, Ford, and Carter - and the first two years of Reagan.

Being a "good President" is a lot like winning a NASCAR race; yes, there are things you can do to get yourself ready, but if two cars suddenly collide in front of you at 200 mph and an uncontrolled car is suddenly in your path, there's not much you can do about it. A President has far more say and influence in foreign policy than he does economics - the current regime's constant pounding of the hornet's nest notwithstanding.

I tell people nowadays about gas lines and odds and evens (which day you could buy fuel), and they have no idea what I'm talking about. And that was in the summer of 1979 for Pete's sake.

 

[mdb-tpet]

Carter's downfall was the economy, and you can add the lingering Iran hostage crisis that consumed the latter years of his presidency. The prime interest rate was 21%. I can remember my Dad socking all of his available investments into CDs because they paid so well at the time.

Much of the economic problems - he inherited. I still have my Dad's old WIN buttons (Ford's "Whip Inflation Now" program). The oil embargo also contributed.

People dump on Carter because of the state of the nation's economy at the time, but appointing Paul Volcker as Fed chair in 1979 actually helped get us out of the crisis. But it was painful, a huge recession. But Volcker's tight money policy prevailed.

Carter's downfall was aided by going up against a movie actor, who could deliver lines and make a positive delivery that Carter couldn't. It's another layer of difficulty to win an election against someone with the onscreen gravitas and public name recognition of an actor.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Carter's downfall was the economy, and you can add the lingering Iran hostage crisis that consumed the latter years of his presidency. The prime interest rate was 21%. I can remember my Dad socking all of his available investments into CDs because they paid so well at the time.

Much of the economic problems - he inherited. I still have my Dad's old WIN buttons (Ford's "Whip Inflation Now" program). The oil embargo also contributed.

People dump on Carter because of the state of the nation's economy at the time, but appointing Paul Volcker as Fed chair in 1979 actually helped get us out of the crisis. But it was painful, a huge recession. But Volcker's tight money policy prevailed.

The 'malaise' speech didn't help. While he was 100% correct and on point, the long term effects, magnified by the economic pains and the Iranian hostage situation, hurt him heading into the election.

 

[Its On A Slab]

A number of things I've read both contemporary and later basically blame the "malaise" (a word Carter never used but which Kennedy hung on his July 79 speech) on LBJ's high spending both domestically and for the Vietnam War.

And it did consume three Presidencies economically, Nixon, Ford, and Carter - and the first two years of Reagan.

Being a "good President" is a lot like winning a NASCAR race; yes, there are things you can do to get yourself ready, but if two cars suddenly collide in front of you at 200 mph and an uncontrolled car is suddenly in your path, there's not much you can do about it. A President has far more say and influence in foreign policy than he does economics - the current regime's constant pounding of the hornet's nest notwithstanding.

I tell people nowadays about gas lines and odds and evens (which day you could buy fuel), and they have no idea what I'm talking about. And that was in the summer of 1979 for Pete's sake.

I remember driving back from Dallas to Jackson, MS back in the Summer of '79, and my Dad worrying if we were going to make it home. The number of gas stations that were closed at highway exits. Scary times.


Yep. Vietnam, The Great Society, throw in the moon program (that we all know was faked ). It all had to be reckoned with one day.

History is becoming more positive on Carter. He was unfairly blamed for a lot of things back then. I do know that Carter is a hero to those who suffered during The Dirty War in The Southern Cone. His State Dept. put pressure on the Argentine junta. Kissinger had given them the green light.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I remember driving back from Dallas to Jackson, MS back in the Summer of '79, and my Dad worrying if we were going to make it home. The number of gas stations that were closed at highway exits. Scary times.


Yep. Vietnam, The Great Society, throw in the moon program (that we all know was faked ). It all had to be reckoned with one day.

History is becoming more positive on Carter. He was unfairly blamed for a lot of things back then. I do know that Carter is a hero to those who suffered during The Dirty War in The Southern Cone. His State Dept. put pressure on the Argentine junta. Kissinger had given them the green light.

Love him or hate him, Carter had principles and values he acted upon.

I can accept that even if I disagree. The reality is that in my lifetime every President except one has had those, whether I agreed or not.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The 'malaise' speech didn't help. While he was 100% correct and on point, the long term effects, magnified by the economic pains and the Iranian hostage situation, hurt him heading into the election.

He blew it, though, in the days immediately after the speech by demanding the resignation of all of his Cabinet members because he wanted to get rid of three of them without firing them. And that right there crystallized his standing as a "weak leader." (It doesn't matter if the perception is fair, it only matters what it is. Dan Quayle was probably nowhere near as dumb as was perceived, for example).

 

[Its On A Slab]

He blew it, though, in the days immediately after the speech by demanding the resignation of all of his Cabinet members because he wanted to get rid of three of them without firing them. And that right there crystallized his standing as a "weak leader." (It doesn't matter if the perception is fair, it only matters what it is. Dan Quayle was probably nowhere near as dumb as was perceived, for example).

Quayle's biggest problem was he always seemed uneasy in front of the camera. Prone to the deer-in-the-headlights demeanor. Lloyd Bentsen ate him alive in their VP debate. While Bush 41 prevailed in that election, Quayle was never able to overcome the meme of his weakness.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I have not been able to locate actual newspaper print polls for the General Election starting with the Iowa caucuses of 1980 (January 21) through the New Hampshire primary (February 26). This makes sense for the time because it would have been confusing. Plus at that time they were out in the field taking PRIMARY polls. (And while it seems impossible to believe NOW, polls while common were not nearly as common in the 1980 election as they are today, and they were by respected, reputable groups who had honed their polling skills over several elections).

Jimmy Carter, for all intents and purposes, locked up the nomination (regardless of the later drama) when he toppled Ted Kennedy in New Hampshire, by a solid ten points. If Kennedy couldn't beat Carter in his home geographical area, he was toast. One week later, Senator Ted DID carry 65% of the vote in his home state, but he also got smoked in Vermont after having lost in Maine. Again, the consultants pointed out, if the guy can't even carry his home section in a primary, how is he even a viable candidate?

Reagan, on the other hand, lost a shocker in the Iowa caucuses to George Bush. Reagan's campaign reasoned that 30,000 votes would carry Iowa. They got a little over 31,000 - but Bush beat him, plain and simple. The general interpretation is that Reagan's refusal to debate the other candidates and his sporadic appearances in Iowa as a guy who acted like he was already the nominee backfired. But then with the "ambush at Nashua," where Reagan demolished Bush with a pre-debate one-liner ("I'm paying for this microphone," stolen from a Spencer Tracy movie) and then won the vote. And fired his campaign manager, John Sears, blaming him for the Iowa debacle.

Carter also, unfortunately, began a practice that continues to this day in an effort to soak up some great publicity, inviting the hockey team to the White House for political reasons. (Coolidge invited the Washington Senators after they won their lone World Series but AFTER the 1924 election he won. JFK invited the Boston Celtics to the White House in 1963 after an NBA title, but he was from Boston. Carter appears to be the first doing it for obvious political reasons, not the least being the prime lending rate going up to nearly 17% that week).


This is America in 1980:

February 22 - the US hockey team stuns the USSR with a 4-3 win (Note: Ken Dryden, who called the game with Al Michaels, just passed away yesterday)

February 23 - Reagan ambushes Bush at Nashua High School, first by saying he paid for the microphone and then by beating him senseless in the debate.

February 24 - the US hockey team beats Finland to win the gold medal; the US only won six golds at the 1980 Olympics, the five won by skater Eric Heiden and the hockey team

February 25 - President Carter invites the US hockey team to the White House to bask in the glow of the accomplishment. He wasn't even close to the first (it goes back to another Southern President, Andrew Johnson, in 1869

February 26 - Reagan gets 49% of the votes in a seven-man contest, largely putting away the nomination. Carter beats Teddy, 47-37, taking enough of a lead he will hold until renomination.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

On March 1, 1980, former President Gerald Ford came bumbling out of the gate, predicting the American people would never elect an extremist like Reagan, blaming Reagan for his narrow loss to Carter in 1976, and all but inviting the GOP to beg him to run in the primaries. He predicted Reagan would "probably lose."

A day later, the movie actor unloaded on Ford, and pretty much dared him to enter the race. David Broder, a liberal columnist with the Post, pointed out that at this point Ford was seen as a man who (even by Carter's words) had "healed our land" after the Watergate scandal, and if Ford jumped into the race that all went away. On the other hand, Carter's polls were showing Ford would beat them because he had experience and would be able to say, "Look, you messed it all up."

By mid-March, Ford had backed off of running at all. Ford, after all, was the one candidate who (at 67) could hardly say much about Reagan's age (69). John Connally - yes THAT John Connally - was saying the opposite while getting beaten senseless in the GOP primaries.

It is worth nothing that in November 1979, polling showed the following in the Democratic primary:
Kennedy 54
Carter 40

And then on the same night Kennedy conducted his self-imploding interview with Roger Mudd, Iran took the hostages in Tehran and, for all intents and purposes, assured Carter's renomination (which was probably never in doubt anyway).

An even more amusing anecdote occurred when Teddy Kennedy - who mind you had sought (by his own admission) the permission of his alcoholic (and soon to be ex-) wife and mother to run for President - decided to present himself as a FAMILY MAN!!!

Polls taken among Democrats shortly after this series of commercials as to who is the better family man?
Carter 70
Kennedy 7

The first week of March, we got the following polls:

ABC/Lou Harris:
Ford 54
Carter 44

Carter 58
Reagan 40
(Margin of Error: 6 points)



Gallup:
Carter 57
Reagan 34

Carter 57
Bush 32

(Doesn't the above poll by Gallup kinda do away with the "we want a more moderate candidate?")




No, this doesn't mean "fake news" for polls, it doesn't mean anyone cooked the books, it doesn't mean the race "was never close."

It does show the problem using polls to prove things months later, but there's nothing wrong with it overall. Carter gets 58 in Harris, 57 in Gallup. Reagan does a bit better in Harris but still trails by 18.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

It doesn't look good in March for Reagan or the Republican Party unless they nominate Ford....but it never did, nor did it matter. It was at this point Republican (at the time) pollster Kevin Phillips sounded the first contrary note to the "Reagan is going to get clobbered like Goldwater" interpretation. He even cites Goldwater as an example.

GRANTED...polling improved immensely from 1964 to 1980. In the very first poll (cf. White, 1964), LBJ led Goldwater by the blockbuster margin of 80-14. The final margin, while still a blistering rout, was 61-38, meaning Goldwater picked up 24 points in the polls and LBJ lost 19. And that's the point Phillips makes: if Reagan gains the same way Goldwater did, he's going to win.

Another key point left unsaid....the country as a whole was far more registered Democrats in 1964 than in 1980. Indeed, as White noted in his book about the 1968 election:

"Humphrey’s crusade was not an attempt to expand his base—his crusade was simply to bring the Democrats back to their own church."

There were still enough Democrats all by themselves to win the election in 1968, not in 1980.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Note: I will include later races after we look at 1980. This is not a commentary on the 1980 election, it's a commentary on snapshot polls at the time and how people who say "X never had a lead" or "fake news" wouldn't know a guitar string from a G string (there's one of those on a guitar, I know).

When people think about the 1980 race, they think about a few things and one of them is "well, Kennedy almost took the nomination from Carter. " NO!!! He did not. So let's address that real quick.

Jimmy Carter won 18 of 19 races head-to-head against Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown, between January 21 (Iowa) and March 24 (South Carolina). He beat him senseless in every section of the country, losing only the state where Teddy was a sitting Senator that had been held almost exclusively by his family for 28 years. But on March 25, 1980, the public tide began to turn against President Carter. He narrowly lost the Connecticut primary to Kennedy (46-41), losing only a margin of 4 delegates. But it was New York where Teddy began his comeback. The key point now was this: "a vote for Kennedy is no longer a vote for Kennedy because he can't win, a vote for Kennedy is now a vote AGAINST Carter." Kennedy had lost pretty much everywhere at this point: in the press, in the polls, in the primaries.

Why did the race turn in New York's Democratic primary? I'll give you a hint: Israel.

On March 1, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 465. I'm not gonna pretend I understand it, but it concerned Israeli settlements in Arab countries since 1967 (any of this sounding familiar?). From what I understand, the resolution (which passed, 15-0) demanded Israel to remove all settlements and not make any new ones. Donald McHenry was SUPPOSED to abstain from voting if there were any references to Jerusalem, but he instead voted in favor of it contra Carter's intent. Two days later, Carter backed off the US position, saying it was neither practical nor possible to demand the removal of settlements. Remember: this foreign policy fluff is occurring while the administration has hostages in Iran AND while Carter is contemplating boycotting the Moscow Olympics to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

It made him look like a complete fool. And it angered the heavy Jewish vote in NYC, which came out in favor of Teddy about 4-1. It was also the first dustup for polls.

ABC/Lou Harris Pre-NY Primary Polls:
Carter 55
Kennedy 37

Actual Results
Kennedy 59
Carter 41

Fake polls, right?
But it gets worse.

The other big name in polling, Roper, had Reagan beating Bush in Connecticut, where Bush's father had been a Senator, and it was one of only four states Bush won. Meanwhile, the same Roper poll had Carter beating Kennedy as well.

The University of Connecticut had similar results but they had an easy defense: their own polls were showing UNDECIDED voters of up to 45% in the state's primary. So their "misfire" was easily defensible.

CBS/NY Times didn't bother to poll New York. Why? Because as NYT polling director Henry Lieberman noted, primaries aren't easy to poll and can easily be skewed by late developments. He also noted newspapers shouldn't be in the 'horse race business' but should be polling simply what's on voters minds.

The general interpretation of this - from both the Carter and Kennedy camps (they would soon change their tune) - was that Connecticut and New York provided an outlet for protest voting. On the GOP side, Reagan should never have been expected to beat former Senator Bush's son anyway...and he only lost by five points.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Despite the win in New York and subsequent historical revisionism, Teddy Kennedy was NEVER a serious threat to gain the nomination from President Carter. After he won New York, Kennedy suffered defeats in almost every other contest he entered over the next month. Kennedy won 0 delegates in a nonbinding caucus in Arizona, and Carter continued to run up the delegates in primaries, state conventions, and state delegate slates. On April 22, Teddy picked up some "super delegates" in Vermont and then beat Carter in Pennsylvania by about 4,000 votes (.28%). That gained him another three delegates more than Carter, and Teddy also took the Michigan caucus by about 2 points. Over and over Kennedy kept losing.

It was around this time - when Reagan clearly had the GOP nomination in hand - that Illinois Representative and liberal Republican John Anderson began toying with the idea of a third-party candidacy for President. And that meant that the pollsters had to consider what would happen. Anderson was a Republican, so presumably he would hurt Reagan more, but he was also a liberal, which would hurt Carter more. Maybe. (Carter was not seen as overly liberal at the time).

The first week of April, Gallup published a poll showing...well, the race is tightening:

Carter 48
Reagan 43




But then in mid-April came a stunning poll from Lou Harris, and although I've edited it for space, a later paragraph suggests that Carter and Reagan are so hated by the electorate that it might result in the lowest turnout in American history - unless Anderson runs.



And then - just before the failed hostage rescue mission - Reagan, who was not yet the nominee began closing the gap.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

On the morning of April 1, 1980 - the same day of the crucial Wisconsin primary (the one where LBJ dropped out in 1968 and where Carter had stunned Morris Udall in 1976 to the point the Milwaukee Sentinel published their own "Dewey Defeats Truman" type of headline) - President Carter opened the day by inviting the press into the Oval Office to share some good news: control of the American hostages in Iran was being transferred from the religious fundamentalist revolution under Khomeini's control to the Iranian government headed by President Bani-Sadr (who was largely a figurehead and would be impeached and flee Iran ahead of execution just 14 months later). This meant there was someone with whom the administration could negotiate and reach a deal to get the hostages home.

Carter repeated this claim no less than three times during the day of voting in two states and even had an off-the-record discussion with WaPo editor Ben Bradlee. After it was announced Carter had taken both states, Bani-Sadr suddenly announced that the deal was off because "the US had failed to uphold their end of the deal." Bani-Sadr, attempting to gain control of the Iranian parliament, basically told the US to back off - and then Khomeini stepped in and said (in effect), "nope!"

It did not take a skeptical news media long to butcher Carter: this shameless leader had called us into his office on a day he knew elections were taking place and used us to spread the story, won his races, and then nothing happened. This was the moment at which the press stopped taking Carter's word on anything. It was quite easy to be cynical: guy loses first primary to his chief opponent and in the very next public contests pulls this kind of stunt.

It wouldn't be long until he lost everyone else.

On April 12, 1980 - notably without his Secretary of State Cyrus Vance in the meeting - Carter decided it was time for a military rescue mission. Executed 12 days later, it failed spectacularly, and while Carter (unlike some) accepted responsibility for the failure, the damage was done. Vance opposed the raid and submitted his resignation before the mission to take effect even if it succeeded. But Carter would never again be believed on the hostage issue without suspicion.

He loses in New York - and plays the hostage card, suggesting they're being moved.
He loses in Pennsylvania - and he attempts to break the hostages out.

But despite conspiracy theories on both the left and the right, Carter did not lose because of anything to do with Iran. No, it didn't help, but it wasn't why he lost. And in a Gallup Poll at the end of April 1980, the first warning signals were flashing for the Carter administration: 74% of the electorate were saying the cost of living was too damned high. Richard Wirthlin, Reagan's pollster, laid out the fact Reagan simply needed to focus on "prices" (the word Wirthlin polled that did the best), and he'd win.

Remember: there is already a large chunk of Democratic voters who do not want Carter as their president. Pat Buchanan never came close to winning a primary in 1992 against Bush, but Kennedy one contests in New York, Pennsylvania, and he would eventually win California.

Carter's lead has shrunk to 49-44.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

An argument can be made that the most crucial day of the 1980 campaign occurred on April 24, the day the Carter administration attempted to free to American hostages in Iran by force. Another event occurred that same day that would have an even longer reach but was forgotten immediately after the failed mission.

John B. Anderson, a Republican Congressman from Rockford, Illinois, was elected to the House in 1960 and (for the time) was considered a reliable conservative. But on both civil rights issues and social issues, Anderson was far more liberal than the party by the time of the 1980 election. He had endorsed Goldwater in 1964 but was glad LBJ won. He had attended the funerals of the 3 civil rights workers that were victims of the Mississippi Burning murders. He was a war hero and a lawyer who had been elected ten times by the time he ran for President, and he was by far the best debater the Republican Party had.

How "liberal" Anderson was is a subject of debate. While quite liberal on social issues, he was also calling for a gas tax increase to balance the budget. Today he would be a Democrat (in fact, he endorsed fellow Illinois Senator Barack Obama twice), but he was hardly out of the party mainstream in 1980. But disappointed with the Republicans who didn't nominate him and disillusioned with the Democrats he regarded as too liberal, Anderson decided to run for President as an Independent. Starting with his announcement getting swallowed by the news coverage of the failed rescue mission, Anderson ran a campaign marked by bad luck, miscalculations of how politics work, and ineptitude. His bad luck began when the news media - not once but twice - declared him the winner of primary states that he eventually lost to George H.W. Bush by less than a point. It continued through his announcement. But in the early days of the race, Anderson was polling quite well for a House member very few had even known a few months earlier.

He filed lawsuits for ballot access that would eventually create the monster known as H. Ross Perot. Make of that what you will, but he was doing well with young people in May 1980 despite having a head full of white hair and being 58 years old.

Gallup began polling Anderson as an Independent in a three-way race at the end of March, and the first poll was as follows:

Carter 39
Reagan 34
Anderson 21

Not bad for a CONGRESSMAN from Illinois who was unknown at the start of the year.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

MAY 1980 - POLLS ALL OVER THE PLACE

If the Gallup Poll had any detectable bias, it was seen in 1980 as "slightly Republican" at worst. And Gallup as May began had Carter slightly ahead but basically right at margin of error amounts. He also had a poll showing immense SUPPORT for the failed helicopter raid. "Hey, at least he tried" was what the Gallup Poll showed. Carter led Reagan entering May, 47-43, in Gallup and 71% approved of the raid.



Well...then there's the polling of "leans a tad bit Democrat" pollster Lou Harris, which amazingly showed a completely different reality. Harris showed 64-21 DISAPPROVAL not for the failed raid but for Carter's handling of the entire crisis.

LOU HARRIS POLL END OF APRIL
Reagan 42
Carter 33
Anderson 19

As a reminder, in the last post there was a Gallup Poll showing CARTER leading in a three-way race. And at the same time, the Los Angeles Times did a poll that found two things:

1) the voters approved of the raid (Gallup) but disapproved of Carter overall on the crisis (Harris)
2) Carter 36 Reagan 33 Anderson 26

Kevin Phillips, the Nixon pollster cited above and (as noted) a Republican at the time, wrote a column in mid-May disparaging the ways polls were becoming the "be-all and end all" of coverage. He noted the contradictions inherent in some of the polls of the same groups of people at the same time were obviously not right. Asked his assessment, he said he thought the race was dead even in May, Reagan would lead through much of the summer (his Convention was in July), and who knows after that?


But then Harris began inquiring....."what if Anderson is viable?" And that would change perceptions IF Anderson could pull it off. Harris discovered something else: Carter and Reagan were in a dead heat at 45-45 in the eight most important "battleground states" in May.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

INTERRUPTION FOR AN IMPORTANT POINT

Look at the losers of Presidential elections - even in wipeouts - and you'll notice something when it comes to the popular vote:

Hoover (1932) - 39.65%
Landon (1936) - 36.54%
Wilkie (1940) - 44.77%
Dewey (1944) - 45.89%
Dewey (1948) - 45.07% ("viable" third party candidate in the South, Strom Thurmond)
Stevenson (1952) - 44.38%
Stevenson (1956) - 41.97%
Nixon (1960) - 49.55%
Goldwater (1964) - 38.47%
Humphrey (1968) - 42.72% (viable third party candidate in George Wallace)
McGovern (1972) - 37.52%
Ford (1976) - 48.01%
Carter (1980) - 41.01% (viable third party candidate in John Anderson)
Mondale (1984) - 40.56%
Dukakis (1988) - 45.65%
Bush (1992) - 37.45% (viable third party candidate in Ross Perot)
Dole (1996) - 40.72% (we can debate the viability of Perot in 1996, but he got 8%)
I'll leave 2000 out, it's too confusing.
Kerry (2004) - 48.26%
McCain (2008) - 45.6%
Romney (2012) - 47.15%
Trump (2016) - 45.93% (a number of non-viable addendums like Johnson, Stein, and McMullin)
Trump (2020) - 46.8%
Harris (2024) - 48.23%

The Democrats appear nowadays to have a "lower threshold" of around 48% of the vote, a number they will carry nationally even if they lose. Just look closely at the recent Democratic numbers:

1996 - 49.23 (win)
2000 - 48.38 (EV loss)
2004 - 48.26 (loss)
2008 - 52.86% (win)
2012 - 51.01% (win)
2016 - 48.02% (EV loss)
2020 - 51.25% (win)
2024 - 48.23% (loss)

The last Democrat to get below 48% of the vote was Bill Clinton in 1992, and he can easily argue that his numbers would be higher if not for Ross Perot (I'll touch on that much later in this thread). This is something that has changed somewhat:

Prior to the 1990s, the Democrat began the race with about 40% of the vote guaranteed, win or lose. That number has clearly jumped to around 48% (look again - Harris got a higher percentage of the vote than Hillary did, but you won't hear that mentioned hardly anywhere. And Harris COMPARED TO HILLARY was a complete unknown entering the summer of 2024). The problem, of course, for the Democrats is that this vote is concentrated in three areas: Maine to Maryland (including DC), Illinois, and the West Coast. And while I know the objection will be "but Johnson, but Stein," I don't recall seeing any of those candidates on the debate stage like I did with Ross Perot. Ralph Nader interrupted 2000 as well, but he still got less than 5% of the vote, and he wasn't on stage, either.

The Republicans once had a starting base of around 38% that has grown to around 45%. This does suggest the "appeal to the center" strategy that was contingent upon the idea "both candidates start with about 40%" has changed.

Your normal two-person Presidential race now STARTS with:
Democrats 48%
Republicans 45%

It's just the Republican vote is scattered among more states (which by the way has been true since at least 1968 at the Presidential level).

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Delegate selection in the Republican primaries ended on June 3, 1980, when Reagan swept nine states, including his home state of California and New Jersey, making him the guy with enough delegates to win the nomination. It was a mere formality as Bush had withdrawn on May 26 at the behest of campaign manager James Baker, hoping an early withdrawal would get him consideration for the #2 slot on the ticket.

On June 16, Gallup (and Roper as well) released their latest polls, and they were bad news for the President:

GALLUP
Reagan 45
Carter 42

Three-man race
Reagan 36
Carter 35
Anderson 23


ROPER
Reagan 40
Carter 36
Undecided 24

Three-man race
Reagan 34
Carter 29
Anderson 20
Undecided 17

Teddy Kennedy, however, despite clear evidence he had zero chance at winning the party's nomination was staying in the race. And every day he stayed in the race, he hurt Carter with his own party. Later in the year - according to Kennedy family friend Theodore H. White - Kennedy approached him with a smirk of satisfaction and a pile of polls showing that Carter was going to lose the general election. Numerous commentators at the time, most notably Tom Wicker and David Broder, were noting that Kennedy was clearly staying in the race for reasons other than winning the election. Furthermore, Kennedy had so much baggage that his own party didn't want him anywhere near the nomination. Carter was loathed by numerous members of his own party, particularly those in the Northeast, but they were willing to stay with him simply because their own polling showed Carter was less problematic to their own re-election than having to run on a ticket headed by Ted Kennedy was.