Talk:1980 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

There you go again.

In the debate section, why does Regan's quote "There you go again." link to the Kenny Rogers album? Was that an intended or inferred reference on Regan's part, or is that a bad link? -Armaced (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

John Anderson

Should be included in the info box. Jkp1187 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anderson should also be included in the list of candidates for the Republican nomination. It was during a televised Republican debate that he put himself on the political map by his answer to a question about past actions that he may regret. He said he regretted his vote for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that sent troops to Vietnam. --MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Democratic re-election

I heard somewhere that Carter is the first and only elected Democrat president to lose re-election to a Republican. If this is true it would be nice to have in the article.

Grover Cleveland also lost his re-election bid, though he did later come back and win a second term. TMS63112 17:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Color Change?

Why is it that in all the previous electoral maps on Wikipedia the Democrats are represented as red and the Republicans blue, while starting with this election's map, the colors are reversed to the now standard Democrats blue, Republicans red? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.251.134 (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There has ben some talk on the 1976 election page as well. Since this is the first election where they've been switched, I think there should be a section explaining how this switch came about, if there are any sources out there. 69.221.152.25 (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Supply side economics

Proponents of Supply Side economics, especially during the 1980 campaign, did not state that tax cuts would reduce revenue in the long term. Stating that revenues will "decline" as tax rates are cut is akin to noting that your bank account grows smaller as you make a withdrawal. It is what you do with the money that is important. Proponents of Supply Side economics believe that the money will be invested or used to increase consumption, thus providing a larger market for the "supply side" of the economy.

Note: since the government is not telling anyone what to do with their money, it can not be called "demand side" because there is no guidance on which product/service receive this money, as traditional demand-side stimulus does.

In fact, inflation adjusted income tax revenues grew faster after the tax cuts were enacted (1984-9) than they had previously (1977-80).

The The President Reagan Information Page for further details on tax and revenue changes in the 1980s.

Supply side economics can increase revenue by growing the economy as whole, and this is exactly what happened. "Investing" money can mean hiring people (human capital) or improving working conditions amongst other things.

The map

Anyone want to add a large version of the electoral map? I'm clueless. TJSwoboda 05:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest reversing the colors of the map. It may have been different in 1980, but it is common practice now for the Republican states to be red and the Democratic states to be blue. Kainaw 17:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I changed the smaller map in the article into a thumbnail from the bigger version. Um... the U.S. presidential election maps show that the colours were only reversed in 2000 into the ones that we recognise now, the colours were indeed correct at that time. See the articles on Blue States or Red States for more info. --Andylkl 10:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand what you have said but it is confusing to have the maps reversed to the colors for that time since were used to other colors now. -- 67.170.70.132 03:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain how 50.7% of the vote constitutes a landslide? Reagan's victory was understood at the time to be narrow... he didn't achieve landslide mandate until 1984.

It was assumed that the presence of a rather strong third candidate would produce a minority President. Reagan's cracking the 50% barrier was considered quite impressive under the circumstances.WHPratt (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"A New Morning in America"?

This slogan appears to have been grafted from the 1984 Reagan campaign. If a source can be found to support its use in 1980, please so note. Ellsworth 19:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reagan campaign kickoff

Grazon just prepended the following paragraphs to the general election campaign section:

In 1980 Ronald Reagan started his general election campaign in a speach in Philadelphia, Mississippi at the anual county fair.

Prior to Reagan anouncement the only event of note ever to have taken place in Philadelphia, Mississippi was the Mississippi Civil Rights Workers Murders of 1964 about which the movie Mississippi Burning was written.

It was here on that August day that Reagan drove the crowd wild when he announced "I believe in states' rights". "I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment." He went on to promise to "restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them."

Could we please get some reference for this addition?

— DLJessup (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Democratic National Convention

I deleted some text regarding the vice presidential roll call. This is not mentioned in the New York Times coverage, which is fairly specific, and it completely contradicts the information in the printed proceedings. Chronicler3 03:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but could you provide a source for this statement: "In the vice presidential roll call, Mondale was re-nominated with 2,428.7 votes to 723.3 not voting and 179 scattering.". Getting .3 or .7 votes is a little quirky, and should be explained anyway.

Fractional voting was common in Democratic National Conventions in the years 1972-1980. Before this time, fractional voting was mostly limited to half votes or quarter votes, when a state sent more delegates than it had delegate votes. The McGovern rules which took effect in 1972 introduced the complicated system which resulted in fractions such as McGovern's own 1,894.65 in his nomination in 1972. In 1980, Carter was re-nominated with 2,129.02 votes. The system was amended beginning with 1984 to limit fractional voting, and it was mostly eliminated beginning with 1992.

My source is the Democratic National Convention printed "Proceedings," James T. Havel's "U.S. Presidential Candidates and the Elections" (NYC: Mac-Millan Library Reference USA, 1996), and Richard C. Bain and Judith H. Parris, "Convention Decisions and Voting Records" (Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 1973). The latter source, of course, only covers elections up to 1972. Chronicler3 03:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"I PAID for this microphone!!!!

I decided to add the story of the Iowa caucuses and the famous "one on one" debate that destroyed the Bush Campaign a week before the New Hampshire primary. That was the entire primaray campaign right then and there. One of the great political anecdotes of all time!

And I have totally rewritten it, with the correct quote, and a thorough description of the events leading up to the decision. I am British and I was four years old in 1980, and I now know more about the Reagan/Bush debate of that year than you do. -Ashley Pomeroy 15:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The introduction was all wrong. Reagan was the prohibitive front runner from the moment Ford lost in 1976. It was said that the only person who could beat Reagan was Ford, and that was probably true. Ford didn't think he wanted to go back to work after spending three years as a professional celebrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.2.161 (talk • contribs)

The debates

I added a section on the debates of that year. I was amazed that no one had mentioned what was the most important single debate in the modern history of presidential elections. According to all the newsmagazines at the time, Carter was AHEAD in the polls the morning of the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.2.161 (talk • contribs)

The "Malaise" speech

It didn't contain the world "malaise" and it wasn't a political failure. Carter's approval rating actually went up after the speech, and it was widely praised at first. A few days after the speech, Carter fired several cabinet members. That move was seen as rash and desperate, and THAT'S when Carter's approval rating dropped again. But the speech and the cabinet reshuffle became linked in the public mind. The myths of the "malaise" speech persist to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.7.1 (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Winner/Runner-Up

I have to voice my concern that this format is hurting the article. I will post this on a few notable election pages and hope that it's noticed. I have to admire the determination of whoever came up with this idea (it's apparently on every page) but ultimately, I think it should go. I think that having "winner/runner-up" displayed so prominently in the infobox overshadows the importance of the election. Some of these elections were not mere contests, but were epic events in American history where a variety of important viewpoints were symbolically represented and voted upon. Just in the last 50 years, the notable political climates of 1968 and 2004 came to a boiling point around election time. We should not be placing so much emphasis on the "winner" and the "runner-up" -- this is not a spelling bee. If we condense this into who "won" we are doing a disservice to the issues that drove these elections. SpiderMMB 23:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Article in New York times about campaign beginning in Philadelhpia, Miss

This is in contrast to Brook's column earlier in the month Remember 17:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:EdClarkBackCover.jpg

The image Image:EdClarkBackCover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

VANDALISM!!! There are some disgusting comments written in the paragraph after the pictures of Republican candidates. (Paragraph begins "As the 1970s came to a close...)WLE68.46.251.36 (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

More Vandalism

I just removed a line with an obscenity in it about Teddy Kennedy. I will do what I can to help keep this article clean but I could use some coaching. I'm not too certain about some of the protocols. It would be good if someone more familiar with the editing process would go over the whole article since this is at least two instances of vandalism in two days. WLE68.46.251.36 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fractional voting

How did Carter receive 2,129.02 votes in the primary. I can't find any explanation in the articles on the 980 Democratic Convention or the 1980 primaries as to how one casts a fractional vote at the convention. -- Bdentremont (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

See #Democratic National Convention below. My best guess is that this might have been a side-effect of allocating delegate voting power proportionally. As 2008 has shown, allocating only "whole delegates" can have a rounding effect that means the overall total is disproportional. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The Democrats have been doing this for some time (see the fractional votes at the 1968 convention). They allow a state with, say 24 votes to send 48 delegates with 0.5 votes apiece, or 36 delegates with 0.75 votes apiece. One year they seated two delegations (from Georgia, I think) and allocated half the votes to each. I'm not sure how you'd get 0.02, but I have seen .55 and .45 -- probably something involving half of a half of a half. WHPratt (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
They were doing it at least a century before that. For more details, see this discussion. — JPMcGrath (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Sort of puts "One man, one vote" to the lie, doesn't it? "Three delegates, two votes . . . er, no, only half of that." WHPratt (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
— JPMcGrath (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There were the cases of states sending excess delegates, but I think fractions like 0.02 are more likely to have been a product of proportionally allocating the primary vote. Here's how it might work:

A state has 9 delegates and the primary is only contested by two candidates, A & B. The result in votes is A: 50.01, B: 49.99%. If whole delegates are allocated only the result is 5/4 but that's 55.56/44.44% and so the outcome is slightly distorted with a tiny lead in votes converting into an 11.11% lead in delegates.

Conversely a state could have 8 delegates and an A: 44 B: 56 split. The whole delegate allocation is 4/4, and again this is slightly distorted but this time the runner-up benefits and so a 12% lead converts into a 0% lead in delegates.

If delegates get allocated at below state level then there are lots and lots of little races where this effect can happen. And if there's a long and tight national race as in 2008 then such distortions can start mounting up with the outcome being determined by geography, apportionment and luck rather than democratic choice.

Under a very proportional allocation system, the delegates are given fractional voting power so as to better represent the voting. In the first state this would give a 4.50/4.50 split, in the second a 3.52/4.48 split.

The first method gives A 9 delegates and B 8 delegates. The second gives A 8.02 and B 8.98 delegates. Which more closely reflects how the voters voted? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Should John Anderson be in the Result Box?

At only 6% of the popular vote and 0 electoral votes, his support level is significantly less than Perot's in 1992, and Wallace's in 1968. He has a higher percentage of the popular vote than Strom Thurmond, but he also managed to win 39 electoral votes. I won't take him out yet, I'd like to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. NHVT (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Presently, the threshold (as established by a consensus of editors) for post-election inclusion in the infox of US presidential election articles is 5% or more of the popular vote or any electoral votes received (excluding those rewarded by unpledged or faithless electors). With 6% of the popular vote, Anderson meets that threshold and should remain in the box. FYI, the 5% standard was established because it is commonly regarded by political scientists and pundits as a benchmark of success of for independent/third party candidates in a presidential election, and it is the minimum % needed for the candidate's party to qualify for federal matching funds.--JayJasper (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. No change is needed then. NHVT (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Neshoba?

I don't know if one should really write these articles from today's perspective or the perspective at the time, but to me (as someone old enough to remember the 1980 election) to hold up Neshoba (as the article seemingly does) as a big event in the campaign doesn't see quite right. As heavily as this is debated now, I'm not sure I even heard of it until years later.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't Anderson/Lucey be listed as "National Unity" candidates?

As that was the former's party, and what the ticket ran under, according to my memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickeleh (talk • contribs) 21:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on United States presidential election, 1980. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Spoiler effect

The current article states the following:

John Anderson won 6.6% of the popular vote but failed to win any state outright. [...] Anderson failed to achieve the spoiler effect, due to Reagan's strong showing and the fact that he arguably attracted many more disgruntled Democrats than Republicans.

This seems like a combination of inappropriate speculation and wording that needs improvement. Saying "Anderson failed to achieve the spoiler effect" is an implication that Anderson was trying to achieve the spoiler effect (which would need citation). Regardless of Anderson's intention, one could argue that Anderson's presence did affect the election, since Reagan only received a majority in enough states to receive 254 electoral votes. Carter would have had a much better chance of winning the other 284 electoral votes without Anderson in the election. A stronger citation is needed to suggest that Anderson didn't result in the spoiler effect. -- RobLa (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Results Table

Something seems off. How do two candidates have identical vote tallies? And were there really only 293 "other votes"? Also the individual vote totals do not sum up to the overall vote total?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.235.206.1 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

When do we stop using the word "landslide" on so many elections? While it may have a technical meaning it is not communicative to lay reader other than to give a potentially misleading conception. Even "landslide by electoral vote count" would be more accurate. 1980 results of [(voting age population)] were Reagan 26.7%, Carter 21.6% while electoral vote was Reagan 90.9%, Carter 9.1%. Of total Americans is R=19.4% C=15.7%, difference=3.7%. Only one of those figures is a landslide and it is the least commonly understood. This bias is oft repeated on the presidential election pages and does not serve to educate people about elections. The standard chart that does include number and percentage of vote also gives "Percentage" without qualification that it is percentage of those who voted, not the percentage of Americans or the VAP. To have this information included in the basic chart would serve more people and reflect better the reality of US elections.

Nominee Reagan Carter Anderson
% of votes 50.7% 41.0% 6.6%
% of VAP 26.7% 21.6% 3.5%
% of US population 19.4% 15.7% 2.5%
Electoral vote 90.9% 9.1% 0%

All figures calculated from the 1980 elections page and Voting age population page. Whinestein (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)scott

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on United States presidential election, 1980. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Oldest Winner?

Page currently reads "Reagan was 69 at the time and became the oldest person to ever win a presidential election, though this record was later surpassed by Donald Trump." But RR won again four years later at age 73, isn't that older than Trump?

75.72.207.13 (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

John Anderson in the infobox

Given that John B. Anderson received 6.6% of the national popular vote, he should be noted in the infobox as a major factor in the election, similarly to Ross Perot's inclusion in the 1992 election article -- RobLa (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Two important missing topics

1. The discussion of the debate should mention that Reagan had a stolen copy of President Carter's debate book, helping him plan attacks.

2. Reagan's campaign conspired with Iran to delay the release of the hostages until after the election, convince it was the one danger to their winning - this is a critical part of the election.

There is quite a bit of evidence for that history.

2601:642:4402:9560:14EE:169F:656:24FF (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Craig234 10/21/16

Evidence? What evidence? Where? Sayitclearly (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Major factor in Carter's loss not mentioned

The botched attempt at rescuing the Iran hostages was a big factor in the 1980 Presidential election. It may or may not have decided the election, but without question it influenced voters. It took place in April 1980, and the disgust nearly every American felt was not so much because it failed, but because it was an utter fiasco, probably the most humiliating defeat ever suffered by any US military force in history. Several American servicemen were killed, a transport plane and a helicopter were destroyed, and two helicopters fell into the hands of Iran, undamaged. And all that happened without ever making contact with any armed Iranian. After that, there wasn't even the remotest chance that Carter would be re-elected. You had to be there at the time to understand how Americans felt about it. Sayitclearly (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. It did kind of add to the image of him/the admin (right or wrong) as a group that couldn't do anything right.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1980_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_1&oldid=1176956590"