Muskie vrs Reagan in 1980

It depends. Prior to the debate, the polls were pretty even, it wasn't until after the debate that Reagan got a commanding lead over Carter and went on to win. If Muskie campaigns better and participates in the first debate that had John Anderson in it, Muskie may pull off a close one. After all, despite what we think today, many people then saw Reagan as Goldwater 2.0.
 
It depends. Prior to the debate, the polls were pretty even, it wasn't until after the debate that Reagan got a commanding lead over Carter and went on to win. If Muskie campaigns better and participates in the first debate that had John Anderson in it, Muskie may pull off a close one. After all, despite what we think today, many people then saw Reagan as Goldwater 2.0.

Reagan was leading throughout the campaign, from June onwards. http://themonkeycage.org/2012/08/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/ And I am not sure whether Reagan's late surge (which we must remember was not from a deficit or even a tie but from a relatively narrow lead to a 10-point one) was due more to the debates or to the fact that the election (as the networks reminded people) was exactly one year after the Iranian hostage crisis had started, and that hopes for a last-minute hostage release were dashed. I think those developments would be fatal to any Democratic candidate in 1980, but in any event I can't understand how Muskie can get the nomination. (Carter and Kennedy both withdraw in favor of him? This is ASB territory.)
 
If you have a situation where the President fails to even be nominated by his own party, then whoever's the Democratic nominee is pretty much doomed.

Bad as the result was, I think Carter did better that year than any other Democrat would have done. Remember, quite a few states that went for Reagan only did so narrowly.
 
Muskie is of the president's party and is Secretary of State in time of recession and hostage crisis it would be difficult for him to win.
 
Top