Campaign 2016 Could Be Poised For A 1980-Type Ending

By Allan Brown

Aside from an occasional like or share on social media, I tend not to write or discuss the Presidential campaign.

For a sports writer, it's well, just not good politics to discuss it.

However, since I had what essentially was a political science minor in college and because the majority of stories I wrote on my first job after graduating from the University of Toledo, were political in nature ( I covered City Hall), I do have some experience in writing about it.

However, this blog is not your typical political column and it certainly should not be taken as an endorsement for any particular Presidential candidate.

Instead, it simply is an observation of some indisputable facts that I've collected since this election has been front and center in the media for the better part of two years now.

You see, while I don't necessarily like to share my political views to the general public, I am fascinated by the science that is politics.

And this particular election is intriguing to me for several reasons.

Not the least of which is because it seems to parallel an election that occurred some 36 years ago.

1980.

It was an entirely different time and a completely different era from what we live in today.

Long before technology provided us with social media or the ability to text our loved ones with the ease of a fingertip, most people got their information either one of two ways.

Either from the news they could turn to on three or four local channels they had on their cumbersome picture tube-made television set or via flipping through the daily newspaper that was tossed outside their door each morning.

Gas prices, albeit considered high at the time, were still way under a dollar and you could buy a loaf of bread at the grocery store for less than two quarters.

But while things in that now seemingly innocent era seem so different than today, many things remain the same.

Especially if you're looking at presidential politics.

What is happening in this 2016 presidential campaign is actually eerily similar to events and tactics that occurred - or would be used by candidates - in what now seems to be - at least to me - a life time ago.

The unemployment rate was higher in 1980, gas prices and the deficit were lower, for sure.

But still their was an economic unrest that parallels what many still out of work or struggling Americans face today.

The fear for our safety that resulted from the Iranian hostage crisis or the constant threat of war with the Soviet Union is now just a memory, only to be replaced with Isis and rampant attacks on Americans both hear and abroad.

Those parallels aside, it's actually the tone of the 1980 presidential campaign that, from start to finish, has awakened the same basic primal fears in Americans - that the electorate has now, some 36 years later.

Only the names and the events have changed.

But when comparing the two elections, there are far more similarities as opposed to differences.

In watching NBC News' six-hour coverage of Election Night 1980 on YouTube recently, I was startled to realize the similarities far outweighed the differences.

Campaign wise the biggest difference was that - unlike Barack Obama today - the incumbent President, Jimmy Carter, was running for re-election. He was doing so, though, amongst a tide of voter unrest with economic and international issues, much like voters face today.

Like Democratic Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, Carter faced a primary opponent - Senator Edward Kennedy - who was far more liberal and who appealed to the extreme left core values of the Democratic Party just like Bernie Sanders did in his aborted run for the White House this year.

Kennedy actually kept up his fight for the Democratic nomination longer than Sanders did and took his bid all the way to the party's convention in New York City.

As for the Republicans, a basic outsider, who was both a former movie star and California Governor, Ronald Reagan, became the frontrunner in a crowded primary field, just like reality star and business mogul Donald Trump did this campaign season.

The only major difference was that Reagan did have political experience, having served two terms in Sacramento. Still, though, he was considered an outsider and he had to reach out to an insider, former CIA chief and Congressman George H.W. Bush, to give his candidacy some credence to the party faithful.

And unbelievably to those who know the now-famous Conservative values Reagan based his eventual presidency upon, many within the party didn't feel he was conservative enough at the time to be the GOP standard bearer. Part of that concern likely stemmed from Reagan's Hollywood experience and the moderate stands he had to eventually take to  compromise with a much more liberal California State House and Senate that he had to deal with as Governor.

Like Trump, Reagan wasn't a lifelong Republican, either, as he switched his allegiance from the Democratic Party to the GOP in the 1960s.

Also in a parallel to the fear Trump instills in many, Reagan faced an uphill battle convincing the electorate that he wouldn't drop the bomb or start a war at a moment's notice.

Trump is famous for telling it like he sees it, whether his comments are politically correct or not. Reagan had a temper and even sometimes screamed at hecklers at campaign rallies. He also famously told the organizers of a primary debate in New Hampshire who wanted to turn off his microphone that he paid for it, as his campaign actually financed the event.

Trump has the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party to contend with, Reagan had the Moral Majority.

Trump has to deal with a party that doesn't want to include anything in its platform that supports rights for the LGBTQ community, whereas Reagan had to contend with women who were upset that the GOP would not include support for the Equal Rights Amendment in its 1980 endorsements. Both were issues of the day that split the electorate in half.

Both Trump and Clinton have chosen running mates who appeal to different bases of their party, which in and of itself, isn't that much unlike any other candidate who has ever run for the Presidency.

However, that aside, the rest of the similarities between the 1980 and 2016 are almost exclusively unique to the two campaign cycles.

Both Reagan and Carter had higher negative ratings than positive ones, just like Trump and Clinton have today.

With three months to go in the campaign, about 20 percent of the electorate is still supposedly undecided.

I use the word supposedly because as was discussed by Tom Brokaw and David Brinkley in the YouTube video I watched, many voters in 1980 didn't want to readily admit they were voting for a former movie star, who was divorced and whose views were considered by many at the time to be controversial.

It was called the 'Ballot Box Factor' and I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect many voters today are actually voting for Trump but are not willing to admit it to pollsters because he's not the politically correct choice in this current political climate.

What is for certain is that, just like in 1980, the American people are fed up with the same old, same old. Trump's ascent to the top of the Republican Party testifies to that fact.

Whether the end result in November will be the same as in 1980 (Reagan defeated Carter in an Electrical College slaughter and also scored a decisive decision in the popular vote) has yet to be seen.

Let's face it, Reagan could be testy at times, but he possessed the decorum and class that Trump so sorely lacks. But, for Clinton's part, she might face a much more uphill battle than, perhaps, Carter even did, as the many scandals her campaign has had to endure make her likeability and trustworthiness ratings fall far below Carter's. Many considered the 39th President to be inept at his job, but he was liked by most everyone and didn't face any of the negative controversies that Clinton has.

The real determining factor in this election will be the roughly 20 percent of Americans who are undecided. Will they, like in 1980, remain undecided until seven days out from Election Day?

And if they do, will they overwhelmingly go with Trump, the Republican outsider, like they did for Reagan, who, 36 years ago, was also considered a Washington outcast.

Time will tell.

And it will also show whether the many similarities between an election held a generation ago will yield the same result this time around.

Without pledging an allegiance to either candidate, I will say this: Having lived through both eras, the climate and voter dissatisfaction is definitely the same.

And, for that reason alone, I'm not so sure the actual outcome won't be the same, too.