TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / election / 80elect / 80elect.013 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 40.9 KB | 815 lines

<text id=93HT1148> <title> 80 Election: The Future Begins on Nov. 4 </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1980 Election </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> November 3, 1980 NATION The Future Begins on Nov. 4 </hdr> <body> Carter and Reagan offer the voters a difference that really matters By Ed Magnuson. Reported by Laurence I. Barrett with Reagan and Christopher Ogden with Carter Amid the whirlwind of emotions over the late-late TV showdown debate and the American hostages, U.S. voters will go to the polls on Nov. 4 to make an irrevocable choice with which they will have to live for at least four years. Despite the confusion caused by the shifting positions of the presidential candidates and the hyperbole and innuendo of a disappointing campaign, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan offer, in many ways, clear-cut and contrasting choices. Whatever other complaints the 1980 American voter may have (and there are many), he cannot complain that he has been confronted with Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The conservative California Republican and the centrist Georgia Democrat are locked in a dead-even struggle that could affect the role of the Federal Government in domestic affairs, create a clean split in political philosophy between the two major parties, profoundly affect the nation's economy and energy directions, and deeply influence the role America plays on the global stage, thus raising the prospect of increased international tension. There are striking similarities between the campaign Carter ran in 1976 and the one Reagan is conducting this year. Then Carter was opposing Big Government, just as Reagan is today. The former Georgia Governor wound up settling for some civil service reforms and deregulation of the airline and trucking industries. But these were modest improvements in making the Government work rather than any real dismantling of the existing power structure. Reagan would try harder--a good deal harder. He sincerely believes that "the permanent structure" of Washington bureaucracy stifles free enterprise and individual initiative. He is deeply--and instinctively--committed to "getting the Government off the backs of the people." When Reagan vows to reduce the regulatory role of Government, eliminate such recent bureaucratic creations as the departments of Education and Energy, and wipe out countless petty federal forms that businessmen must fill out, he can be counted on to fight hard to do just that. Despite talk of a new "pragmatism" in Reagan's thinking, he has not really abandoned any of the fundamental beliefs he has held for many years. For purely political purposes, he has made some token shifts, such as favoring federal aid for both New York City and the Chrysler Corp., but both are questions that have already been firmly resolved. Reagan really is not a moderate on any major domestic issue, although, as his record as Governor shows, circumstances can force him to change his policies. Reagan and Carter differ sharply in their views of the role of the Federal Government in solving the nation's social problems. Because of fiscal restraints, Carter has not pushed hard for new programs, but he has not pushed hard for new programs, but he has no philosophical quarrel with the long-held tenet of the Democratic Party that it is the Government's responsibility to help uplift the lowly, keep a watch on the powerful and legislate equal opportunity. In contrast, Reagan is deeply suspicious of Washington's trying to cure the ills of American society. He is much more inclined to let the job be done on a state or local basis, and, wherever possible, by private enterprise rather than by Government. For example, he would try to get the Federal Government out of the welfare business; Carter believes it should take on even more welfare responsibilities. There is another fascinating contrast between Carter and Reagan in their views of the proper role of the Federal Government Reagan sees no contradiction with his basic philosophy when he urges federal action to support the so-called traditional values. For example, he endorses constitutional amendments to limit abortion and to permit prayers in the classrooms. Carter, on the other hand, feels that the Government should stay out of such matters. While their philosophies of government contrast sharply, Reagan and Carter are surprisingly close together on some specific domestic issues: The Economy. Reagan has assailed the Carter economic record time and again, citing its huge budget deficits and its high rates of both inflation and unemployment. Yet the Governor has failed to make the economy the dominant issue of the campaign because he has been unable to convince a vast majority of voters that his approach, centering largely on tax cuts, would be much more successful than Carter's various plans. At the same time, the difference in economic proposals between the two candidates has narrowed, though their fundamental difference of attitude about the economy has not. Both now advocate income tax cuts. Reagan's would include a 10% reduction in individual tax rates in each of his first three years in office. The first-year savings for businesses and individual taxpayers would total about $36 billion. Part would come from an accelerated depreciation schedule for business investments to encourage expansion. Reagan has abandoned his "supply-side" economic theory claim that such tax cuts would stimulate so much economic growth that swelling tax revenues would permit him to increase defense spending and balance the budget at the same time. His advisers now estimate that his plan would mean a total cut in taxes of $192 billion by 1985, while only $89 billion would be raised in revenues from economic growth. Yet Reagan promises to balance the budget by 1983, closing the gap by reducing Government spending. Beyond calling for the elimination of "waste and fraud," he has not been specific about what he would do or the programs that he would curtail to reach his goal. Under the pressure of the campaign, Carter, with some reluctance, has also proposed a tax cut for next year. It would provide $27.6 billion in relief to taxpayers and a faster write- off for business depreciation. Surprisingly, for a Democratic plan, a larger share of the savings would go to business than under Reagan's proposal. Carter would give individuals just $11.9 billion in cuts; business would get $15.7 billion. But there is one key difference: Carter's plan for individual reductions would be used to offset the scheduled 1981 increase in Social Security taxes. This would reduce taxes for everyone with incomes up to $29,700 a year (next year's cutoff point for Social Security payroll taxes), but have no effect on the marginal rates for workers who make more. This, say conservative economists, would limit the tax cut's effect on providing individual incentives for increased productivity and willingness to seek work. Defense. Reagan has long demanded an increase in spending to strengthen both strategic and conventional military forces. Carter, who had come into office with a promise to reduce the military budget, now proposes to increase it next year by $24 billion. Both advocate higher salaries to make the all-volunteer armed forces more attractive, particularly to needed specialists who are leaving the services in alarming numbers. On specific weapons, Reagan has criticized Carter's decision to delay production of the neutron bomb and cancel the B-1 bomber. Carter contends that the cruise missile has made the B-1 obsolete but he has, with some campaign fanfare, suggested that a bomber employing "stealth" radar-baffling technology may be built instead. Both candidates support the new MX missile, although they differ about how the land-based weapon should be deployed. There is one defense issue on which Reagan's position is more dangerous than Carter's: how to reach an effective strategic arms agreement with the Soviet Union. The Reagan proposal to scrap SALT II and renegotiate an entirely new treaty is simply not plausible, as Carter discovered to his chagrin when he tried the same thing with Moscow in 1977. There is no doubt that Reagan's stance runs the higher risk of a new, costly and counterproductive arms race, although he has modified an earlier position that the U.S. be militarily superior to the Soviets to an insistence that the U.S. have a "margin of safety" over the Soviets. The Environment. Reagan made novel statements about what most threatens clean air; he has cited both trees and Mount St. Helens as wreaking more havoc than auto exhausts, leading to a joke in the Reagan press corps about "the attack of the killer trees." Such nonsense has reduced his credibility in this field. Still, as Governor, he earned respect in California by upholding rigid water-pollution and smog-control laws and by protecting an additional 145,000 acres of park lands from private commercial use. In any clash between energy development and the environment, however, Reagan would be expected to give priority to energy. Carter's priorities seem the reverse, although he, too, is a supporter of nuclear power expansion. He has been a strong backer of the Environmental Protection Agency and has supported the Clean Air Act despite complaints from coal producers that it hinders production. He has also backed a strong congressional bill protecting Alaska lands. In a clash between economic growth and environmental protection, he would likely come down on the side of conservation. Foreign Policy. As the campaign evolved, Carter skillfully managed to reduce the discussions on the foreign policy issues to a single dominant theme: as the President put it, unfairly, the election involves "a choice between war and peace." Carter, of course, never accused Reagan of wanting a war. But he has exploited a more responsible and highly relevant question: Would Reagan's policies run a higher risk of war? The success of the Carter strategists in putting Reagan on the defensive on this question is based on two undeniable facts: 1) Despite a series of hot spots around the world during the Carter presidency, no U.S. soldiers have been involved in combat (though they were prepared to fight in the aborted hostage rescue raid into Iran), and 2) Reagan has in recent years repeatedly recommended the use of American military force in various foreign situations. For example, he suggested a U.S. naval blockade of Cuba in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and said that U.S. soldiers could have been used to ensure an orderly transition to black majority rule in Rhodesia in 1976. Reagan firmly believes not only that the Soviet Union seeks world domination but that every time the Carter Administration has failed to respond with a show of force, the Kremlin has been encouraged to push on. Ignoring the irrationality of Iran's leadership, Reagan suggests that no American hostages would have been seized if the U.S. had been seen as more powerful. It is certainly true that the Carter Administration has conveyed a sense of meekness and vacillation in its failure to project power abroad. Reagan in the White House would undoubtedly try to be more consistent in foreign policy and more given to international power politics (which should not be a dirty word). He would reduce Carter's moralistic emphasis on human rights, using that cause as propaganda against Communist countries, but not employ it to belabor U.S. allies, even if their regimes are dictatorial. The potential risk of a Reagan foreign policy probably is not so much outright belligerence as his tendency to divide the world into good guys and bad guys. He seems to underestimate the complexity of Third World countries, where not all revolutionary movements are necessarily pro-Soviet or permanently anti- American. Evenhandedness in delicate trouble spots--of the sort that enabled Carter to bring about the Camp David accords--does not seem much in Reagan's character. His one-sided defense of the Israeli position to the extent that it is more than campaign rhetoric, leaves him little credibility in the Arab world. Voters weighing the risks to peace in a Reagan presidency will need to consider two related questions. Will a candidate who has sounded so belligerent actually act that way when he faces the real, rather than the hypothetical powers of the presidency? There is no way to be sure. Lyndon Johnson campaigned as a relative dove--and wound up vastly escalating U.S. involvement in Viet Nam. On the other hand, Dwight Eisenhower, a war leader, was extremely cautious as President about the use of military power and even warned about the insidious influence of a "military-industrial complex," which Reagan now considers no danger at all. But Reagan's own policies as Governor of California certainly turned out to be far more moderate than his campaign for the office had suggested. Second, would Reagan as President surround himself with a range of advisers who would temper his hawkish tendencies? The evidence is otherwise. His task forces drawing up foreign policy options include such hawkish advisers as William Van Cleave, a defense expert from the University of Southern California; Edward Luttwak, a leading theoretician of the right; and Richard Pipes, a Harvard history professor who is strongly anti-Soviet. Of late, he has been advised by more experienced and moderate voices as well, Henry Kissinger being a noteworthy example. But there is little doubt that Reagan would use U.S. military power abroad more aggressively than Carter. On balance, Reagan's greatest appeal in the foreign policy field lies in the fact that, despite the risks represented by inexperience and simplicity of approach, he would bring a fresh start after Carter's failures and confusions. For a time, the widespread fear of Reagan's views and the disappointment with Carter's performance left an opening for a third choice, and Independent John Anderson tried to fill the gap. He established a number of courageously different and unpopular stands on a variety of highly specific issues. Anderson rejected tax cuts on the ground that they fuel inflation, insisted that energy independence without mandatory and painful conservation by Americans was "an illusion," and argued that the U.S. needed far stronger conventional forces more than it needed the MX missile. But Anderson's "new realism" failed to stake out any contrasting central philosophy that would make many voters want to abandon the major parties. At most, Anderson now offers a chance for voters to protest against the system by which the two other candidates were chosen. The dilemma of having to decide between Carter and Reagan as cynically posed by New York magazine writer Michael Kramer: "We can either stick with the mediocrity we already know, or we can follow Mae West's advice that as between two evils we should always choose the one we haven't tried." The underlying campaign issue between the known Carter and the still relatively unknown Reagan is the matter of competence and the ability to lead the nation. Carter has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot inspire a commanding national majority, much less a divided Democratic Congress, to follow him on those infrequent occasions when he has tried to lead boldly. Carter was probably as eloquent and as persuasive as he can be in his early plea for waging a war on the energy problem, but nothing much happened until after three more years of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Perhaps it is the soft delivery, often smothering strong lines. Perhaps there is a subconscious lingering national prejudice against Carter's Southern style. Whatever the handicap, Carter's words carry no command, even when the need to follow seems clear. As his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention showed again. Reagan can stir emotions. While much of his earlier reputation for rousing performances was built as he dazzled conservative audiences with those zinging one-liners they loved to hear, he at least offers greater hope that, when the nation needed to be aroused, there would be a President who could do it. Carter has different skills. He is more nimble, mentally and verbally, than Reagan when confronted with an unexpected question or when his memory of governmental detail is suddenly tested. His impromptu replies may be the clearest and most carefully couched of any recent President's--a comforting quality in an office where offhand remarks can rattle the world. But Carter's mental agility does not necessarily mean he is the wiser man. His mind readily grasps detail, orders the options and focuses down on a solution to a given problem. But it often fails to place that problem, or its solution, in a broader context. Reagan, on the other hand, seems often to rely more on intuition than thought. Rather than getting bogged down with detail, he has advisers examine a problem, then present courses of action for him to consider. More by instinct than analysis, Reagan then is likely to make a quick decision. The decision for voters may rest on whether they trust Reagan's instincts and particular vision more than they do Carter's more rational, but narrow, thinking. Once they have made a decision, both Carter and Reagan tend to consider the matter solved. Rather than wheel, deal and fight to put their solutions into effect, each likes to move on to the next problem. Washington does not work that way. Carter shows signs of having learned this lesson; Reagan would have to change his one-step-at-a-time habits to be effective in the Oval Office. Both candidates also have a similar dislike for commotion around them, hate to discipline errant aides or, in fact, to deal with touchy personnel problems. Yet the White House is not place in which to seek serenity or avoid the inevitable friction of strong personalities grasping for power. Carter has depended too heavily on his Georgia cronies, failing to cut some of his ties with, say, Bert Lance or Andrew Young as early as he should have. He pledged, as all new Presidents do, to reach out for strong men to direct Cabinet departments--and then, in effect, fired several (including Joseph Califano at Health, Education and Welfare and W. Michael Blumenthal at Treasury) when they became cantankerously independent, upsetting the harmony he values and the sense of loyalty he demands. But there is a significant personality difference between the two men. Reagan's ego seems to get much less entangled with his policies than does Carter's. Despite his ability to convey feeling, Reagan rarely loses his temper or carries a personal grudge. He is not emotional or vindictive. Those qualities could prove valuable in the rough give-and-take of official Washington. Last week, speaking to an exuberant crowd gathered around the steps of the federal courthouse in Texarkana, Texas, Jimmy Carter declared, "There is a great difference between myself and Governor Reagan. There is a great difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. But what we're talking about in this election, as the last days draw to a close, is the difference in the futures we will have." Perhaps the greatest failing of Carter and Reagan during this drawn-out campaign is that they have not been able to persuade Americans of their competence to occupy the presidency. In addition, they have been unable to describe the differences between themselves with enough clarity so that Americans would choose their future on Nov. 4 with enthusiasm and, confidence that they knew what lay ahead. WHY THEY ARE FOR CARTER -- He does not have to begin by learning the job. His experience gives him a grasp of the complexities of the office and the nation's problems. -- He will press for ratification of SALT II and maintain adequate U.S. military strength without inviting an all-out arms race. -- He understands the limitations and dangers involved in the use of U.S power in the world, and within these limits has achieved some noteworthy successes. -- He is especially concerned about the nation's social problems. -- He is disciplined, intelligent, a master of detail, and only 56 years old. -- He is not Ronald Reagan. WHY THEY ARE FOR REAGAN -- He would try to get Washington off the country's back. He is determined to improve the economy by stimulating business, easing regulation and limiting Government spending. -- He would surround himself with able men and women, heed their advice--and give us a fresh start. -- He would work hard to restore respect for America around the world, would not hesitate to use U.S. power, and would stand up to the Soviets. -- He would bring consistency to the pursuit of U.S. policy. -- He is an optimist who refuses to accept as inevitable the decline either of U.S. influence abroad or of traditional and American virtues and values at home. -- He is not Jimmy Carter. Danger: Killing SALT Forever The SALT II treaty has been in legislative limbo since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan last December, but in the past week its fate has become one of the most heated and important disagreements between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Carter wants to save the treaty, Reagan wants to kill it. As TIME Diplomatic Correspondent Strobe Talbott reports, the issue has grave implications: There is a political and historical irony in the positions of the two candidates on SALT II. Reagan proposes to scrap the present treaty and reopen negotiations with the Kremlin. His goal: a new agreement that would substantially reduce the Soviet arsenal of intercontinental missiles and thus blunt the danger of a surprise attack against the American rockets. Reagan hopes to induce the Soviets to go back to the bargaining table by threatening a new arms race. In its broad outlines, Reagan's plan is almost identical to Carter's at the beginning of his presidency in 1977. Carter had inherited from Gerald Ford a SALT II agreement that was nearly complete, but Carter wanted something better, a "real arms control" treaty of his own that would roll back, rather than merely slow down, the Soviet weapons program. Carter then, like Reagan now, wanted to protect U.S. missiles against the theoretical possibility of a Soviet pre- emptive strike. Carter then, like Reagan now, told the Kremlin, in effect, either make more concessions or face new and bigger U.S. missiles. The Soviet leadership threw Carter's "comprehensive" proposal right back in his face; his ill-considered initial approach to the Soviets was one of Carter's major foreign policy mistakes. The SALT II treaty he ended up signing with Leonid Brezhnev in 1979 was based largely on the deal that Ford had struck with Brezhnev three years before, although the final agreement did contain some advantages for the U.S. Carter rightly calls Reagan naive for thinking the Soviets can be intimidated into accepting deep cuts in their existing arsenal by the threat of a future U.S. buildup. But were it not for Carter's own similar naivete four years ago, SALT II would almost certainly have been signed--and ratified--early in his Administration, long before its passage was "linked" to Soviet behavior in Cuba and Afghanistan. Such linkage was always dubious, since SALT benefits both sides. When Carter made his false step with SALT II early in 1977, the SALT I interim agreement on offensive weapons still had seven months to run. Since then, the superpowers have been adhering to SALT I even after it expired, and to the main provisions of SALT II even though it remains unratified. But SALT may well die in the coming months. The Soviets are unlikely to renegotiate the treaty. Despite the far greater vigor and efficiency of the U.S. economy, the Soviet political system is better prepared for the arms race Reagan is threatening. The Kremlin leaders need not worry as much about public opinion or democratic procedures; they can quickly decide to produce even more guns and less butter. Before the U.S. could even muster the domestic political consensus and the vast expenditures necessary for such a race, an exceedingly difficult challenge in itself, the Soviets could increase both the number of their missiles that have multiple warheads and the number of warheads per missile. They could--and probably would--do so simply by accelerating programs that are now being held in check by SALT. This spurt in Soviet warheads would not only bury SALT, probably forever, but would also compound the "vulnerability" of American missiles. That dismal prospect has converted the Joint Chiefs of Staff, never SALT enthusiasts, into lobbyists for the ratification of the pending treaty. Even if Carter is re-elected, a number of key pro-SALT Senators may not be. Despite a post-election rescue attempt by Carter, the Senate still may end up pulling the plug on a negotiating process that is at least as important to the U.S. as it is to the Soviet Union. <list> <l>Right Now: a Dead Heat</l> <l>A TIME POLL SHOWS THE SLIGHTEST SHIFT COULD SWING THE ELECTION</l> </list> They have brainstormed the country like jet-age traveling salesmen. They have jammed the airwaves with millions of dollars' worth of advertising. They have attacked each other's records ceaselessly. Their families and friends and surrogates have added their voices to the din of denunciation and promotion. Yet on the very threshold of the presidential election of 1980, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan remain just where they were at the beginning of their long campaign--locked in a virtual tie among registered voters in the U.S. According to a survey for TIME completed last week by the opinion research firm of Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc., Carter has an insignificant 1-point lead over Reagan, 42% to 41%, compared with a 39% to 39% tie at the beginning of the fall campaign. The independent candidacy of Congressman John Anderson, however, has continued to sink, just as so many political experts in both parties predicted it would from the start. His share of the vote dropped from 15% in early September to 12% now. (The study was based on a national sample of 1,632 registered voters interviewed from Oct. 14 to 16. The sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, and 4.5 percentage points when compared with previous TIME studies.) The mood of the electorate remains as it was at the beginning of the presidential campaign. Americans are disappointed by the choice of candidates they are offered, concerned about the many serious problems facing the country, and skeptical that any President can make much difference. They long for a change, yet are fearful of taking a chance on an inexperienced President. Much of the avowed support for the candidates is still based on opposition to their opponents rather than on genuine enthusiasm for one man or another. Forty-three percent of Reagan's voters indicate they are more interested in voting against Carter than for Reagan. The President does not fare much better. Thirty-seven percent of Cater's supporters say they are really just anti-Reagan. Even after having chosen Carter or Reagan, more than half of the voters say they have reservations about the abilities of their candidate. And the level of deeply committed support is extremely low; few cowbells are being rung at rallies throughout the land this fall. Sixty-one percent of the voters admit being unmoved by anyone in the race. Although this remains a somewhat grim and unhappy election, the fact that the decision will at long last be reached next week has heightened national attention and made even more important the presidential debate this week. Slowly, quietly, the patterns are changing. The poll indicates that President Carter is reclaiming traditional Democratic support. He is now backed by 66% of the Democrats, compared with the 59% who were for him in September. Most of this new strength defected to Anderson but who have come home to their party's nominee. Anderson now claims 9% of Democrats; in September he had 15%. Carter is also slowly getting the better of Reagan on some key political issues. Most important, perhaps, is that Carter has emerged virtually unscathed from Reagan's relentless assault on his economic record, which was the Governor's prime point of attack. People still feel that inflation is the chief national problem; Reagan has been unable to convince voters that he could cope with it much better than Carter. Concern about unemployment, a threat for any incumbent, especially one who is a Democrat, has declined and more voters (35% compared with 32% in September) now feel the nation's economy will improve during the next few months. Weighing all factors, voter confidence in Carter's ability to handle the economy has increased enough during the past two months to allow him to overcome Governor Reagan's lead on that issue. In early September Reagan won the confidence of 66% of the electorate for his ability to run the economy; 57% said they had similar faith in Carter. Now 69% of those surveyed express confidence in Carter and only 56% in Reagan. At the same time, Carter has eliminated Reagan's lead on the issue of foreign affairs. Sixty-two percent say they have confidence in Carter on this point; 61% feel that way about Reagan. Carter is not being helped by the war between Iraq and Iran and the threat to stability in the gulf region; 60% of the voters say the conflict is no reason not to dump the incumbent. What does seem to be boosting Carter, however, is the fact that 46% of those surveyed believe Reagan might be "trigger happy," and 57% favor Carter as the candidate they "trust more not to overreact in times of crisis." Only 32% would feel safer with Reagan. Thus the Carter camp's assault on Reagan as being a warmonger has achieved its purpose, although the advantage was gained at some cost to the President. Most voters (52%) say they think Carter has spent his time "smearing the other candidates" rather than "conducting a straightforward campaign" (45%). Reagan, on the other hand, is given more credit for positive campaigning (54%). Despite the tightness of the race between Carter and Reagan, the poll suggests that the President has more to gain in the closing days of the campaign than the Governor. The 13% of the sample who say they are unsure how they will vote acknowledge, when pressed, that they are leaning more toward Carter than Reagan (34% to 21%). Five percent of the total remain truly undecided. Carter's early advantage among women voters has widened slightly (49% to 33%) just as Reagan's advantage among men has grown (49% to 36%). Women fear mainly that Reagan would be too belligerent as President. Males and females feel much the same about two other issues that generally hurt Reagan. On the question of the pending Equal Rights Amendment, 61% of men and 59% of women are favor of the measure; 56% of men and 55% of women are against an amendment banning abortions. Interestingly, nearly a third of Reagan's supporters believe, mistakenly, that their candidate is pro-ERA. Considering the key industrial states as a whole (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania), Carter leads by a larger margin (43% to 36%) than he did in September (39% to 36%). One partial explanation may be that Catholics have shifted toward the President (43% favor him now, compared with 38% last month). On the other hand, however, Reagan is now even with Carter among blue-collar workers, whereas Carter led by 10 points in September. The race in the heavily populated industrial regions remains extremely close. The shift of very few percentage points would swing not only those states but the election as well. Part of Carter's gain is coming from voters who are deserting Independent Anderson. The TIME survey indicates that those who still support Anderson will vote nearly 3 to 2 for Carter if they abandon the Congressman from Illinois. Failing to seize the middle ground on issues and ideology, Anderson is identified by the electorate as being the most liberal of the three candidates. It is also clear that Anderson has been unable to make much of an impression on voters; more than half say they simply do not know his stands on specific issues. But Reagan still leads substantially in state-by-state electoral vote estimates, because in many ways he appeals more strongly to voters than Carter. More voters say they are excited about Reagan than Carter, for example, and this difference in hard-core support could be important in an election that could swing by a tiny margin. Voters have also changed their minds about who is more likely to triumph. Despite the fact that those surveyed rank Carter even with Reagan, they now anticipate that Reagan has a better chance of winning than Carter (48% for Reagan vs. 44% for Carter), a reversal of the expectation in September when half thought Carter would win and 42% guessed Reagan. Reagan has also slightly widened his margin among independent voters, leading Carter 41% to 33%. Among young voters, Reagan is now favored, 42% to 36%. One of the most remarkable findings of the poll is that Anderson, for all his appeal on college campuses, is backed by only 14% of the young. Among voters over age 65, Carter and Reagan are tied. In the South, Reagan is ahead, 46% to 43%, and thus threatens to crack Carter's 1976 electoral stronghold in his home region. The Governor, who has long been popular in some sections of the South, is being helped by the votes of white Protestants (51% to 39%), who favor him mainly because of his well-known conservative views and partly because of his alliance with television-era fundamentalist preachers. The major campaign and advertising effort to convince voters that Reagan compiled a good record as Governor of California has apparently succeeded: 56% of his supporters say that is an important reason for backing him. Reagan is also profiting heavily from a feeling that it is simply "time for a change," a point cited by 85% of his supporters. Reagan continues to project an image as a President with the determination to "stand up to the Russians" more forcefully than Carter. The Governor is generally viewed as a man who would bring better people into Government than the President; who would have done more to get the hostages out of Iran; who would keep U.S. defenses strong; who would "make Americans feel good about themselves"; and who would do more to decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil. He is also widely identified as being in favor of an immediate tax cut, a position approved of by 64% of all voters. In small ways, there are signs that both major contenders are achieving a degree of acceptance among voters. The sharply negative judgments about Cater's presidency are softening; 55% of those surveyed think Carter is actually a better President than he is given credit for. Reagan, on the other hand, has managed to overcome to some degree the inherent doubts many voters have about any challenger's ability to be President. Fifty-four percent of those surveyed say Reagan has shown presidential stature by the way he has been conducting his campaign. Although there is a small drift toward Carter, the race quite clearly is virtually even. The key variable may be the degree of turnout among the supporters of the two candidates, which the Yankelovich survey makes no attempt to predict. But the poll did ask whether voters were looking forward to Election Day or whether they wished they did not have to make any choice at all. Thirty percent say they would rather avoid making a selection. That figure, moreover, rises to 55% among the undecided, the very group now tending toward President Carter. What is more, fully one-third of minority group voters who are heavily for Carter share this lingering reluctance to vote. And it will be these reluctant voters who are likely to make up their minds, once and for all, only in the final hours of he campaign. They will decide which man will win the White House. - By John F. Stacks PEOPLE: Who's for Whom CARTER Carol Channing, actress: "We can't have a President who just acts like a President. I'm campaigning to save America from a Hollywood administration." The Rev. Jesse Jackson, black activist: "Mr. Reagan's approach to foreign policy is that of a macho man. And John Anderson is a vacuum cleaner to suck up the frustrated, the purist and the self-righteous." Loretta Lynn, country music star: "We can talk to the President. I'm a country girl and he's from the country too." Muhammad Ali, former heavyweight boxing champion: "We don't have no black candidate for President, so it's up to us to choose the right white." Goldie Hawn, when interrupted during an interview in Florida by deafening overhead roar that the questioner identified as a B-52: "Oh, did Ronald Reagan already get in? I'm supporting Carter because I don't want to die." Jane Fonda, actress: "A vote for Anderson is a vote for Reagan, so I'm supporting Carter." I.F. Stone, journalist: "Some in Reagan's entourage are wacky paranoids." Also: Hank Aaron, Leonard Bernstein, Johnny Cash, Helen Hayes, Coretta Scott King, Cheryl Ladd, Ann Landers, Willie Nelson, Leontyne Price, Burt Reynolds, Neil Simon, Cheryl Tiegs. REAGAN Glen Campbell, one of the rare country-western singers for Reagan: "Any man who is 69 without gray hairs must know something." Leon Jaworski, former Watergate special prosecutor: "I would rather have a competent extremist than an incompetent moderate." Zsa Zsa Gabor, whose first choice is not a candidate this time: "Nixon would know how to deal with the Iranian militants: get a million dollars baksheesh and pay them off. They steal a ring off your finger and sell it back to you. Nixon understands." Eldridge Cleaver, former Black Panthers leader: "Carter has turned his back on (black Americans and) has become the laughing stock of the international community." Frank Sinatra, singer: "Reagan has displayed a better grasp of the issues than the other candidates." David Susskind, television producer: "Carter is incompetent, arrogant, insulated, provincial and unknowing. He is a pious fraud. The pietistic humbug is intolerable." Roger Staubach, former quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys: "There have been a lot of poor decisions made in the last four years. We've got to stop the snowball from going downhill." Charles Evers, Mississippi civil rights activist: "Carter grins too much. Got too many promises for everybody." Also: Pat Boone, James Cagney, Connie Francis, Milton Friedman, Lionel Hampton, Jack LaLanne, Michael Landon, Dean Martin, Eugene McCarthy, Ginger Rogers, James Stewart, Gloria Swanson. ANDERSON Margot Kidder, actress, who has lately been sporting a VOTE ANDERSON T-shirt: "I can't cast a vote because I'm Canadian, so I have to wear it." Stockard Channing, actress: "He's addressing the issues rather than merely his opponents." Arthur Schlesinger Jr., author: "A vote for Carter to keep Reagan out or a vote for Reagan to throw Carter out is not adequate." Kurt Vonnegut Jr. novelist: "He hasn't insulted the intelligence of the American people. Well, it's a dull year, isn't it?" Also: Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Richard Kiley, Paul Newman, Jason Robards, Susan Sarandon, Gail Sheehy, James Taylor. NONE OF THE ABOVE Studs Terkel, author: "If I had a thimble, and I poured into it the difference between Reagan and Carter, I would still have room for a double martini." Raquel Welch, actress: "It's got down to a choice between the one with the fat lips and the one with no lips, so I'm voting libertarian." Sammy Davis Jr., entertainer: "The only thing I'm endorsing this year are checks." </body> </article> </text>