I'm well aware that I'm not the first to make the comparison, but the closer we get to election day, the more I'm convinced that this election's closest recent parallel is the 1980 Carter-Reagan contest. I was a bit slow to jump aboard that train, but the more I read up on that race, the more the striking the parallels become.
The Polling
While the result in 1980 was a GOP electoral college landslide, the popular margin was about the same as the CBS and DKos poll margins are now (10%, give or take), and much of the movement toward the frontrunner occured after the conventions and debates. Also, the race was perceived in the media as close until near the end, and in fact there were periods in which Carter and Reagan were tied (Carter's best numbers were following his convention, when many of the Kennedy Democrats came home). In both cases, the troubled in-party was forced to defend states it might otherwise have considerd safe (Carter's running of ads in Arkansas, where he had won overwhelmingly in 1976, was considered a bad sign for him, much like McCain's running of ads in Indiana and Virginia is also considered ominous for his chances.
The Dynamic
The dynamic for this race and the 1980 race are remarkably similar. In 1980, Reagan portrayed himself as the change that America was waiting for. Reagan's ads were upbeat, or else stressed the faltering economy and suggested that new leaders could do better. Reagan's campaign motto was "The Time is Now," reflecting the theme of change. Similarly, Obama's ads have also tended to focus on the theme of change, arguing again that the economy and foreign affairs have declined under the incumbent, and suggesting that change was the logical response. Obama's motto, "Change we can Believe In," is even more direct than Reagan's. The incumbent parties even seem to have similar themes, both trying to portray themselves in the best possible light, while trying to sell the idea that the other candidate's promised change might be potentially dangerous. Both Carter and McCain spent more time attacking their opponents than promoting their own ideas, and both tried to paint their opponent as "untested" and "dangerous." Just as Carter's ads where overwhelmingly anti-Reagan attack ads, so too the majority of McCain's ads are attacks on Obama. And when McCain and Carter did run positive ads, they wre and are mostly bio pieces with little mention of policy.
The Result?
Obviously, it's too early to say anything definitively. And the electoral votes won't likely be as lopsided as they were 28 years ago. But when the mood is one for change, the only thing the candidate offering the change has to do in order to win is to appear acceptable as an alternative. In 1980, the biggest obstacle to Reagan's win was the perception that he was reckless and too far right-wing. Clearly, there were some Carter supporters who were backing Carter more out of fear of Reagan than genuine love of the incumbent (only half of Carter's voters said they were "somewhat enthusiastic" or "very enthusiastic" about voting for him). All Reagan had to do in order to win some of them over was convince them he wasn't as crazy as Carter said he was. Similarly, there are lcearly a lot of McCain backers who aren't too enthused about the man, but feel like doing something different might be dangerous. All Obama has to do is prove that he's an acceptable candidate and he should get enough of them to win.
Endgame
The last monght of this campaign even bears a striking resemblance. Behind and with the elctoral map looking grim, McCain is doing the onlty thing a nominee of a disliked incumbent party can do: try to raise doubts about the other guy enough to squeak by. Carter did the same after his debate with Reagan, trying to stanch the bleeding. The Carter ads, if you can find them, are pretty hard-hitting, as McCain's surely will be. But both ignored the key issues voters identified as their biggest concerns. The voters ultimately ignored Carter's attack gambit. Personally, I think they will also ignore MaCain's.