So here is the latest, rather desperate, installment of Mr. Hinderaker’s brand of nonsense: 2012 equals 1980.

Why is he saying such silly things? Because his candidate is now more than 6 points behind nationwide, and is losing in seven of eight swing states. This — absent a major mistake by the President, during the debates — is the end-game. So — 1980 was different in the following ways, at least — in no particular order: (1) there were several third-party candidates taking votes from Mr. Carter; (2) Mr. Carter debated rather poorly (no serious independent thinker believes Mr. Romney will handily beat Mr. Obama in this department — and certainly not to the extent that Mr. Reagan came across as so much more “genuine” than Mr. Carter, in 1980); (3) the Iran hostage crisis was mis-handled by Mr. Carter immediately prior to election day; (4) while the economy was soft (high interest rates; strong inflation and oil price after-shocks), it was not recovering from a Republican led disaster (the near collapse was handed to Mr. Obama by Messrs. Bush 43 and Cheney in 2008) — no, it was largely Mr. Carter’s own handiwork that Mr. Reagan could complain about.

Not so, in each case — in 2012. Add to all of this that Mr. Obama has been hard on terrorists — when it mattered. Whether I now think that course is wise is immaterial — Mr. Carter was seen as weak, and slow to recognize the rising terror threat/bully in Iran. With OBL dead — the same CANNOT be said of Mr. Obama.

Okay, here is Mr. Hinderaker’s quote — with some context:

. . .The 1980 presidential election is the most obvious analogue to 2012. . . .

Jimmy Carter started the year with a huge advantage over Reagan, who was viewed by many as a dangerous radical. Between February and March Carter’s support dropped precipitously, and starting in July, John Anderson’s supporters migrated to Reagan. Still, leading up to the campaign’s last days Gallup showed Carter surging, and in October he ostensibly had an eight-point lead. That had to be sheer fiction. . . .

No two election years are anything like identical, but this history is nevertheless worth recalling as we continue fixating on the polls for the next two months. . . .

Look — I get it. The Republicans are clammering for any shred of good news for Mr. Romney — and there isn’t much. I also think they are realizing Mr. Romney is highly likely to come off as stiff, aloof, out-of-touch and a little perplexed by the complexities of foreign policy — in the coming debates.

It is Mr. Obama’s to lose. And he won’t. Mr. Romney will need a miracle, now — to win. Make no mistake: with deceptive ads, Mr. Romney will be able to keep it close — but he will ultimately lose, now. That much is all but certain. The conventions showed us the true Romney — and the true Obama.

Thank goodness.