|
Title: A scary fact about 1980 Post by: A18 on November 13, 2004, 05:49:27 PM Give all of the non-majority states to Carter to offset the Anderson factor.
() Dem 281 Rep 257 Reagan wins popular vote, Carter wins election Title: Re: A scary fact about 1980 Post by: J. J. on November 13, 2004, 06:16:42 PM Give all of the non-majority states to Carter to offset the Anderson factor. () Dem 281 Rep 257 Reagan wins popular vote, Carter wins election I don't agree. Here are the states that would have most likely gone to Carter: AL (9 EV), AR (6), DE (3), ME (4), MA (14), NY (41), SC (8), TN (10), VT (3), for a total of 98 EV. IA (8), NC (13), WI (11), would have been close and might have gone to Carter. Without Anderson, Carter might have gotten an additional 130 EV, or a total of 179 EV. It would still have been an EV blowout. Title: Re: A scary fact about 1980 Post by: CO-OWL on November 13, 2004, 06:30:27 PM If you apply the 1980 EV to the 2004 results you get:
KERRY 270 BUSH 268 Looks like Sen. Kerry's bid for the presidency came 24 years too late :) Title: Re: A scary fact about 1980 Post by: J. J. on November 13, 2004, 06:38:24 PM Like I've been posting, the Democrats are a generation behind. :-)
Title: Re: A scary fact about 1980 Post by: A18 on November 13, 2004, 07:07:03 PM Take, for example, Kentucky:
Carter got 48%, Anderson got 2%, Reagan got 49%. Don't you think the 2% would go to Carter? I am wrong about Illinois, though. Maybe a few others. Title: Re: A scary fact about 1980 Post by: A18 on November 13, 2004, 07:15:17 PM I didn't take the time to check each state to see what the margins were. In some states, Carter + Anderson still would have been behind him, despite the fact that Reagan didn't get 50% there.
I'm wrong about Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington, and Michigan too. Title: Re: A scary fact about 1980 Post by: J. J. on November 13, 2004, 08:45:50 PM Take, for example, Kentucky: Carter got 48%, Anderson got 2%, Reagan got 49%. Don't you think the 2% would go to Carter? I am wrong about Illinois, though. Maybe a few others. No. Some Anderson voters would have not voted for either, abstained or not showed up at all. Some, probably a small number, would have voted for Reagan. The rough formula I used 50% not voting, 40% voting for Carter, 10% voting for Reagan. Even if you juggle the numbers a bit, e.g. 40%, 55%, 5%, you still get the same result. Title: Re: A scary fact about 1980 Post by: Erc on November 14, 2004, 02:11:37 AM I analyzed this a while back, still didn't work out (because of the Libertarian showing).
Map to be posted in a few minutes. Title: Re: A scary fact about 1980 Post by: Erc on November 14, 2004, 02:26:03 AM Adding Anderson + Carter...
() States that still don't have majorities (all the Reagan non-majority states that he still won, + MS, SC, MI) aren't because of the Libertarians. Title: Re: A scary fact about 1980 Post by: Erc on November 14, 2004, 02:28:34 AM Note that MS & AL are split...AL went to Reagan by 981 votes in this scenario, purely due to the local spoiling effect of John Rarick of the "Alabama Conservative" party--which I assume is a Wallace-esque split from the Democrats?
Or a Southern Republican bit that can't stand Reagan? Anyway, if you throw his votes to Carter, he wins and order is restored in the world. Title: Re: A scary fact about 1980 Post by: Bugs on November 15, 2004, 12:35:34 AM There may have been other effects if Anderson had stayed out of the race. Oregon had a long time Democratic Congressman named Al Ullman who lost in 1980. Because of Reagan's sound victory, Carter conceded early, and Ullman complained that this caused many of his supporters to chose to stay home since the presidential race was all but over. If Anderson's absence had made the presidential race closer, even if Reagan still won, it might have changed the result of this Oregon race, and possibly others too.
|