|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 08:44:30 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Should've left the Pangolins alone, Apocrypha)
  Anderson (R) vs Carter (D) vs Reagan(I), 1980
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Anderson (R) vs Carter (D) vs Reagan(I), 1980  (Read 4103 times)
Apocrypha
Dallasfan65
Moderator
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,806


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 23, 2010, 05:34:19 pm »

Carter/Mondale vs Anderson/Connally vs Reagan/Laxalt
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2010, 06:21:37 am »
« Edited: April 24, 2010, 06:25:04 am by Libertas »



409-129
Logged
President Mitt
Giovanni
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2010, 07:45:58 am »

Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2010, 12:59:33 pm »


Reagan only barely won MS, AL, and SC as the major party candidate in 1980; how would he win them as an independent?

Also why would Carter win MA?
Logged
The Age Wave
silent_spade07
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 944
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2010, 01:14:57 pm »



The West would get dominated by Reagan/Laxalt. Carter manages to squeeze by in a lot of states though due to vote-splitting.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2010, 02:28:23 pm »

Carter-329 EV
Anderson-209 EV
Reagan-0 EV

Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2010, 02:43:31 pm »


Why the hell would Anderson do worse than Reagan in the Northeast, upper Midwest and Pacific?
Logged
justW353
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,693
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2010, 03:03:37 pm »

Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2010, 03:13:55 pm »


Why the hell would Anderson do worse than Reagan in the Northeast, upper Midwest and Pacific?

Because Reagan had a unified GOP, while in this scenario, the GOP would be divided and thus Carter would pull through narrow wins with 35-45% in many states.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2010, 03:19:09 pm »


Why the hell would Anderson do worse than Reagan in the Northeast, upper Midwest and Pacific?

Because Reagan had a unified GOP, while in this scenario, the GOP would be divided and thus Carter would pull through narrow wins with 35-45% in many states.

Um, no. Reagan didn't have a unified GOP. Anderson himself ran as an independent, and took double digits in many states, especially in New England.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2010, 03:20:15 pm »


Why the hell would Anderson do worse than Reagan in the Northeast, upper Midwest and Pacific?

Because Reagan had a unified GOP, while in this scenario, the GOP would be divided and thus Carter would pull through narrow wins with 35-45% in many states.

Um, no. Reagan didn't have a unified GOP. Anderson himself ran as an independent, and took double digits in many states, especially in New England.

Many of Anderson's votes came from dissatisfied Democrats and Independents.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2010, 03:21:33 pm »


Why the hell would Anderson do worse than Reagan in the Northeast, upper Midwest and Pacific?

Because Reagan had a unified GOP, while in this scenario, the GOP would be divided and thus Carter would pull through narrow wins with 35-45% in many states.

Um, no. Reagan didn't have a unified GOP. Anderson himself ran as an independent, and took double digits in many states, especially in New England.

Many of Anderson's votes came from dissatisfied Democrats and Independents.

Who would have still voted for Anderson if he were the Republican nominee. Roll Eyes
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2010, 03:23:39 pm »


Why the hell would Anderson do worse than Reagan in the Northeast, upper Midwest and Pacific?

Because Reagan had a unified GOP, while in this scenario, the GOP would be divided and thus Carter would pull through narrow wins with 35-45% in many states.

Um, no. Reagan didn't have a unified GOP. Anderson himself ran as an independent, and took double digits in many states, especially in New England.

Many of Anderson's votes came from dissatisfied Democrats and Independents.

Who would have still voted for Anderson if he were the Republican nominee. Roll Eyes

Yes, but in turn, a very large amount of conservatives would have considered Anderson too liberal and thus voted for Reagan, effectively splitting the GOP vote and allowing Carter to get reelected.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2010, 03:24:47 pm »


Why the hell would Anderson do worse than Reagan in the Northeast, upper Midwest and Pacific?

Because Reagan had a unified GOP, while in this scenario, the GOP would be divided and thus Carter would pull through narrow wins with 35-45% in many states.

Um, no. Reagan didn't have a unified GOP. Anderson himself ran as an independent, and took double digits in many states, especially in New England.

Many of Anderson's votes came from dissatisfied Democrats and Independents.

Who would have still voted for Anderson if he were the Republican nominee. Roll Eyes

Yes, but in turn, a very large amount of conservatives would have considered Anderson too liberal and thus voted for Reagan, effectively splitting the GOP vote and allowing Carter to get reelected.

Yeah, because conservatives are the dominant political force in the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific..NOT!
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2010, 03:31:42 pm »


Why the hell would Anderson do worse than Reagan in the Northeast, upper Midwest and Pacific?

Because Reagan had a unified GOP, while in this scenario, the GOP would be divided and thus Carter would pull through narrow wins with 35-45% in many states.

Um, no. Reagan didn't have a unified GOP. Anderson himself ran as an independent, and took double digits in many states, especially in New England.

Many of Anderson's votes came from dissatisfied Democrats and Independents.

Who would have still voted for Anderson if he were the Republican nominee. Roll Eyes

Yes, but in turn, a very large amount of conservatives would have considered Anderson too liberal and thus voted for Reagan, effectively splitting the GOP vote and allowing Carter to get reelected.

Yeah, because conservatives are the dominant political force in the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific..NOT!

They're not dominant, but I could see 10-20% of the voters in many of these states being conservative and voting for Reagan, thus taking enough votes away from Anderson for Carter to win these states. For instance, a state could vote Carter 45%, Anderson 40%, Reagan 15%.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2010, 03:34:23 pm »


Why the hell would Anderson do worse than Reagan in the Northeast, upper Midwest and Pacific?

Because Reagan had a unified GOP, while in this scenario, the GOP would be divided and thus Carter would pull through narrow wins with 35-45% in many states.

Um, no. Reagan didn't have a unified GOP. Anderson himself ran as an independent, and took double digits in many states, especially in New England.

Many of Anderson's votes came from dissatisfied Democrats and Independents.

Who would have still voted for Anderson if he were the Republican nominee. Roll Eyes

Yes, but in turn, a very large amount of conservatives would have considered Anderson too liberal and thus voted for Reagan, effectively splitting the GOP vote and allowing Carter to get reelected.

Yeah, because conservatives are the dominant political force in the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific..NOT!

They're not dominant, but I could see 10-20% of the voters in many of these states being conservative and voting for Reagan, thus taking enough votes away from Anderson for Carter to win these states. For instance, a state could vote Carter 45%, Anderson 40%, Reagan 15%.

Carter was in the 30s or barely broke 40% in those states, and many liberal voters who voted for Carter as the lesser evil would swing to Anderson as the GOP nominee instead. Reagan would be in the single digits in most of them. 
Logged
justW353
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,693
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2010, 03:35:24 pm »

Well, Carter would definitely win California; Reagan would take tons of votes away from Anderson...It'd be something like...

Carter:  40
Reagan:  35
Anderson:  25
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2010, 03:37:49 pm »


Why the hell would Anderson do worse than Reagan in the Northeast, upper Midwest and Pacific?

Because Reagan had a unified GOP, while in this scenario, the GOP would be divided and thus Carter would pull through narrow wins with 35-45% in many states.

Um, no. Reagan didn't have a unified GOP. Anderson himself ran as an independent, and took double digits in many states, especially in New England.

Many of Anderson's votes came from dissatisfied Democrats and Independents.

Who would have still voted for Anderson if he were the Republican nominee. Roll Eyes

Yes, but in turn, a very large amount of conservatives would have considered Anderson too liberal and thus voted for Reagan, effectively splitting the GOP vote and allowing Carter to get reelected.

Yeah, because conservatives are the dominant political force in the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific..NOT!

They're not dominant, but I could see 10-20% of the voters in many of these states being conservative and voting for Reagan, thus taking enough votes away from Anderson for Carter to win these states. For instance, a state could vote Carter 45%, Anderson 40%, Reagan 15%.

Carter was in the 30s or barely broke 40% in those states, and many liberal voters who voted for Carter as the lesser evil would swing to Anderson as the GOP nominee instead. Reagan would be in the single digits in most of them. 

Well, maybe I was being too optimistic in some states. However, I still think Carter might have pulled off a win due to the split in the GOP.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2010, 03:39:48 pm »

Well, Carter would definitely win California; Reagan would take tons of votes away from Anderson...It'd be something like...

Carter:  40
Reagan:  35
Anderson:  25

Why would Carter get a 6 point boost from having Anderson as the GOP candidate?

Probably more like

Anderson 42%
Carter 30%
Reagan 28%
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2010, 03:41:33 pm »

Well, Carter would definitely win California; Reagan would take tons of votes away from Anderson...It'd be something like...

Carter:  40
Reagan:  35
Anderson:  25

Why would Carter get a 6 point boost from having Anderson as the GOP candidate?

Probably more like

Anderson 42%
Carter 30%
Reagan 28%

No, it would be:

Carter: 36%
Anderson: 33%
Reagan: 31%
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2010, 03:42:26 pm »

Well, Carter would definitely win California; Reagan would take tons of votes away from Anderson...It'd be something like...

Carter:  40
Reagan:  35
Anderson:  25

Why would Carter get a 6 point boost from having Anderson as the GOP candidate?

Probably more like

Anderson 42%
Carter 30%
Reagan 28%

No, it would be:

Carter: 36%
Anderson: 33%
Reagan: 31%

LOL, no. Cut out the hackery.

Carter wasn't winning anything outside the South in 1980.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2010, 03:43:42 pm »

Well, Carter would definitely win California; Reagan would take tons of votes away from Anderson...It'd be something like...

Carter:  40
Reagan:  35
Anderson:  25

Why would Carter get a 6 point boost from having Anderson as the GOP candidate?

Probably more like

Anderson 42%
Carter 30%
Reagan 28%

No, it would be:

Carter: 36%
Anderson: 33%
Reagan: 31%

LOL, no. Cut out the hackery.

Carter wasn't winning anything outside the South in 1980.

He won MN & RI in 1980, which were both outside the South. Thus, your point is disproven.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2010, 03:48:11 pm »

Well, Carter would definitely win California; Reagan would take tons of votes away from Anderson...It'd be something like...

Carter:  40
Reagan:  35
Anderson:  25

Why would Carter get a 6 point boost from having Anderson as the GOP candidate?

Probably more like

Anderson 42%
Carter 30%
Reagan 28%

No, it would be:

Carter: 36%
Anderson: 33%
Reagan: 31%

LOL, no. Cut out the hackery.

Carter wasn't winning anything outside the South in 1980.

He won MN & RI in 1980, which were both outside the South. Thus, your point is disproven.

That's because he was running against conservative Reagan rather than moderate Anderson. So no, my point stands.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines