redacted

[randomname2000]

redacted

[NewYorkExpress]

I don't think Anderson could have won, but if he did all the things you mentioned, he could have forced the race to the House.

[Snazzrazz Mazzlejazz]

I believe that he had the smallest possible odds but it could have happened. That being said it was one of those things that was unlikely and bordering on impossible.

[dw93]

Of all the major third party Presidential candidates since 1968, only Perot and Wallace had a better chance at winning than Anderson.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Of all the major third party Presidential candidates since 1968, only Perot and Wallace had a better chance at winning than Anderson.

That's a pretty low standard.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Of all the major third party Presidential candidates since 1968, only Perot and Wallace had a better chance at winning than Anderson.

Maybe Evan McMullin could have had a chance if nobody gets to 270 EV in 2016 thanks to him winning UT and ID and he is picked as the compromise candidate in the House .


I don’t think Anderson has a chance even if he sends it to the house as House Democrats were far more supportive of Carter in 1980 than House Republicans were with Trump in 1980 and had a large majority too(since This version  1980 wouldn’t be as bad as it was in OTL for house dems in 1980) so they had more room to spare though .



Anyway in reality neither really had any chance

[Alben Barkley]

Of all the major third party Presidential candidates since 1968, only Perot and Wallace had a better chance at winning than Anderson.

That’s damning with faint praise, however. None of these guys had a real chance to win.

Wallace simply didn’t have enough appeal outside the South to win outright. His best chance would have been forcing the election to the House, but even then he would not have been elected. Both Northern Democrats and Republicans in the House would not have let that happen. Nixon and Humphrey would have rather seen the other win than Wallace.

Perot might have won a state or two if he hadn’t dropped out only to come back. But ultimately I think his strong poll numbers at some points were just due to voters expressing frustration with Bush and the two-party system that simply wasn’t going to be stable or lasting enough for him to actually win. Especially once Clinton started to take off. Plus the states he did best in were like Maine and Alaska. I don’t see him having strong enough appeal in states with lots of EVs to even throw it to the House.

[morgankingsley]

Of all the major third party Presidential candidates since 1968, only Perot and Wallace had a better chance at winning than Anderson.

That’s damning with faint praise, however. None of these guys had a real chance to win.

Wallace simply didn’t have enough appeal outside the South to win outright. His best chance would have been forcing the election to the House, but even then he would not have been elected. Both Northern Democrats and Republicans in the House would not have let that happen. Nixon and Humphrey would have rather seen the other win than Wallace.

Perot might have won a state or two if he hadn’t dropped out only to come back. But ultimately I think his strong poll numbers at some points were just due to voters expressing frustration with Bush and the two-party system that simply wasn’t going to be stable or lasting enough for him to actually win. Especially once Clinton started to take off. Plus the states he did best in were like Maine and Alaska. I don’t see him having strong enough appeal in states with lots of EVs to even throw it to the House.

I agree. The best perot could actually do is Alaska, Maine, kansas, Nevada, and montana. And even then, Alaska and Kansas are skin of his teeth

[morgankingsley]

As for the question, I wouldn't say he was ever having a strong chance to win, and especially not out right, but I do believe that if he kept his peak of 24 percent throughout the cycle, onto election day, he would have won SOME states

[HisGrace]

One (kind of a push) poll also had him at 31% 'if he was shown to have a chance to win'.

I think that answers your question. If you only have 30% of the vote even when it's assumed you have a chance then you don't really have a chance.

Of all the major third party Presidential candidates since 1968, only Perot and Wallace had a better chance at winning than Anderson.

Wallace had no chance either. Perot had a chance for a brief, shining moment in the early summer but by the time of the debates/election he didn't either.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I fail to see how Anderson filled a void.

[dw93]

One (kind of a push) poll also had him at 31% 'if he was shown to have a chance to win'.

I think that answers your question. If you only have 30% of the vote even when it's assumed you have a chance then you don't really have a chance.

Of all the major third party Presidential candidates since 1968, only Perot and Wallace had a better chance at winning than Anderson.

Wallace had no chance either. Perot had a chance for a brief, shining moment in the early summer but by the time of the debates/election he didn't either.

Wallace I think could've emerged if the electoral college was deadlocked and Nixon and Humphrey didn't wheel and deal enough to secure victory.

[HisGrace]

One (kind of a push) poll also had him at 31% 'if he was shown to have a chance to win'.

I think that answers your question. If you only have 30% of the vote even when it's assumed you have a chance then you don't really have a chance.

Of all the major third party Presidential candidates since 1968, only Perot and Wallace had a better chance at winning than Anderson.

Wallace had no chance either. Perot had a chance for a brief, shining moment in the early summer but by the time of the debates/election he didn't either.

Wallace I think could've emerged if the electoral college was deadlocked and Nixon and Humphrey didn't wheel and deal enough to secure victory.

Wallace's endgame was to try and throw it to the House and then the southern delegation could hold everything up and insist on concessions on civil rights in exchange for supporting either Humphrey or Nixon. Wallace wasn't even trying to win.