I've recently been reading up on John B. Anderson's presidential campaign, and his status as something of a standard bearer for Rockefeller Republicans and centrists at the time. My question is, what would be the impact on the 1980 election if he didn't run at all? He formed an exploratory committee in 1978 and announced his run in April 1979, so the POD would be before then. There wouldn't be a Reagan-Anderson debate, but could another candidate possibly take his role as the liberal in the GOP primary?
American Political WI: Anderson doesn't run in 1980?
- Thread starter asanh
- Start date
I don't think Anderson not running would have much of an impact to be perfectly honest. Reagan damn near deprived Ford of the nomination in 1976 and was in a good position to take it in 1980. Candidates like Bush and Baker may fare better without Anderson, but the end result would still be the same. As for the general, Carter may swing the three closest states of the election (Massachusetts, Arkansas, and Tennessee), but Reagan still wins and wins convincingly.
He would have as much chance of winning the GOP nomination in 1980 as his son Lincoln did of winning the Democratic one in 2016.
Can we put things in some perspective? In the critical early primaries of NH, SC, and FL, Reagan (in each primary) got more votes than Bush, Baker, Anderson, and Dole (who dropped out after NH) *combined.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1980 And two of those men were war heroes...
Last edited:
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Didn't know Anderson sucked up all the centrist oxygen in the room this early!
I just don't think he was that good a candidate, presentation was okay, but I'm talking about policy. Look at what he's most known for, a new 50 cent a gallon tax on gasoline. Once we get past giving him points for being a contrarian and for bravery, I'm not sure this is such good policy coming a scant six months after an energy crisis.
1) people forget it was part of his 50-50, the other 50 being a fifty percent reduction in payroll tax for lower paid workers,
2) not sure reducing money going into social security such a great idea either, and
3) you can't lead from three miles down the road anyway!
Anderson polled as high as 26% nationwide at one point. It's interesting to see how the race (and polls) at that point in time would've worked out without him.
Anderson's strong showings in the polls in June (in the 20's) were IMO always illusory--they were before the two major party conventions, which shored up partisans' support of their parties' candidates (especially on the Republican side, where Reagan's choosing Bush helped reassure many moderate Republicans).
I really do not think the lack of an Anderson candidacy in 1980 would make any essential difference. According to *Newsweek* at the time, "John Anderson’s impact on the race was largely overshadowed by the broad-based Reagan landslide. It was in one sense tempting to view him as a spoiler; Anderson’s vote was actually greater than Reagan’s margin of victory in thirteen states, among them New York, Wisconsin, North-Carolina and Connecticut. But had Anderson not run, Carter would have picked up barely half (49 per cent) of his vote; 37 per cent of Anderson voters said they would have backed Reagan." http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/
That sounds perfectly plausible to me--Anderson got votes both from moderate Republicans who might have voted for Reagan (or might have stayed home or reluctantly have voted for Carter or even have voted Libertarian) and from liberal Democrats who had voted for Kennedy in the primaries and might vote for Carter--although some might instead vote for Barry Commoner or stay at home. But even if one absurdly assumes that *every* Anderson voter would have gone for Carter, Reagan would still have won (he did get an absolute majority of the vote, after all).