1980: Who Did Anderson Hurt More?

John Anderson, a Republican, ran as an Independent in 1980 and took in over 5 million votes. Between Reagan and Carter, who did Anderson hurt more? And what would have happened if Anderson had not run?
 
Lessie. I was nominally a Democrat in 1980 but had become very dissatisfied with Jimmie Carter... I really was a bit scared of Reagan so I planned on voting for Anderson.

But when I got to the voting booth I said to my self, "Hey Self, all I am doing if I vote for Anderson is helping Reagan because Carter isn't getting my vote!, and Anderson won't win" So I closed my eyes, gulped, and pushed the lever for Reagan since I considered that the honest vote. And 8 years later, I'm glad I did. But that's another story. Frankly, I think Anderson drew about equally from both sides, so I doubt his candidacy made all that much 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 wuld have gone for Carter, Reagan would still have won (he did get an absolute majority of the vote, after all).
 
I don't think he hurt one candidate more than the other. Anderson was liberal, so he took some votes from Carter, but he was also a Republican so he probably took votes from Reagan as well.

The only modern third party candidate I would argue was a spoiler was Nader in 2000. Had he not run, it might've made the difference not only in Florida, but it also might've made the difference in New Hampshire.
 
Assuming the most extreme scenario - all of the Anderson votes go to Carter - by my count of the state-by-state results on Wikipedia, Carter wins an additional 14 states totalling 160 electoral votes. That puts him at 209 overall, far short of the 270 needed. On the flip side, if all the Anderson votes go to Reagan, Carter only wins GA, DC, and WV.

I think Anderson's main impact on the race is to provide subject matter for alt-history buffs like us.

Now here's a what if - Anderson with David Koch (and his bank account) as his running mate?
 
Now here's a what if - Anderson with David Koch (and his bank account) as his running mate?

Don't think their political views were enough of a match.

A good what-if is if Hugh Carey got on board. Apparently, he considered it. Being governor of New York carries weight and finance.
 
Top