AHC: John Anderson 1980

In 1980, after performing poorly in the primaries, liberal Republican congressman John B. Anderson launched an independent campaign for president. He sparked some interest, getting around 20% in the polls (peaking at 24%, next to Carter's 35% and Reagan's 33%), before dropping to the mid-teens in August and finishing with only 6.6% of the vote.

With a PoD of no sooner than the start of his independent campaign, the challenge is to make John B. Anderson win the presidential election of 1980. Preferably, by winning an electoral majority and popular plurality, but if that is too implausible, he can also come up as a compromise candidate if the election goes to the House.

I can see two major PoDs: vice presidential selection and debates. ITTL, Anderson settled for former Wisconsin governor Patrick Lucey, a liberal Democrat with little name recognition, as his running mate, but others were considered, most notably Democratic New York Governor Hugh Carey and Republican Former Senator Edward Brooke (the first African-American senator since Reconstruction). Anderson also said (or at least implied) that he would have liked Democratic Arizona Representative Mo Udall as his running mate, but Udall was already committed to the Democratic ticket by the time Anderson's VP search began. Maybe a better running mate could have helped Anderson? Later in the election season, President Carter refused to debate with Anderson, fearing that he would spoil the election in favor of Reagan. This lead to only two presidential debates being held: one in September between Anderson and Reagan, which was won by Reagan, and one in October between Reagan and Carter. Having a better performance in more debates certainly would have helped Anderson.
 
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).

I think you need *both* Reagan and Carter to suffer horrible setbacks, and that IMO is unlikely.
 
@David T is on to the reality of the situation. Really you have to have three unlikely things happen in strong combination:

1) A solid gold VP pick. If Governor Moonbeam had kept his trap shut and never run his famously goofy 1980 primary campaign, then his eclectic policy views and huge home state would offer some definite advantage. But already here you're butterflying Brown's own desperate and evidently misplaced faith in his ability to charge in from his astral plane and take the Dem nomination for himself. If you somehow, somehow put the kibosh on that and have him believe that he has something to offer to boost Anderson (and a chance to have at least Mondale-level influence in an Anderson White House) that's one piece of the puzzle.

2) Poppy or Bill Casey get caught out showing up in Madrid and Switzerland at ... interesting points in time with paper trails to meetings with ... interesting people. Raise a whole furore about whether or not there is a dirty tricks campaign underway vis a vis the hostages (Logan Act, etc.) and leave Ronnie flat-footed shrugging his shoulders as he did throughout Iran-Contra, forcing him back on a right-wing core of voters who would be content to watch him drown puppies as long as he smiled that Reagan smile and talked about cutting taxes and making America great again :)sideways glance at 2017:). That shaves off a large enough number of moderate and liberal Republicans to form part of a coherent voting bloc.

3) Carter's campaign does two things that do them no good: continue to show the appearance of flailing on the economy and Iran, and lash out viciously against the circumstantial evidence about GOP funny business wrt the hostages. Carter's campaign staffers, despite the many right-wing myths surrounding his whole presidency, were a hard nosed bunch (just look how they went at Ted Kennedy) and would seize on any blood in the water around Reagan. But it could have the net effect of making Carter look at one and the same time ineffectual and petty.

The problem is still the Electoral College. Reagan still has enough strength in the inter-mountain West and most reactionary corners of the South, and Carter in the rest of the South, that building a cross-party liberal majority from the West Coast, Northeast, and parts of the Upper Midwest is tough any way you cut it. In the best of scenarios Anderson had a very, very hard row to hoe.
 
There is also the issue of money. What is his source of funding? The two major parties are well funded, independents by and large are not unless they are self funded like Ross Perot.

Ventura was able to win in Minnesota because the state has strict campaign financing laws which levels the playing field.
 
As "Yes" posted, I think the best way is a complete Reagan meltdown due a really serious scandal, and the scenario he outlined is the best case for that. What happens is that the anti-Carter and most of the Republican vote goes to Anderson. The Reagan and Anderson popular vote percentages are switched.
 

Stolengood

Banned
If Moonbeam takes the Democratic nomination from Carter, I can see disenchanted people in the center and middle-lefts and -rights of both parties protest-voting for Anderson because they can't stomach either major party option.
 
If Moonbeam takes the Democratic nomination from Carter, I can see disenchanted people in the center and middle-lefts and -rights of both parties protest-voting for Anderson because they can't stomach either major party option.

What about the Reagan Democrats? Will they vote for Anderson in this scenario?
 
@David T is on to the reality of the situation. Really you have to have three unlikely things happen in strong combination:

1) A solid gold VP pick. If Governor Moonbeam had kept his trap shut and never run his famously goofy 1980 primary campaign, then his eclectic policy views and huge home state would offer some definite advantage. But already here you're butterflying Brown's own desperate and evidently misplaced faith in his ability to charge in from his astral plane and take the Dem nomination for himself. If you somehow, somehow put the kibosh on that and have him believe that he has something to offer to boost Anderson (and a chance to have at least Mondale-level influence in an Anderson White House) that's one piece of the puzzle.

2) Poppy or Bill Casey get caught out showing up in Madrid and Switzerland at ... interesting points in time with paper trails to meetings with ... interesting people. Raise a whole furore about whether or not there is a dirty tricks campaign underway vis a vis the hostages (Logan Act, etc.) and leave Ronnie flat-footed shrugging his shoulders as he did throughout Iran-Contra, forcing him back on a right-wing core of voters who would be content to watch him drown puppies as long as he smiled that Reagan smile and talked about cutting taxes and making America great again :)sideways glance at 2017:). That shaves off a large enough number of moderate and liberal Republicans to form part of a coherent voting bloc.

3) Carter's campaign does two things that do them no good: continue to show the appearance of flailing on the economy and Iran, and lash out viciously against the circumstantial evidence about GOP funny business wrt the hostages. Carter's campaign staffers, despite the many right-wing myths surrounding his whole presidency, were a hard nosed bunch (just look how they went at Ted Kennedy) and would seize on any blood in the water around Reagan. But it could have the net effect of making Carter look at one and the same time ineffectual and petty.

The problem is still the Electoral College. Reagan still has enough strength in the inter-mountain West and most reactionary corners of the South, and Carter in the rest of the South, that building a cross-party liberal majority from the West Coast, Northeast, and parts of the Upper Midwest is tough any way you cut it. In the best of scenarios Anderson had a very, very hard row to hoe.
Good points, but I'm not too sure about Jerry Brown. His general eccentricness could help or harm. What way do you think it would go if the election went to the House?

Are there any other thoughts on running mates? Mo Udall seems as if he would have been the best pick, but I don't know how likely that would be.

There is also the issue of money. What is his source of funding? The two major parties are well funded, independents by and large are not unless they are self funded like Ross Perot.

Ventura was able to win in Minnesota because the state has strict campaign financing laws which levels the playing field.
I can't find much about the financing, besides this paragraph from Wikipedia: "Under federal election laws, Carter and Reagan received $29.4 million each, and Anderson was given a limit of $18.5 million with private fund-raising allowed for him only. They were not allowed to spend any other money. Carter and Reagan each spent about $15 million on television advertising, and Anderson under $2 million. Reagan ended up spending $29.2 million in total, Carter $29.4 million, and Anderson spent $17.6 million—partially because he (Anderson) didn't get Federal Election Committee money until after the election." However, there are times (such as the 2016 election) when funding doesn't matter as much as publicity and name recognition, which Anderson certainly had, unlike most third party candidates.

As "Yes" posted, I think the best way is a complete Reagan meltdown due a really serious scandal, and the scenario he outlined is the best case for that. What happens is that the anti-Carter and most of the Republican vote goes to Anderson. The Reagan and Anderson popular vote percentages are switched.
A major Reagan scandal is definitely needed. I doubt it could get as extreme as Reagan and Anderson's percentages being switched, though. The way I imagine it, Reagan alienates non-conservatives, leading moderate Republicans to flee to Anderson while anti-Carter Democrats also go to him. Eventually, Anderson rises above Carter in the polls, which leads even more Democrats to go to him as the not-Reagan option. In the end, the South is split between Reagan and Carter, while Anderson gets the Northeast, the Great Lakes region, and the West Coast.
 
Have Anderson form an actual party and hold a convention for that party. Have him pick a more well-known nominee, like Jacob Javits or Ted Kennedy. Having him somehow get Carter to debate him would help, too.
 
As others have said, Anderson's support was in reality really soft and barring major scandals against both Carter and Reagan, it was only a matter of time before that support began to fade away.

I haven't read about the Anderson campaign in-depth, but from a glance if he avoided the missteps he suffered with his overseas venture and his appearance with Ted Kennedy, and had he picked a more notable running-mate like Governor Hugh Carey (Edward Brooke would have brought his divorce back into the limelight, which may well have detracted from the ticket's message), then I suppose he would have significantly improved his showing. But that involves a lot as ifs; Hugh Carey for example is not liable to break from the Party unless Ted Kennedy gives him the okay, which means you need a far nastier primary battle between Kennedy and Carter.
 
Okay, so a closer primary race between Carter and Kennedy could could hurt Carter's support and get Hugh Carey on Anderson's side. Then, the same things that killed Carter's support IOTL (poor economy, Iran hostage crisis) would still occur, perhaps along with some general campaign mishaps. The main problem is Reagan. So far, the main thing that's been mentioned is creating the appearance of him making a deal with Iran, but is there anything else that could get him? Preferably, something that would get rid of his post-convention bump. Gerald Ford tried to make a deal where he and Reagan would be "co-presidents"; how well would that have been received? Meanwhile, Anderson never has a meeting with Ted Kennedy and doesn't go abroad to try and boost his foreign policy credentials. Then, the debates come around and Anderson is in all three (with or without Carter) and performs well. Maybe throw in some gaffes by Reagan and Carter.

This is an unlikely combination, and President Anderson is still a long shot, but is it possible?
 
I'm not sure. But you are (a couple of posts above) hunting for EVs in the right places. My Big Project, if I ever get it written, involves a jumping-off point that's not entirely dissimilar. It starts in '72 where 1) an unharmed Wallace essentially steals the nomination playing fast and lose with procedural-vote favors done him in return for his support on the opening vote, 2) an even more frustrated Arthur Bremer kills Nixon leaving us with President Agnew before the election and 3) a late-stage, cross-party liberal third force emerges, taking a chance on an electorate where a chunk of voters are repulsed by their options. On that you start with the West Coast because, despite the Yorty/Reagan/Wilson period with white backlash in Orange County and the Central Valley, CA and the whole west coast have since the Progressives voted generally to the left of the rest of the nation; then you move on to a few of the "highest" (near Canada) high mountain/high plains states where the Progressives were also strong, then the Upper Midwest (really MN and WI, occasionally Iowa) and then New England and the urban vote in New York state. Indeed if you go, say, to Dave Leip's site and highlight Anderson's shaded vote percentages on the 1980 results screen you get an outcome that looks a lot like that anyway. But I will say, and I've gone over it in some detail, in my Big Project version it's not quite enough and the whole thing ends up a contingent election in Congress. That, you definitely want to avoid because Carter would remain too strong in the South to just back down graciously in favor of a combined anti-Reagan vote.
 
I'm not sure. But you are (a couple of posts above) hunting for EVs in the right places. My Big Project, if I ever get it written, involves a jumping-off point that's not entirely dissimilar. It starts in '72 where 1) an unharmed Wallace essentially steals the nomination playing fast and lose with procedural-vote favors done him in return for his support on the opening vote, 2) an even more frustrated Arthur Bremer kills Nixon leaving us with President Agnew before the election and 3) a late-stage, cross-party liberal third force emerges, taking a chance on an electorate where a chunk of voters are repulsed by their options. On that you start with the West Coast because, despite the Yorty/Reagan/Wilson period with white backlash in Orange County and the Central Valley, CA and the whole west coast have since the Progressives voted generally to the left of the rest of the nation; then you move on to a few of the "highest" (near Canada) high mountain/high plains states where the Progressives were also strong, then the Upper Midwest (really MN and WI, occasionally Iowa) and then New England and the urban vote in New York state. Indeed if you go, say, to Dave Leip's site and highlight Anderson's shaded vote percentages on the 1980 results screen you get an outcome that looks a lot like that anyway. But I will say, and I've gone over it in some detail, in my Big Project version it's not quite enough and the whole thing ends up a contingent election in Congress. That, you definitely want to avoid because Carter would remain too strong in the South to just back down graciously in favor of a combined anti-Reagan vote.
Based on his performance IOTL, I ended up this electoral map where he wins with 271 ECs. (not counting any states that might be flipped from Carter to Reagan or vice versa due to Anderson's voters):
genusmap.php
[/IMG]
Based on this article that I managed to stumble upon, people at the time thought that the election could go any way in the House, although an Anderson victory was seen as highly unlikely. Anyway, I'm trying to make Anderson get a popular plurality because I have a vague idea for a TL where he become president (and if he manages that without winning the popular vote, his presidency would be made a living hell by whoever did), and, based on how localized his support was, it seems like any scenario where he wins the popular vote would also have him winning an electoral majority.

Reagan nominated and then visibly suffering from dementia
I don't think Reagan was close to showing symptoms of dementia by 1980. Although, I was thinking that he could have some sort of Rick Perry "Oops" moment during a debate, which would contrast him to Anderson, who was a major policy wonk.
 
Top