Anderson (R) vs Carter (D) vs Reagan(I), 1980

[Dallasfan65]

Carter/Mondale vs Anderson/Connally vs Reagan/Laxalt

[Senator Libertas]

409-129

[President Mitt]

[Senator Libertas]

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?

[The Age Wave]

The West would get dominated by Reagan/Laxalt. Carter manages to squeeze by in a lot of states though due to vote-splitting.

[Bo]

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

[Senator Libertas]

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

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

[justW353]

[Bo]

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

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.

[Senator Libertas]

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

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.

[Bo]

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

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.

[Senator Libertas]

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

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.

[Bo]

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

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.

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.

[Senator Libertas]

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

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.

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!

[Bo]

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

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.

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%.

[Senator Libertas]

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

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.

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. 

[justW353]

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

[Bo]

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

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.

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.

[Senator Libertas]

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%

[Bo]

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%

[Senator Libertas]

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.

[Bo]

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.

[Senator Libertas]

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.