Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2014, 10:17:58 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Election What-ifs?
| | |-+  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Bacon King)
| | | |-+  Anderson (R) vs Carter (D) vs Reagan(I), 1980
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Anderson (R) vs Carter (D) vs Reagan(I), 1980  (Read 1534 times)
Dallasfan65
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5453


Political Matrix
E: 5.68, S: -9.74

View Profile
« on: April 23, 2010, 05:34:19 pm »
Ignore

Carter/Mondale vs Anderson/Connally vs Reagan/Laxalt
Logged

Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -6.43

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2010, 06:21:37 am »
Ignore



409-129
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 06:25:04 am by Libertas »Logged
President Mitt
Giovanni
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3648
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2010, 07:45:58 am »
Ignore

Logged

[This space is available for purchase]
Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -6.43

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2010, 12:59:33 pm »
Ignore



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?
Logged
The Age Wave
silent_spade07
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 954
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -2.43

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2010, 01:14:57 pm »
Ignore



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



Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2010, 02:28:23 pm »
Ignore

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

Logged

Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -6.43

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2010, 02:43:31 pm »
Ignore

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?
Logged
justW353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1781
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -2.09

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2010, 03:03:37 pm »
Ignore

Logged

So a lack of knowledge means I'm not welcome here? I've always wondered why there's a lack of Republicans on this forum and now I'm beginning to see why.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2010, 03:13:55 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -6.43

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2010, 03:19:09 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2010, 03:20:15 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -6.43

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2010, 03:21:33 pm »
Ignore

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. Roll Eyes
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2010, 03:23:39 pm »
Ignore

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. Roll Eyes

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.
Logged

Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -6.43

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2010, 03:24:47 pm »
Ignore

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. Roll Eyes

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!
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2010, 03:31:42 pm »
Ignore

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. Roll Eyes

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%.
Logged

Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -6.43

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2010, 03:34:23 pm »
Ignore

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. Roll Eyes

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. 
Logged
justW353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1781
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -2.09

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2010, 03:35:24 pm »
Ignore

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
Logged

So a lack of knowledge means I'm not welcome here? I've always wondered why there's a lack of Republicans on this forum and now I'm beginning to see why.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2010, 03:37:49 pm »
Ignore

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. Roll Eyes

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.
Logged

Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -6.43

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2010, 03:39:48 pm »
Ignore

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%
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2010, 03:41:33 pm »
Ignore

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%
Logged

Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -6.43

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2010, 03:42:26 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14392
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2010, 03:43:42 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -6.43

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2010, 03:48:11 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines