Kennedy vs Reagan vs Anderson

[mr_president]

Who would have one the 1980 general election  if Kennedy beat Carter in the primaries?

[PBrunsel]

Reagan no doubt.

[opebo]

This is the most disturbing poll I've yet seen on this site - currently has Teddy Kennedy ahead of Ronald Reagan!

[© tweed]

close, but Reagan.

[Michael Z]

Reagan still would have won.

[Ben.]

As the Boss said… I think it would be dame close but in 1980 as it was then after a bloody primary fight I’d say that Reagan would just about edge Kennedy out… but it would be one hell of a race IMHO…      

[ShapeShifter]

Edward Kennedy (D)     

[Gustaf]

I don't see how Kennedy would've stood any chance at all. Reagan would have abolutely wiped him in the South and would still have retained the old GOP West. I see Reagan winning about as big as he did v Carter.

[Ben.]

I don't see how Kennedy would've stood any chance at all. Reagan would have abolutely wiped him in the South and would still have retained the old GOP West. I see Reagan winning about as big as he did v Carter.

Afraid I don’t agree… while I see Reagan edging Kennedy out by say 2-3% I can see the race being even more volatile than it was between Reagan and Carter… Kennedy would have been less strong in the south but with a southern running mate he could have been competitive (more competive than Kerry in November anyway), nationally Kennedy would have given the democrats a new “leas of life” and probably won the north east and New York and still been competive in the Midwest… however Reagan would probably have swept the west and south and despite Kennedy winning in some of the Midwest and the north east (and possibly even picking up some southern states) he would have lost by a solid margin in the electoral college and a much slimmer margin in the popular vote…

Interesting Fact : In Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas Carter was only beaten by Reagan by less than 1% ! and in North Carolina , Kentucky, South Carolina, New York, Mississippi and Maine Carter lost by comparatively slim margins… Carter was probably the last Democrat to perform best in the south at a national level… amazing how things change…                

[Gustaf]

I don't see how Kennedy would've stood any chance at all. Reagan would have abolutely wiped him in the South and would still have retained the old GOP West. I see Reagan winning about as big as he did v Carter.

Afraid I don’t agree… while I see Reagan edging Kennedy out by say 2-3% I can see the race being even more volatile than it was between Reagan and Carter… Kennedy would have been less strong in the south but with a southern running mate he could have been competitive (more competive than Kerry in November anyway), nationally Kennedy would have given the democrats a new “leas of life” and probably won the north east and New York and still been competive in the Midwest… however Reagan would probably have swept the west and south and despite Kennedy winning in some of the Midwest and the north east (and possibly even picking up some southern states) he would have lost by a solid margin in the electoral college and a much slimmer margin in the popular vote…

Interesting Fact : In Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas Carter was only beaten by Reagan by less than 1% ! and in North Carolina , Kentucky, South Carolina, New York, Mississippi and Maine Carter lost by comparatively slim margins… Carter was probably the last Democrat to perform best in the south at a national level… amazing how things change…                

Map of 1980 election. Red states are where Carter overperformed, i.e. states he would've won if it had been exactly 50-50. The blue states are Reagan's. I don't see why Ted 'let's leave my mistress to drown' Kennedy would've done much better than Carter. And I repeat that I think it was almost impossible for a Democrat to win without the South until the 90s. And I don't see Kennedy winning the South, plain and simple.

[© tweed]

I don't see how Kennedy would've stood any chance at all. Reagan would have abolutely wiped him in the South and would still have retained the old GOP West. I see Reagan winning about as big as he did v Carter.

Afraid I don’t agree… while I see Reagan edging Kennedy out by say 2-3% I can see the race being even more volatile than it was between Reagan and Carter… Kennedy would have been less strong in the south but with a southern running mate he could have been competitive (more competive than Kerry in November anyway), nationally Kennedy would have given the democrats a new “leas of life” and probably won the north east and New York and still been competive in the Midwest… however Reagan would probably have swept the west and south and despite Kennedy winning in some of the Midwest and the north east (and possibly even picking up some southern states) he would have lost by a solid margin in the electoral college and a much slimmer margin in the popular vote…

Interesting Fact : In Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas Carter was only beaten by Reagan by less than 1% ! and in North Carolina , Kentucky, South Carolina, New York, Mississippi and Maine Carter lost by comparatively slim margins… Carter was probably the last Democrat to perform best in the south at a national level… amazing how things change…                

Map of 1980 election. Red states are where Carter overperformed, i.e. states he would've won if it had been exactly 50-50. The blue states are Reagan's. I don't see why Ted 'let's leave my mistress to drown' Kennedy would've done much better than Carter. And I repeat that I think it was almost impossible for a Democrat to win without the South until the 90s. And I don't see Kennedy winning the South, plain and simple.

Didn't he let his mistress drown after he ran for pres?

[Gustaf]

I don't see how Kennedy would've stood any chance at all. Reagan would have abolutely wiped him in the South and would still have retained the old GOP West. I see Reagan winning about as big as he did v Carter.

Afraid I don’t agree… while I see Reagan edging Kennedy out by say 2-3% I can see the race being even more volatile than it was between Reagan and Carter… Kennedy would have been less strong in the south but with a southern running mate he could have been competitive (more competive than Kerry in November anyway), nationally Kennedy would have given the democrats a new “leas of life” and probably won the north east and New York and still been competive in the Midwest… however Reagan would probably have swept the west and south and despite Kennedy winning in some of the Midwest and the north east (and possibly even picking up some southern states) he would have lost by a solid margin in the electoral college and a much slimmer margin in the popular vote…

Interesting Fact : In Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas Carter was only beaten by Reagan by less than 1% ! and in North Carolina , Kentucky, South Carolina, New York, Mississippi and Maine Carter lost by comparatively slim margins… Carter was probably the last Democrat to perform best in the south at a national level… amazing how things change…                

Map of 1980 election. Red states are where Carter overperformed, i.e. states he would've won if it had been exactly 50-50. The blue states are Reagan's. I don't see why Ted 'let's leave my mistress to drown' Kennedy would've done much better than Carter. And I repeat that I think it was almost impossible for a Democrat to win without the South until the 90s. And I don't see Kennedy winning the South, plain and simple.

Didn't he let his mistress drown after he ran for pres?

No, I think it was in the late 60s...one of the reasons why Ted Kennedy didn't run for the nomination in 1976.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't see how Kennedy would've stood any chance at all. Reagan would have abolutely wiped him in the South and would still have retained the old GOP West. I see Reagan winning about as big as he did v Carter.

Interesting Fact : In Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas Carter was only beaten by Reagan by less than 1% ! and in North Carolina , Kentucky, South Carolina, New York, Mississippi and Maine Carter lost by comparatively slim margins… Carter was probably the last Democrat to perform best in the south at a national level… amazing how things change…        

Actually the fact that the Dems are still competative in the South would have amazed people after the Civil Rights act was signed... look at the results in the Deep South in '64, '68 and '72.
Carter probably saved the Democratic Party as a national force...

[Gustaf]

I don't see how Kennedy would've stood any chance at all. Reagan would have abolutely wiped him in the South and would still have retained the old GOP West. I see Reagan winning about as big as he did v Carter.

Interesting Fact : In Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas Carter was only beaten by Reagan by less than 1% ! and in North Carolina , Kentucky, South Carolina, New York, Mississippi and Maine Carter lost by comparatively slim margins… Carter was probably the last Democrat to perform best in the south at a national level… amazing how things change…        

Actually the fact that the Dems are still competative in the South would have amazed people after the Civil Rights act was signed... look at the results in the Deep South in '64, '68 and '72.
Carter probably saved the Democratic Party as a national force...

Yeah, the Dems were kind of lost after they lost the South, since they didn't have an electoral base to run with. Only Carter, who restored the Solid South, managed to win during the period 1968-1988. 2 decades...even though I *THINK* Dukakis might have won, that's when the demographics put the Dems back into it.