What If John B. Anderson won the 1980 Republican Nomination?

[Vidal]

Good point though I could see him being a cabinet pick for Anderson. Also how could we remove some of the other moderate candidates such as Baker?

I don't know that you really need to. Anderson burst into the front of the pack post-NH. By that point, Baker was gone.

I think the path for Anderson is something like this:

1) Connally invests significantly in Iowa and New Hampshire at the start and also pitches himself as a candidate for the Moral Majority. This isn't actually implausible. Iowa was Connally's original strategy and he was considered the runner-up among Evangelicals. He had a great relationship with Billy Graham.

2) Connally goes on to win Iowa, Bush comes in second, and Reagan comes in third. The Reagan campaign is shocked. The entire race is flipped on its head. If Connally wins Iowa, you've butterflied Reagan's comeback to an extent because there isn't going to be an opportunity for a two-man debate, in which Reagan can repeat his iconic microphone demand. With three serious contenders, there'd be no real impetus for the debate debacle in the first place. Instead, you'd likely have a standard NH debate with the major candidates (Connally, Reagan, Bush, Crane, Baker, Dole, Anderson).

3) Reagan had a lot of structural advantages in NH. His politics made sense for the state's electorate. The state's primary traditionally supports the underdog and resets the narrative of the race. All of this helps Reagan. That said, his campaign will be badly damaged from IA and there's no debate moment ITTL and so you get a scenario where Reagan wins but barely. Bush comes in second. Connally takes third. Now, Dole, Crane, and Baker are essentially "nobodies" in the race. They fade into oblivion as per OTL and the press begins its OTL infatuation with Anderson as it begins to hit Connally with negative stories.

4) South Carolina is the hard part. Your most plausible scenario is for Bush to stay out of South Carolina altogether (which was his original plan) because his campaign won't be as on strong footing as OTL so he'll be less cocky. But that actually hurts Anderson. It's not totally unrealistic for Bush to still compete there, thinking Connally/Reagan will split the conservative vote and he can come up the middle. In fact, if Connally is stronger than OTL he may be more compelled to do this. The money and time spent in SC will not yield dividends for Bush ITTL, just like OTL.

5) Meanwhile, Anderson strikes. He BEATS Bush in MA while the candidate is off throwing away his chances in SC. And he wins Vermont the same day. He came very close in both states IOTL so this isn't a stretch in a weakened Bush scenario. Now, Anderson's won VT and MA. Bush has won zero.

6) Connally wins South Carolina and Florida right afterwards. Now, Reagan's basically dead in the water. But for a lot of voters, Connally isn't a good nominee. He's seen as corrupt and tied to Nixon. Conservatives split between Connally and Reagan. A lot of voters want Bush instead, but they worry he's not capable of winning. Super Tuesday is nearing and he hasn't won a contest. Anderson's to their left, but they'd prefer him to Connally or Reagan. On March 18, Anderson delivers a crushing below to the rest of the field, taking the Illinois primary. Reagan in a distant second. Bush in a distant third.

7) At this point, Reagan and Bush hobble along but neither has actually won. Reagan's planning to go to the convention, but his campaign's basically going to be out of money at this point -- so I don't know how he can. Bush has a big cash advantage, but voters aren't buying what he's selling and are worried about electability. All the money he spends trashing Connally and Reagan actually benefits Anderson more than it does him.

8) In a very messy and exhausting campaign, Reagan and eventually Bush drop and Anderson and Connally are left for a two-man show. Anderson clinches the nomination by taking California's WTA primary. It's a bloodbath at the convention. They try to make it open and get Reagan or even Ford on the ballot in that way, but they're not successful. Bush throws his support behind Anderson, knowing it's his best chance at a cabinet spot. Helms organizes a walk-out and vows to run a third party bid. Anderson probably taps Lugar or Van Der Jagt as his running mate. If he and Laxalt can stomach each other, they maket the most sense in terms of ideological balance but it seems more likely to me Laxalt walks out with Helms. Van Der Jagt could run with Helms, too.

 

[Joseph Weaver]

I don't know that you really need to. Anderson burst into the front of the pack post-NH. By that point, Baker was gone.

I think the path for Anderson is something like this:

1) Connally invests significantly in Iowa and New Hampshire at the start and also pitches himself as a candidate for the Moral Majority. This isn't actually implausible. Iowa was Connally's original strategy and he was considered the runner-up among Evangelicals. He had a great relationship with Billy Graham.

2) Connally goes on to win Iowa, Bush comes in second, and Reagan comes in third. The Reagan campaign is shocked. The entire race is flipped on its head. If Connally wins Iowa, you've butterflied Reagan's comeback to an extent because there isn't going to be an opportunity for a two-man debate, in which Reagan can repeat his iconic microphone demand. With three serious contenders, there'd be no real impetus for the debate debacle in the first place. Instead, you'd likely have a standard NH debate with the major candidates (Connally, Reagan, Bush, Crane, Baker, Dole, Anderson).

3) Reagan had a lot of structural advantages in NH. His politics made sense for the state's electorate. The state's primary traditionally supports the underdog and resets the narrative of the race. All of this helps Reagan. That said, his campaign will be badly damaged from IA and there's no debate moment ITTL and so you get a scenario where Reagan wins but barely. Bush comes in second. Connally takes third. Now, Dole, Crane, and Baker are essentially "nobodies" in the race. They fade into oblivion as per OTL and the press begins its OTL infatuation with Anderson as it begins to hit Connally with negative stories.

4) South Carolina is the hard part. Your most plausible scenario is for Bush to stay out of South Carolina altogether (which was his original plan) because his campaign won't be as on strong footing as OTL so he'll be less cocky. But that actually hurts Anderson. It's not totally unrealistic for Bush to still compete there, thinking Connally/Reagan will split the conservative vote and he can come up the middle. In fact, if Connally is stronger than OTL he may be more compelled to do this. The money and time spent in SC will not yield dividends for Bush ITTL, just like OTL.

5) Meanwhile, Anderson strikes. He BEATS Bush in MA while the candidate is off throwing away his chances in SC. And he wins Vermont the same day. He came very close in both states IOTL so this isn't a stretch in a weakened Bush scenario. Now, Anderson's won VT and MA. Bush has won zero.

6) Connally wins South Carolina and Florida right afterwards. Now, Reagan's basically dead in the water. But for a lot of voters, Connally isn't a good nominee. He's seen as corrupt and tied to Nixon. Conservatives split between Connally and Reagan. A lot of voters want Bush instead, but they worry he's not capable of winning. Super Tuesday is nearing and he hasn't won a contest. Anderson's to their left, but they'd prefer him to Connally or Reagan. On March 18, Anderson delivers a crushing below to the rest of the field, taking the Illinois primary. Reagan in a distant second. Bush in a distant third.

7) At this point, Reagan and Bush hobble along but neither has actually won. Reagan's planning to go to the convention, but his campaign's basically going to be out of money at this point -- so I don't know how he can. Bush has a big cash advantage, but voters aren't buying what he's selling and are worried about electability. All the money he spends trashing Connally and Reagan actually benefits Anderson more than it does him.

8) In a very messy and exhausting campaign, Reagan and eventually Bush drop and Anderson and Connally are left for a two-man show. Anderson clinches the nomination by taking California's WTA primary. It's a bloodbath at the convention. They try to make it open and get Reagan or even Ford on the ballot in that way, but they're not successful. Bush throws his support behind Anderson, knowing it's his best chance at a cabinet spot. Helms organizes a walk-out and vows to run a third party bid. Anderson probably taps Lugar or Van Der Jagt as his running mate. If he and Laxalt can stomach each other, they maket the most sense in terms of ideological balance but it seems more likely to me Laxalt walks out with Helms. Van Der Jagt could run with Helms, too.

What does the race between Anderson, Carter, and Helms look like? Does Anderson win or does Carter beat him with the split? What does Anderson's time in office look like? Also damn do the conservatives hate Anderson or what.

 

[GrandMaster]

A rise in libertarianism within the United States will ensue.

 

[TimTurner]

I don't know that you really need to. Anderson burst into the front of the pack post-NH. By that point, Baker was gone.

I think the path for Anderson is something like this:

1) Connally invests significantly in Iowa and New Hampshire at the start and also pitches himself as a candidate for the Moral Majority. This isn't actually implausible. Iowa was Connally's original strategy and he was considered the runner-up among Evangelicals. He had a great relationship with Billy Graham.

2) Connally goes on to win Iowa, Bush comes in second, and Reagan comes in third. The Reagan campaign is shocked. The entire race is flipped on its head. If Connally wins Iowa, you've butterflied Reagan's comeback to an extent because there isn't going to be an opportunity for a two-man debate, in which Reagan can repeat his iconic microphone demand. With three serious contenders, there'd be no real impetus for the debate debacle in the first place. Instead, you'd likely have a standard NH debate with the major candidates (Connally, Reagan, Bush, Crane, Baker, Dole, Anderson).

3) Reagan had a lot of structural advantages in NH. His politics made sense for the state's electorate. The state's primary traditionally supports the underdog and resets the narrative of the race. All of this helps Reagan. That said, his campaign will be badly damaged from IA and there's no debate moment ITTL and so you get a scenario where Reagan wins but barely. Bush comes in second. Connally takes third. Now, Dole, Crane, and Baker are essentially "nobodies" in the race. They fade into oblivion as per OTL and the press begins its OTL infatuation with Anderson as it begins to hit Connally with negative stories.

4) South Carolina is the hard part. Your most plausible scenario is for Bush to stay out of South Carolina altogether (which was his original plan) because his campaign won't be as on strong footing as OTL so he'll be less cocky. But that actually hurts Anderson. It's not totally unrealistic for Bush to still compete there, thinking Connally/Reagan will split the conservative vote and he can come up the middle. In fact, if Connally is stronger than OTL he may be more compelled to do this. The money and time spent in SC will not yield dividends for Bush ITTL, just like OTL.

5) Meanwhile, Anderson strikes. He BEATS Bush in MA while the candidate is off throwing away his chances in SC. And he wins Vermont the same day. He came very close in both states IOTL so this isn't a stretch in a weakened Bush scenario. Now, Anderson's won VT and MA. Bush has won zero.

6) Connally wins South Carolina and Florida right afterwards. Now, Reagan's basically dead in the water. But for a lot of voters, Connally isn't a good nominee. He's seen as corrupt and tied to Nixon. Conservatives split between Connally and Reagan. A lot of voters want Bush instead, but they worry he's not capable of winning. Super Tuesday is nearing and he hasn't won a contest. Anderson's to their left, but they'd prefer him to Connally or Reagan. On March 18, Anderson delivers a crushing below to the rest of the field, taking the Illinois primary. Reagan in a distant second. Bush in a distant third.

7) At this point, Reagan and Bush hobble along but neither has actually won. Reagan's planning to go to the convention, but his campaign's basically going to be out of money at this point -- so I don't know how he can. Bush has a big cash advantage, but voters aren't buying what he's selling and are worried about electability. All the money he spends trashing Connally and Reagan actually benefits Anderson more than it does him.

8) In a very messy and exhausting campaign, Reagan and eventually Bush drop and Anderson and Connally are left for a two-man show. Anderson clinches the nomination by taking California's WTA primary. It's a bloodbath at the convention. They try to make it open and get Reagan or even Ford on the ballot in that way, but they're not successful. Bush throws his support behind Anderson, knowing it's his best chance at a cabinet spot. Helms organizes a walk-out and vows to run a third party bid. Anderson probably taps Lugar or Van Der Jagt as his running mate. If he and Laxalt can stomach each other, they maket the most sense in terms of ideological balance but it seems more likely to me Laxalt walks out with Helms. Van Der Jagt could run with Helms, too.

Good post.

 

[glenn67]

What does the race between Anderson, Carter, and Helms look like? Does Anderson win or does Carter beat him with the split? What does Anderson's time in office look like? Also damn do the conservatives hate Anderson or what.

I can envision Helms giving that "I believe in states rights" speech in Mississippi (Reagan's OTL speech). Anderson will never give such a speech. Carter definitely not.

 

[CountDVB]

A rise in libertarianism within the United States will ensue.

Depends on who comes after Anderson, especially with the Democrats, though

 

[balllightning]

In a Reagan-less race between Anderson and a moderate conservative like Bush, Bush would win the primaries without much difficulty.

Do you mind if you elaborate why?

 

[David T]

Do you mind if you elaborate why?

Becuase the great majority of GOP primary voters were to the right of Anderson. In 1976, even the invumbent president, Gerlad Ford, was considered tpo liberal by a large minority of Republicans. In 1980, a majoroty considered Bush too liberal. Anderson by 1980 was well to the left of both Ford and Bush.

I just cannot see a Reagan voter--and Reagan after all won the majority of the GOP vote in 1980--preferring Anderson to Bush.

 

[Ditzy Vixen (RossN)]

In the unlikely event of Anderson winning the nomination I think Carter is looking at an easy win in November.

Conservative Republican voters - and even in 1980 that is a huge chunk of the party - just aren't going to turn out for someone well to the left of the party and while Anderson might gain some well educated liberals that isn't a big enough gain.

 

[President Benedict Arnold]

Becuase the great majority of GOP primary voters were to the right of Anderson. In 1976, even the invumbent president, Gerlad Ford, was considered tpo liberal by a large minority of Republicans. In 1980, a majoroty considered Bush too liberal. Anderson by 1980 was well to the left of both Ford and Bush.

I just cannot see a Reagan voter--and Reagan after all won the majority of the GOP vote in 1980--preferring Anderson to Bush.

In the unlikely event of Anderson winning the nomination I think Carter is looking at an easy win in November.

Conservative Republican voters - and even in 1980 that is a huge chunk of the party - just aren't going to turn out for someone well to the left of the party and while Anderson might gain some well educated liberals that isn't a big enough gain.

While Anderson would clearly have a much reduced margin compared to Reagan, he could still pull it off. Reagan won by a nearly 10-point landslide with Anderson taking 6.6% of the mostly liberal Republican vote. I think the idea of Carter having an easy time against any candidate to be totally ridiculous. Have you read about his term in office? As the incumbent president he only got 41% of the vote in 1980 and had over 5,000,000 less votes than in 1976. Whatever dissatisfaction Republicans might have with Anderson doesn't compare with the American people's dissatisfaction with Carter.

Remember that even with all of the dissent in his party, Gerald Ford won 89% of self-identified Republicans, a much larger margin than Carter with Democrats. Republican Party affiliation was also at an all time low, which makes me think that the party could have had the easiest time redefining itself since the 1940s-50s.

IMO, the absolutely worst Anderson could do as the nominee is narrowly lose to Carter with a conservative third party candidate.

I don't know that you really need to. Anderson burst into the front of the pack post-NH. By that point, Baker was gone.

I think the path for Anderson is something like this:

1) Connally invests significantly in Iowa and New Hampshire at the start and also pitches himself as a candidate for the Moral Majority. This isn't actually implausible. Iowa was Connally's original strategy and he was considered the runner-up among Evangelicals. He had a great relationship with Billy Graham.

2) Connally goes on to win Iowa, Bush comes in second, and Reagan comes in third. The Reagan campaign is shocked. The entire race is flipped on its head. If Connally wins Iowa, you've butterflied Reagan's comeback to an extent because there isn't going to be an opportunity for a two-man debate, in which Reagan can repeat his iconic microphone demand. With three serious contenders, there'd be no real impetus for the debate debacle in the first place. Instead, you'd likely have a standard NH debate with the major candidates (Connally, Reagan, Bush, Crane, Baker, Dole, Anderson).

3) Reagan had a lot of structural advantages in NH. His politics made sense for the state's electorate. The state's primary traditionally supports the underdog and resets the narrative of the race. All of this helps Reagan. That said, his campaign will be badly damaged from IA and there's no debate moment ITTL and so you get a scenario where Reagan wins but barely. Bush comes in second. Connally takes third. Now, Dole, Crane, and Baker are essentially "nobodies" in the race. They fade into oblivion as per OTL and the press begins its OTL infatuation with Anderson as it begins to hit Connally with negative stories.

4) South Carolina is the hard part. Your most plausible scenario is for Bush to stay out of South Carolina altogether (which was his original plan) because his campaign won't be as on strong footing as OTL so he'll be less cocky. But that actually hurts Anderson. It's not totally unrealistic for Bush to still compete there, thinking Connally/Reagan will split the conservative vote and he can come up the middle. In fact, if Connally is stronger than OTL he may be more compelled to do this. The money and time spent in SC will not yield dividends for Bush ITTL, just like OTL.

5) Meanwhile, Anderson strikes. He BEATS Bush in MA while the candidate is off throwing away his chances in SC. And he wins Vermont the same day. He came very close in both states IOTL so this isn't a stretch in a weakened Bush scenario. Now, Anderson's won VT and MA. Bush has won zero.

6) Connally wins South Carolina and Florida right afterwards. Now, Reagan's basically dead in the water. But for a lot of voters, Connally isn't a good nominee. He's seen as corrupt and tied to Nixon. Conservatives split between Connally and Reagan. A lot of voters want Bush instead, but they worry he's not capable of winning. Super Tuesday is nearing and he hasn't won a contest. Anderson's to their left, but they'd prefer him to Connally or Reagan. On March 18, Anderson delivers a crushing below to the rest of the field, taking the Illinois primary. Reagan in a distant second. Bush in a distant third.

7) At this point, Reagan and Bush hobble along but neither has actually won. Reagan's planning to go to the convention, but his campaign's basically going to be out of money at this point -- so I don't know how he can. Bush has a big cash advantage, but voters aren't buying what he's selling and are worried about electability. All the money he spends trashing Connally and Reagan actually benefits Anderson more than it does him.

8) In a very messy and exhausting campaign, Reagan and eventually Bush drop and Anderson and Connally are left for a two-man show. Anderson clinches the nomination by taking California's WTA primary. It's a bloodbath at the convention. They try to make it open and get Reagan or even Ford on the ballot in that way, but they're not successful. Bush throws his support behind Anderson, knowing it's his best chance at a cabinet spot. Helms organizes a walk-out and vows to run a third party bid. Anderson probably taps Lugar or Van Der Jagt as his running mate. If he and Laxalt can stomach each other, they maket the most sense in terms of ideological balance but it seems more likely to me Laxalt walks out with Helms. Van Der Jagt could run with Helms, too.

Going off of your premise, lets say John Anderson picks Paul Laxalt as his Vice President and he accepts. Laxalt would give regional and ideological balance to Anderson, while also seeming to be a peace offering to his close friend, Ronald Reagan. Regan himself might endorse this ticket, which could get plenty of conservative-leaning voters to hold their nose, if only to get Jimmy Carter out of office. The people Carter pissed off the most during his term are evangelicals for enforcing desegregation as a matter of tax status, suburbanites who like when the economy is good and they can gas up their cars, and anybody angered or embarrassed by the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Of those, evangelicals and warhawks would be the least natural fit into Anderson's electoral coalition, so I agree in the almost inevitability of a conservative third party candidate.

Jesse Helms would be interesting, though he was controversial and not widely liked. In his home state, he only won one race by more than 10%, despite having served for 30 years. Almost every election for him was fairly close for a longtime incumbent, reflecting a somewhat narrow appeal:
1972 - 54.01-45.99 (margin 8.02)
1978 - 54.51-45.49 (margin 9.02)
1984 - 51.66-47.81 (margin 3.85) [Reagan won the state 61.90-37.89 in the same election]
1990 - 52.58-47.39 (margin 5.19) [first faced off against Harvey Gantt]
1996 - 55.89-42.68 (margin 13.21) [faced off against Harvey Gantt again in a poor attempt to reverse the 1990 election]

In 1976, he backed Regan but came out in support of Ford in the general election when conservatives were given a lot of say on the party's platform. I think Anderson would fall short of those expectations for Helms, so I am going to assume he is the candidate. I think establishing that his appeal is narrower than average among longtime Republican Senators is important to establishing how he will do in the general election. He was a radio host before he was a politician and had a lot of very controversial statements on the record. He was a loudmouth opponent to everything that furthered racial justice in this country, supporting Dixicrats in the 1950s like Willis Smith, who ran on his opposition to interracial marriage and calling the Civil Rights Act "the single most dangerous piece of legislation" that was ever introduced to Congress. He also filibustered the adoption of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which Reagan would sign into law in 1983. All of this except the MLK Day filibuster happened well before the 1980 election and will be common knowledge. As a third party candidate, Helms would be a Republican version of George Wallace in 1968 in almost every way. Evangelicals who can't stand Carter for what he did and would never have supported Anderson would be most receptive to Helms, but his overt racism can give him a lower ceiling than if somebody who wasn't that racist was the candidate. With Reagan behind Anderson-Laxalt, I can't really see who else they could rally behind. Still, I would say there are more conservatives and people comfortable voting for a racist than there are people who voted for John Anderson in IOTL 1980, so I'm picturing these as the margins:
Anderson-Laxalt 45-46%
Carter-Mondale 44-45%
Helms-??? 8-10%

This could throw the Electoral College in wildly different directions, depending on the distribution of votes. I wouldn't be surprised if Helms was the main opposition to Carter in much of the Deep South, perhaps slowing or even stopping the Republican Party's gains in that region.

Edit: My "O" button needs an extra hard press apparently.

 

[Ditzy Vixen (RossN)]

While Anderson would clearly have a much reduced margin compared to Reagan, he could still pull it off. Reagan won by a nearly 10-point landslide with Anderson taking 6.6% of the mostly liberal Republican vote. I think the idea of Carter having an easy time against any candidate to be totally ridiculous. Have you read about his term in office? As the incumbent president he only got 41% of the vote in 1980 and had over 5,000,000 less votes than in 1976. Whatever dissatisfaction Republicans might have with Anderson doesn't compare with the American people's dissatisfaction with Carter.

Remember that even with all of the dissent in his party, Gerald Ford won 89% of self-identified Republicans, a much larger margin than Carter with Democrats. Republican Party affiliation was also at an all time low, which makes me think that the party could have had the easiest time redefining itself since the 1940s-50s.

IMO, the absolutely worst Anderson could do as the nominee is narrowly lose to Carter with a conservative third party candidate.

Going off of your premise, lets say John Anderson picks Paul Laxalt as his Vice President and he accepts. Laxalt would give regional and ideological balance to Anderson, while also seeming to be a peace offering to his close friend, Ronald Reagan. Regan himself might endorse this ticket, which could get plenty of conservative-leaning voters to hold their nose, if only to get Jimmy Carter out of office. The people Carter pissed off the most during his term are evangelicals for enforcing desegregation as a matter of tax status, suburbanites who like when the economy is good and they can gas up their cars, and anybody angered or embarrassed by the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Of those, evangelicals and warhawks would be the least natural fit into Anderson's electoral coalition, so I agree in the almost inevitability of a conservative third party candidate.

Jesse Helms would be interesting, though he was controversial and not widely liked. In his home state, he only won one race by more than 10%, despite having served for 30 years. Almost every election for him was fairly close for a longtime incumbent, reflecting a somewhat narrow appeal:
1972 - 54.01-45.99 (margin 8.02)
1978 - 54.51-45.49 (margin 9.02)
1984 - 51.66-47.81 (margin 3.85) [Reagan won the state 61.90-37.89 in the same election]
1990 - 52.58-47.39 (margin 5.19) [first faced off against Harvey Gantt]
1996 - 55.89-42.68 (margin 13.21) [faced off against Harvey Gantt again in a poor attempt to reverse the 1990 election]

In 1976, he backed Regan but came out in support of Ford in the general election when conservatives were given a lot of say on the party's platform. I think Anderson would fall short of those expectations for Helms, so I am going to assume he is the candidate. I think establishing that his appeal is narrower than average among longtime Republican Senators is important to establishing how he will do in the general election. He was a radio host before he was a politician and had a lot of very controversial statements on the record. He was a loudmouth opponent to everything that furthered racial justice in this country, supporting Dixicrats in the 1950s like Willis Smith, who ran on his opposition to interracial marriage and calling the Civil Rights Act "the single most dangerous piece of legislation" that was ever introduced to Congress. He also filibustered the adoption of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which Reagan would sign into law in 1983. All of this except the MLK Day filibuster happened well before the 1980 election and will be common knowledge. As a third party candidate, Helms would be a Republican version of George Wallace in 1968 in almost every way. Evangelicals who can't stand Carter for what he did and would never have supported Anderson would be most receptive to Helms, but his overt racism can give him a lower ceiling than if somebody who wasn't that racist was the candidate. With Reagan behind Anderson-Laxalt, I can't really see who else they could rally behind. Still, I would say there are more conservatives and people comfortable voting for a racist than there are people who voted for John Anderson in IOTL 1980, so I'm picturing these as the margins:
Anderson-Laxalt 45-46%
Carter-Mondale 44-45%
Helms-??? 8-10%

This could throw the Electoral College in wildly different directions, depending on the distribution of votes. I wouldn't be surprised if Helms was the main opposition to Carter in much of the Deep South, perhaps slowing or even stopping the Republican Party's gains in that region.

Edit: My "O" button needs an extra hard press apparently.

Reagan is not going to endorse Anderson, a man with whom he disagreed with almost everything and whatever their dislike of Carter conservatives are not going to back the guy running to his left on social issues. Millions of those who voted for Reagan in OTL are going to take one look at the candidates and stay at home, including a lot of the socially conservative 'Reagan Democrats'.

Carter probably wouldn't win on a landslide without a third party conservative run, but I think he'd see a convincing victory over Anderson even in a straight fight.

 

[glenn67]

While Anderson would clearly have a much reduced margin compared to Reagan, he could still pull it off. Reagan won by a nearly 10-point landslide with Anderson taking 6.6% of the mostly liberal Republican vote. I think the idea of Carter having an easy time against any candidate to be totally ridiculous. Have you read about his term in office? As the incumbent president he only got 41% of the vote in 1980 and had over 5,000,000 less votes than in 1976. Whatever dissatisfaction Republicans might have with Anderson doesn't compare with the American people's dissatisfaction with Carter.

Remember that even with all of the dissent in his party, Gerald Ford won 89% of self-identified Republicans, a much larger margin than Carter with Democrats. Republican Party affiliation was also at an all time low, which makes me think that the party could have had the easiest time redefining itself since the 1940s-50s.

IMO, the absolutely worst Anderson could do as the nominee is narrowly lose to Carter with a conservative third party candidate.

Going off of your premise, lets say John Anderson picks Paul Laxalt as his Vice President and he accepts. Laxalt would give regional and ideological balance to Anderson, while also seeming to be a peace offering to his close friend, Ronald Reagan. Regan himself might endorse this ticket, which could get plenty of conservative-leaning voters to hold their nose, if only to get Jimmy Carter out of office. The people Carter pissed off the most during his term are evangelicals for enforcing desegregation as a matter of tax status, suburbanites who like when the economy is good and they can gas up their cars, and anybody angered or embarrassed by the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Of those, evangelicals and warhawks would be the least natural fit into Anderson's electoral coalition, so I agree in the almost inevitability of a conservative third party candidate.

Jesse Helms would be interesting, though he was controversial and not widely liked. In his home state, he only won one race by more than 10%, despite having served for 30 years. Almost every election for him was fairly close for a longtime incumbent, reflecting a somewhat narrow appeal:
1972 - 54.01-45.99 (margin 8.02)
1978 - 54.51-45.49 (margin 9.02)
1984 - 51.66-47.81 (margin 3.85) [Reagan won the state 61.90-37.89 in the same election]
1990 - 52.58-47.39 (margin 5.19) [first faced off against Harvey Gantt]
1996 - 55.89-42.68 (margin 13.21) [faced off against Harvey Gantt again in a poor attempt to reverse the 1990 election]

In 1976, he backed Regan but came out in support of Ford in the general election when conservatives were given a lot of say on the party's platform. I think Anderson would fall short of those expectations for Helms, so I am going to assume he is the candidate. I think establishing that his appeal is narrower than average among longtime Republican Senators is important to establishing how he will do in the general election. He was a radio host before he was a politician and had a lot of very controversial statements on the record. He was a loudmouth opponent to everything that furthered racial justice in this country, supporting Dixicrats in the 1950s like Willis Smith, who ran on his opposition to interracial marriage and calling the Civil Rights Act "the single most dangerous piece of legislation" that was ever introduced to Congress. He also filibustered the adoption of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which Reagan would sign into law in 1983. All of this except the MLK Day filibuster happened well before the 1980 election and will be common knowledge. As a third party candidate, Helms would be a Republican version of George Wallace in 1968 in almost every way. Evangelicals who can't stand Carter for what he did and would never have supported Anderson would be most receptive to Helms, but his overt racism can give him a lower ceiling than if somebody who wasn't that racist was the candidate. With Reagan behind Anderson-Laxalt, I can't really see who else they could rally behind. Still, I would say there are more conservatives and people comfortable voting for a racist than there are people who voted for John Anderson in IOTL 1980, so I'm picturing these as the margins:
Anderson-Laxalt 45-46%
Carter-Mondale 44-45%
Helms-??? 8-10%

This could throw the Electoral College in wildly different directions, depending on the distribution of votes. I wouldn't be surprised if Helms was the main opposition to Carter in much of the Deep South, perhaps slowing or even stopping the Republican Party's gains in that region.

Edit: My "O" button needs an extra hard press apparently.

If Helms campaigns in Mississippi and gives his version of Reagan's "I believe in states rights" speech, the audience will cheer and rebel yell.

Anderson will definitely never make that speech. And neither will Carter.

 

[President Benedict Arnold]

Reagan is not going to endorse Anderson, a man with whom he disagreed with almost everything

I don't agree, that would be totally outside of Reagan's character, especially if Anderson picked a close friend of his as Vice President. In 1968, Rockefeller and Reagan tried to make a unity ticket happen. Unless you can explain away why Reagan would agree to be Vice President to the man who was said to embody the Eastern Establishment, why would he suddenly be a mouth frothing radical?

and whatever their dislike of Carter conservatives are not going to back the guy running to his left on social issues. Millions of those who voted for Reagan in OTL are going to take one look at the candidates and stay at home, including a lot of the socially conservative 'Reagan Democrats'.

Carter probably wouldn't win on a landslide without a third party conservative run, but I think he'd see a convincing victory over Anderson even in a straight fight.

I think you have John Anderson completely wrong. He was in no way, shape or form running to the left of Jimmy Carter on social issues, where did you get that idea? Here is a Campaign Brochure from 1980, which presents a straight set of liberal Republican principles. He centers inflation and the economy as his key issues and doesn't present anything radical or to the left of Jimmy Carter. All of his mainstream liberal positions, like supporting the Equal Rights Amendment and some environmentalist policies are in agreement with Carter, not to the left of him.

I think you have an idea of Ronald Regan as an uncompromising ultraconservative and that isn't really him. His biggest fans are, but he was a lot more of a pragmatic politician, especially in races he did not think he could win. You also seem to think that, because John Anderson was willing to run as a third party candidate, he must have some sort of extreme position one way or the other, and he just didn't. He was the Republican Conference Chair from 1971 to 1979, you don't get and hold a position like that if you're to the left of a Democratic President, even if it's Jimmy Carter.

If Helms campaigns in Mississippi and gives his version of Reagan's "I believe in states rights" speech, the audience will cheer and rebel yell.

Anderson will definitely never make that speech. And neither will Carter.

This is true!

That speech really galvanized the southern Democrats behind Reagan in a way that has had huge ramifications since. If Jesse Helms harnessed that energy in a third party campaign, we might see whatever right wing populist party he founds try to become a mainstay in the Deep South, at least for a time.

 

[Ditzy Vixen (RossN)]

I don't agree, that would be totally outside of Reagan's character, especially if Anderson picked a close friend of his as Vice President. In 1968, Rockefeller and Reagan tried to make a unity ticket happen. Unless you can explain away why Reagan would agree to be Vice President to the man who was said to embody the Eastern Establishment, why would he suddenly be a mouth frothing radical?

I suspect we may have different political sympathies, as I'd regard a hypothetical Reagan refusal to endorse Anderson positively.

At any rate Reagan had moved to the right since 1968 and the conservative side of the party had become much more significant. Why would he support a man who wanted to drastically pull the Republicans to the left?

I think you have John Anderson completely wrong. He was in no way, shape or form running to the left of Jimmy Carter on social issues, where did you get that idea? Here is a Campaign Brochure from 1980, which presents a straight set of liberal Republican principles. He centers inflation and the economy as his key issues and doesn't present anything radical or to the left of Jimmy Carter. All of his mainstream liberal positions, like supporting the Equal Rights Amendment and some environmentalist policies are in agreement with Carter, not to the left of him.

I think you have an idea of Ronald Regan as an uncompromising ultraconservative and that isn't really him. His biggest fans are, but he was a lot more of a pragmatic politician, especially in races he did not think he could win. You also seem to think that, because John Anderson was willing to run as a third party candidate, he must have some sort of extreme position one way or the other, and he just didn't. He was the Republican Conference Chair from 1971 to 1979, you don't get and hold a position like that if you're to the left of a Democratic President, even if it's Jimmy Carter.

Anderson in 1980 was far to the left of his stances even in 1971.

And no matter how pragmatic he was why would Reagan support a candidate who would drag the Republicans not only to (IMO) a certain defeat in the general election, but also back in the direction he had fought very hard to steer them away from.

Far better to stay aside, watch Anderson crash and burn and play kingmaker for an actual conservative in 1984.

 

[President Benedict Arnold]

I suspect we may have different political sympathies, as I'd regard a hypothetical Reagan refusal to endorse Anderson positively.

At any rate Reagan had moved to the right since 1968 and the conservative side of the party had become much more significant. Why would he support a man who wanted to drastically pull the Republicans to the left?



Anderson in 1980 was far to the left of his stances even in 1971.

And no matter how pragmatic he was why would Reagan support a candidate who would drag the Republicans not only to (IMO) a certain defeat in the general election, but also back in the direction he had fought very hard to steer them away from.

Far better to stay aside, watch Anderson crash and burn and play kingmaker for an actual conservative in 1984.

My own politics have nothing to do with anything I said, bucko. Do you typically let your political beliefs or your assumption of the political beliefs of others color your reading of history?

You present no information to back up your substantial claims. Reagan did not move right from ‘68 to ‘80 in any significant way. If anything, he moderated his message and rhetoric from ‘76 to ‘80 to try to become a more reconcilatory figure.

You keep talking about John Anderson like you think he was running a left wing campaign in ‘80, I already showed you why that’s incorrect.

When I talk about history, I deal in facts, not whatever this is. Bye

 

[Joseph Weaver]

While Anderson would clearly have a much reduced margin compared to Reagan, he could still pull it off. Reagan won by a nearly 10-point landslide with Anderson taking 6.6% of the mostly liberal Republican vote. I think the idea of Carter having an easy time against any candidate to be totally ridiculous. Have you read about his term in office? As the incumbent president he only got 41% of the vote in 1980 and had over 5,000,000 less votes than in 1976. Whatever dissatisfaction Republicans might have with Anderson doesn't compare with the American people's dissatisfaction with Carter.

Remember that even with all of the dissent in his party, Gerald Ford won 89% of self-identified Republicans, a much larger margin than Carter with Democrats. Republican Party affiliation was also at an all time low, which makes me think that the party could have had the easiest time redefining itself since the 1940s-50s.

IMO, the absolutely worst Anderson could do as the nominee is narrowly lose to Carter with a conservative third party candidate.

Going off of your premise, lets say John Anderson picks Paul Laxalt as his Vice President and he accepts. Laxalt would give regional and ideological balance to Anderson, while also seeming to be a peace offering to his close friend, Ronald Reagan. Regan himself might endorse this ticket, which could get plenty of conservative-leaning voters to hold their nose, if only to get Jimmy Carter out of office. The people Carter pissed off the most during his term are evangelicals for enforcing desegregation as a matter of tax status, suburbanites who like when the economy is good and they can gas up their cars, and anybody angered or embarrassed by the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Of those, evangelicals and warhawks would be the least natural fit into Anderson's electoral coalition, so I agree in the almost inevitability of a conservative third party candidate.

Jesse Helms would be interesting, though he was controversial and not widely liked. In his home state, he only won one race by more than 10%, despite having served for 30 years. Almost every election for him was fairly close for a longtime incumbent, reflecting a somewhat narrow appeal:
1972 - 54.01-45.99 (margin 8.02)
1978 - 54.51-45.49 (margin 9.02)
1984 - 51.66-47.81 (margin 3.85) [Reagan won the state 61.90-37.89 in the same election]
1990 - 52.58-47.39 (margin 5.19) [first faced off against Harvey Gantt]
1996 - 55.89-42.68 (margin 13.21) [faced off against Harvey Gantt again in a poor attempt to reverse the 1990 election]

In 1976, he backed Regan but came out in support of Ford in the general election when conservatives were given a lot of say on the party's platform. I think Anderson would fall short of those expectations for Helms, so I am going to assume he is the candidate. I think establishing that his appeal is narrower than average among longtime Republican Senators is important to establishing how he will do in the general election. He was a radio host before he was a politician and had a lot of very controversial statements on the record. He was a loudmouth opponent to everything that furthered racial justice in this country, supporting Dixicrats in the 1950s like Willis Smith, who ran on his opposition to interracial marriage and calling the Civil Rights Act "the single most dangerous piece of legislation" that was ever introduced to Congress. He also filibustered the adoption of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which Reagan would sign into law in 1983. All of this except the MLK Day filibuster happened well before the 1980 election and will be common knowledge. As a third party candidate, Helms would be a Republican version of George Wallace in 1968 in almost every way. Evangelicals who can't stand Carter for what he did and would never have supported Anderson would be most receptive to Helms, but his overt racism can give him a lower ceiling than if somebody who wasn't that racist was the candidate. With Reagan behind Anderson-Laxalt, I can't really see who else they could rally behind. Still, I would say there are more conservatives and people comfortable voting for a racist than there are people who voted for John Anderson in IOTL 1980, so I'm picturing these as the margins:
Anderson-Laxalt 45-46%
Carter-Mondale 44-45%
Helms-??? 8-10%

This could throw the Electoral College in wildly different directions, depending on the distribution of votes. I wouldn't be surprised if Helms was the main opposition to Carter in much of the Deep South, perhaps slowing or even stopping the Republican Party's gains in that region.

Edit: My "O" button needs an extra hard press apparently.

What if Anderson can't get Laxalt to agree to be his running mate?

 

[President Benedict Arnold]

What if Anderson can't get Laxalt to agree to be his running mate?

Eh, not sure then. If Laxalt declined, it would depend on the reason. If it was because he was running for re-election, that's one thing, but if it's because he thought they'd lose, that's another.

I'm not really sure why Laxalt would say no other than thinking they're going to lose. He was a somewhat reluctant politician, with everything I've read on him making it clear he had to be pressured to continue running for office after his first term as governor. Despite being closely associated with the most right wing political coalitions of the time, Laxalt as a US Senator was known for being amicable to anybody, regardless of political or personal differences. Just as an example, he was well liked by Ted Kennedy and Jesse Helms. It'd be a huge loss for Anderson to not get Laxalt. There are some other options, but most of them have some big drawbacks.

My first instinct is to look at other people who were closely associated with the right like Reagan. First name that pops up is Congressman Phil Crane, but it can't be him because he was also from Illinois. Though it is Constitutionally allowed, nobody would want to handicap themselves by making it impossible for your home state to vote for your ticket. Richard Lugar is possible, but he's from the next state over and I don't think he had the profile to overcome that. John Danforth is a non-starter for the same reasons. John Connally could work, especially if he did well in the Republican primary, but I really doubt he'd want it.

As far as candidates I could see being considered, Senate Leader Howard Baker would be on any shortlist, but I don't think he's right wing enough. Bob Dole might work, even if he was on the failed ticket in 1976, but that would certainly hurt him. Despite losing re-election to the Senate in '76, Bill Brock might be a good pick. He was RNC Chair at the time and Reagan liked him enough to make him the US Trade Representative and then Secretary of Labor. I think the man who would simultaneously be the best and worst choice would be former NATO Commander Alexander Haig. Haig was well liked by the right wing and was Reagan's first Secretary of State, but he was also Nixon's Chief of Staff during Watergate. Any association with that will hurt, but if you want a hail Mary gift to the right wing, there aren't a whole lot of other options.

The biggest two Hail Mary choices that Anderson could pick would of course be former President Gerald Ford (as Reagan had considered) and Ronald Reagan himself.

While he would certainly have to reach to the right, the idea that Anderson was some type of loony totally beyond the realm of Republican politics is a silly, modern fantasy. Liberal Republicans weren't a dead breed in 1980, in the Senate you still had Lowell Weicker, Charles Matthias, Jacob Javits, Bob Packwood, and, to a lesser degree, S. I. Hayakawa, Rickard Schweiker, Chuck Percy and John Heinz. Beyond that people like Governor Pete Du Pont and former Commerce Secretary Elliot Richardson were still major figures in the Republican Party. I think it's just very hard for people to imagine a Republican Party that wasn't lockstep and super right wing. That wasn't the case back then and wouldn't be for a long time.

 

[V-J]

If Anderson was so mainstream Republican, then it's odd that he lost so convincingly to Reagan, someone well to his right, including repeatedly losing in the favourable turf of open primaries, (Which would certainly have benefited Anderson, potentially significantly, through cross-over votes) one of which was his own home state of Illinois.

It's almost like what is mainstream is purely relative to what Republican voters would vote for, which evidently wasn't close to being John Anderson.

 

[sciscisciortino]

Maybe if he's picked as Ford's VP, and Squeaky Fromme comes in...

 

[Johnrankins]

Anyone who thinks Carter had a chance at beating anyone in 1980 is deluding themselves. Anyone with a pulse is going to beat Cater in 1980!