WI Anderson wins MA & VE Primaries in 1980

[John Fredrick Parker]

On March 4, 1980, less than a week after Reagan had won New Hampshire, Republicans had primaries in Massachusetts and Vermont; in both of these races, Rep John B Anderson managed to come in a very close second place (practically tying with Bush in MA w 31%, and losing to Reagan in VE 29 to 30%). How might the Republican Presidential Primaries have been affected had he won these states?

And before anyone just tries to say “Reagan still wins” - laying out some grand narrative, boiling the process down to national fundamentals, or just leaving it at that - I’m looking to look at these primaries step by step, state race by state race.

For example, even if Reagan still goes on to win South Carolina, could it have any noticeable impact on the margins? And even if the votes there were unaffected, is it possible that its runner up, John Connally, decides to stay on the race (instead of dropping out March 9)? If he’s around even a few days longer, could this affect the March 11 races in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida? And even if Reagan still safely wins the first two, is it possible that Connally’s presence, combined with enthusiasm for Anderson and scrambling from Bush, could end up costing Reagan the sunshine state?

That’s the kind of play by play I’m talking about. (@Yes ) Other possibilities here are Wisconsin or Maryland, where Reagan OTL’s plurality was distant to combined Bush-Anderson voters; Texas, where Bush OTL only lost by seven points; and the final super day of primaries (which included important states like CA and OH), which OTL were held after Reagan’s last major rival withdrew from the race.

If anybody happens to know what the delegate count for each state was, and how they were appropriated (was it winner take all back then as well?), we could make this play by play even more detailed, talking about who happens to be in the lead when. Maybe (just maybe, mind you) this might even end up with a brokered convention.

If Reagan is still the nominee at the end of all this, that’s fine; it’s still an interesting AH thought exercise, and might even lead him to run a different campaign in the general. Likewise, if someone else is nominated, that might not guarantee that the Republican Party isn’t pulled in the same direction Reagan pulled it OTL; then again, maybe they do. At any rate, I think we can agree that Carter is toast in November regardless of who the GOP picks to challenge him.

What do you guys think?

 

[David T]

If anything, it helps Reagan because for there to be any chance to stop him, Bush has to get all the moderates behind his own candidacy, and the stronger Anderson is, the harder it is to do. Reagan will still win in SC by about the same margin as in OTL and Connally, having staked everything on his performance there, will still withdraw. And yes of course Reagan will still win FL--indeed probably by a bigger margin than in OTL, since Anderson will take some moderate votes that Bush got in OTL, yet will still be way too liberal for some other Bush supporters; indeed, plenty of Bush supporters will go for Reagan if the only alternatives are Reagan and Anderson. (Bush, remember, portrayed himself as a moderate conservative, opposing the Panama Canal Treaty and SALT II, both of which Anderson supported.)

Combining Bush's and Anderson's vote behind Bush is at least somewhat plausible; combining it into an Anderson vote is not. The only real danger for Reagan would be Anderson dropping out, not doing better!

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

@David T A couple of things though - first, couldn’t narrowly losing Massachusetts (in addition to Vermont) end up lighting a fire under the Bush campaign, in a similar fashion that losing Iowa lit a fire under Reagan? Is it at least possible that Bush might have more energetically sought out voters in the South during this time, rather than looking ahead toward more “winnable” states?* (Minor thought on which - was the Cuban exile community already a Republican staple in 1980? If so, would I be correct in guessing they’d be receptive towards Bush in 1980?)

Second point, even if Conally doesn’t do better in South Carolina, could seeing a liberal like Anderson pull out wins from behind make him less hesitant to drop out of the race so early? Even if this only comes down to a matter of pride for him, and only lasted a couple more days, that does seem like it’d be enough to make him a factor in Florida (and AL and GA, FWTW).

If I’m right about just these two points, then would that be enough for Bush to have a real shot at Florida? And if that’s the case... well, then we’re back to the play by play.

*assuming the later is what he did OTL

-----

Let’s assume that this much - Anderson winning MA and VE, lighting a fire under Bush and emboldening Conally, which combine to let Bush win Florida - is plausible. (If the causal change so far doesn’t hold up, and Reagan wins FL along with the rest of the early southern states, then the above point by @David T holds, as Bush’s campaign is now in serious jeopardy.)

In any event, going into Illinois, the native Anderson is still going in with a notably more energized base of supporters compared to OTL, so having him win this state is very possible, possibly even likely. As to Connecticut, in the event that both the Bush and Anderson campaigns are going strong; it could be anyone’s win - Bush could still win, or Anderson could pull ahead on Illinois enthusiasm; or Reagan could get another non-southern state as they split the rest; of he could come in third. As it’s a small state, it won’t make a big difference in the delegate count, but it might affect coverage at the margins, or even affect candidates psychologically in minor ways.

Almost regardless of what happens here, Reagan is still pretty much guaranteed to win two of the next three states, Kansas and Louisiana; it’s only in Wisconsin that Bush or Anderson have a shot at denying Reagan another win, and that’s going to be hard with them both still in the race, albeit far from impossible.

At this point, it’s 17 days before the next contest in Pennsylvania...

-----

CONSOLIDATION:

Almost regardless of what happens here, Reagan is still pretty much guaranteed to win two of the next three states, Kansas and Louisiana...

Actually now that I think about it, is it possible that even Kansas could pick someone other than Reagan TTL? I realize Ron won 63% of the votes OTL, but I can't help but wonder if a full throated endorsement from, say, Bob Dole might give even Bush (who only got 10% OTL) a chance at winning. Or maybe even an assumed lock in the days leading up to the race, leading Reagan's team to decide to focus on Wisconsin (though that would complicate prospects for Bush or Anderson to win that state).

-----

Yet one further complication to all of this - looking it over, it seems that, as of 1980, only 34 of the 50 US States (plus DC and Puerto Rico) actually had Republican Party primaries or caucuses as of 1980; I'm guessing the other 16 states appointed their party delegates via State Convention. New York is by far the largest of these 16 states, with as much population (or at least as many House districts as of 1980) as the other 15 combined; of said other 15, about half of the delegates would be coming from the three (Minnesota, Missouri, and Oklahoma).

Now, at the moment, I have honestly no real idea who this benefits given our PoD scenario. On the one hand, I would expect the New York Party machine to support candidates like either Anderson or Bush; on the other hand, this is the same state that elected James Buckley to the Senate.

Does anybody know the dates for when these states would have been selecting their party delegates for the 1980 National Convention?

 

[ejpsan]

The main butterfly is that is Anderson may stay in the Republican primaries longer and lose his window to run as an Independent, also by the time he did drop out that left many liberals going back to vote in the Democratic primaries for Kennedy and donate money to his campaign, if Anderson stays in, Kennedy may have done worse and dropped out himself.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

... also by the time he did drop out that left many liberals going back to vote in the Democratic primaries for Kennedy and donate money to his campaign, if Anderson stays in, Kennedy may have done worse and dropped out himself.

Looking at their timeline, I can see Connecticut and Pennsylvania going for Carter if liberals likely to cross over (assuming they can) are still enthused about his campaign; after that I'm not sure, since Ted's only wins prior to the last day of the primaries, aside from DC, were in caucuses not held contagious with GOP equivalents. (Though I suppose Texas could end up with more un-pledged delegates than Kennedy ones.) Then again, a lot of the OTL enthusiasm for Carter's primary challenger came from those last primaries, especially California.