John Anderson runs for president: Counterfactual history turning point

I got to wondering the other day what would have happened with America’s political future, including “resurgent” conservativism, if the Illinois Republican Congressman had not mounted his independent candidacy to become president.

Given that President Jimmy Carter was running at least even with Ronald Reagan until their debate the Friday before the election, things might have changed a lot. (And let’s not forget the theft of Carter’s debate briefing book.) Carter’s strategy probably would have been different without Anderson in the race, to boot. He would have had to gone on the attack more himself, or with Vice President Walter Mondale. And, over the wrangling of whether or not Anderson should be in a debate or not (he was in one earlier one where Carter refused to participate) Carter probably could have gotten that final debate moved a couple of weeks earlier, possibly giving him the chance to recover from any problems in it.

That said, what if other elements of the race had played out just as they did, but without Anderson present?

I think about one-third of his supporters would have stayed home and the rest broken 3-2 for Carter. That would have cut a nearly 10-point popular vote edge to 8 points, or 54-46, throwing out minor party candidates.

On the electoral vote side, it would have given Carter a reasonable to good chance of picking up 83 additional electoral votes, changing that margin from 489-49 to 406-132. (Carter narrowly lost both New York and Massachusetts.) That would have sounded a bit less “mandate-like” for Reagan. Also, slightly longer Carter coattails would have reduced the size of the Blue Dog Democrat-GOP coalition in the House, as well as perhaps keeping a few of those Blue Dogs from changing parties. I’m not sure if it would have affected the Senate outcomes anywhere or not.

In short, the “Reagan Revolution” would have been a little bit less revolutionary in both perception and result. That probably would have been most true on the domestic side; supply-siders and their lust for tax cuts at any cost would have gotten less of a return.

So, to Democrats who want to complain about Ralph Nader in 2000? The problem started 20 years earlier.