John Anderson and Ross Perot

Politics & Elections
1

I didn’t know this at the time, but I’m reading now that Anderson was actually close to being ahead of Jimmy Carter at one point in the 1980 race. Reagan was at 44, Carter 24, Anderson 22. Most of that support went to Carter after the Democratic convention, but the media still treated him like a big deal, giving him front page coverage for his trip to the Middle East and his VP selection and his fight to get into the debates. But his support continued to fall and he finished with only 6% of the vote.

Ross Perot on the other hand, actually led at one point in 1992, but got all weird and paranoid and dropped out. He did get back in, and started out at 10%, but his debate performances in part led to him finishing as high as 19%.

So here’s what I don’t get. Why did Anderson’s support fall so much? I can’t find any record of campaign missteps, nor did JImmy Carter grow any more popular. Reagan ended up kicking Carter’s ass all over the country, so there shouldn’t have been any worries about “wasted votes” or a vote for Anderson being a vote for Reagan. Perot, on the other hand, did better and better in the closing days even though the race was getting closer and closer. Clinton did end up winning by a healthy margin, but it was no sure thing and since I was old enough to vote I do remember a lot of people saying not to vote for Perot, it’s a wasted vote. If you want a real choice, you have to support either Clinton or Bush.

So what happened to Anderson? Was being left ouf of the debates enough to cause people to just stop supporting him, whereas with Perot it helped to double his support? Or was something else going on?

2

Well, first of all, he WASN’T “left out of the debates.” The first debate, held in September, was between Reagan and Anderson, with President Carter absent, as he refused to participate in any debate involving Anderson. By the time of that debate, Anderson was already down to about 10% support, and after the debate that slid to about 5%. His performance was not viewed as being very dynamic, contrary to expectations.

By the time of the second and final debate, Anderson’s support had waned to the point that no one considered him a viable candidate. This forced Reagan’s hand; he acceded to Carter’s demand that Anderson be excluded. That, of course, simply drove home the nail in the coffin.

As for why Anderson’s campaign waned? Well, partly it was a money issue. At the time, there was a very strict limit on money that could be spent on presidential campaigns. Anderson was, by the rules, limited to private funding only, and was only allowed to spend about half what Reagan and Carter could spend. He didn’t receive any FEC money until after the election was over. IIRC, he didn’t spend more than $3M or so on television ads, whereas his opponents spent upwards of $15M on television ads. That sort of lack of visibility was bound to cause him grief.

The other issue was that John Anderson simply wasn’t as dynamic as many kept hoping he would be. His rise in polls primarily related to centralist voters being unhappy with the choice of the conservative-sounding Reagan by the Republican Party. For example, Anderson supported the ERA, while the Republican Party refused to endorse even extending the time for ratification. But when it came to actual campaigning, Anderson was a dud. He took a disastrous foreign policy trip overseas, he made an appearance with Sen. Ted Kennedy, and he generally didn’t do well when it came to firing up crowds on the campaign trail. Given that Regan and Carter were receiving plenty of press from the conventions, it was imperative that Anderson supply something for the networks to focus on; he failed utterly to do so.

I met Rep. Anderson when he came to the U. of Rochester late that fall (I’m not sure exactly when, but I think it was in October). His appearance was announced as a speech; hundreds of students tried to cram into a rather small room to hear him. Instead, he merely stopped in to thank his supporters and volunteers at the university; his remarks lasted all of 5 min., and he then hustled away to his next appearance. It very much sounded like he had himself thrown in the towel and was playing out the string. The very next day, I determined that it was silly to vote for him. As I was utterly opposed to voting for the President, my choice for the election because crystalized at that point. That personal journey was a journey lots and lots of centralists underwent in the course of July to November that year.

3

Perot was viewed as an outsider , a guy from the business world who made a lot of money. (sound familiar?) Anderson was another politician so that probably hurt him. He had been in Congress for 20 years.

4

I was in high school in the first half of 1980, and pretty much every student that identified as conservative supported him - and it wasn’t just at my school, either. However, most of his support came from the opinion that the three options were (a) Anderson, (b) more double-digit inflation under Carter, and (c) a military draft under Reagan (Carter had been calling for a reintroduction of registration, and it started in mid-1980; note that all of the males in high school at the time would be draft eligible).

5

One reason I’m interested in this is that the last two times we had an incumbent President running for reelection with his approval so low, there was a viable independent challenger. So history suggests we’ll see that in 2020. But will it be a politician, like John Kasich, or an outsider, like Mark Cuban?

6

Really? Did you forget that President Obama had an approval rating in the low 40s as the election year of 2012 cranked up?

7

ACtually he was in the mid to high 40s. The low 40s came in 2013.

8

In Dec. of 2011 and Jan of 2012, he was in the low 40s (41% to 42%). In Oct. of 2011 he was in the upper 30s (38%). My point was that it is at that point in a race that people start making their final determinations about running, including people who are likely to run as independents if they cannot finagle a nomination from a major party. FWIW.