Jimmy Carter: Reagan only won in 1980 because of the third-party candidate

posted at 8:02 pm on October 25, 2010 by Allahpundit

He’s making a two-step argument here, I think, part of it based on pure conjecture. Step one: If not for Teddy Kennedy’s bitter primary challenge (which of course wasn’t a third-party candidacy), the Democratic Party would have been united for the general election. Instead, untold numbers stayed home, crippling Carter. Step two: If not for John Anderson running as an independent, Carter would have cleaned up among the Anderson base and swept to victory. There’s no way to flatly disprove him on step one since we can’t know how many Teddy fans boycotted the general, but on step two, have a look-see at this recap of the 1980 election. Reagan crushed Carter in the electoral college, 489/49; even if you cede every last Anderson vote to Carter, Reagan still would have won a clear majority of the popular vote with a margin close to three million. Among the individual states, a quickie glance at the numbers reveals that, in states taken by Reagan, Anderson won enough votes to have possibly influenced the outcome in Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin. That is to say, if all of Anderson’s voters in those states had broken for Carter, Carter would have won the states. (Anderson was, in fact, a liberal Republican who’d competed in the GOP primary, so no doubt plenty of his supporters would have broken for Reagan over Carter if forced to choose. But let’s keep this hypothetical.) It looks to me like all of those states combined would have given Carter another 170 or so electoral votes — meaning Reagan still would have crushed him by 100 EVs and been elected president comfortably. In which case … what is this guy talking about?

One thing he is right about, though: Why, per today’s New York magazine extravaganza on Palin’s path to the White House, would Mike Bloomberg ever consider running for president? He’d spend a billion dollars or more and would need a clear majority of 270 electoral votes to win, an utter impossibility with the left- and right-wing bases energized for Obama and Sarahcuda. If no candidate won 270 outright, the House of Representatives — which will almost certainly be controlled by the GOP, wink — would decide things, meaning Palin would win. Why on earth would a Democrat in independent’s clothing like Bloomy want to spend a 10-digit sum from his personal fortune to elect the major party candidate with whom he has the least in common politically? Does not compute. Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Fringe: Carter

Extreme: Carter

Insane/crazy: Carter

Un-American: Carter

Failure: Carter

LE-Fricken-AGACY… Carter

MeatHeadinCA on October 25, 2010 at 8:05 PM

This man is a footnote in the history of the presidency.
His name will forever be tied to Watergate…..one of the sad side effects of Nixon’s folly.

rickyricardo on October 25, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Amy was the third party candidate…

dangitt on October 25, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Oh yeah Jimmy, Run Bloomberg Run.

Mr. Joe on October 25, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Considering that third party candidate John B Anderson was a REPUBLICAN, it makes Carters point even dumber

The 2 republicans got like 60% of the popular vote

But oh yes Carter woulda won Mano a Mano vs Reagan

JUSt LiKE MONDALE 1984

picklesgap on October 25, 2010 at 8:06 PM

The Iran Hostage Crisis was the third party candidate.

Mr. Joe on October 25, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Oh, wow, I’d forgotten all about John Anderson (I’ll bet everyone else has as well).

Why are Carter and Mondale bringing up these old elections? Are the midterms stirring up some need to “set the record straight”??

INC on October 25, 2010 at 8:07 PM

He gets stupider every day.

peski on October 25, 2010 at 8:07 PM

The Iran Hostage Crisis was the third party candidate.

Mr. Joe on October 25, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Click the image to watch.

Allah, please don’t make us watch him. Many of us were small children who had parents that liked this poor, demented SOB.

He is still a sore loser. He is still P.O. and wantes to take it out on Americans. He really needs to just go away.

upinak on October 25, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Considering that third party candidate John B Anderson was a REPUBLICAN, it makes Carters point even dumber

The 2 republicans got like 60% of the popular vote

But oh yes Carter woulda won Mano a Mano vs Reagan

JUSt LiKE MONDALE 1984

picklesgap on October 25, 2010 at 8:07 PM

The Iran Hostage crisis was the third party candidate.

Mr. Joe on October 25, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Carter is a nasty, bitter, small little man. I never got the whole he-was-a-crappy-president-but-good-man meme. And he’s underminded every president that followed him in the sleaziest of ways– just ask Bill Clinton, of all people.

Pasalubong on October 25, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Carter is a nasty, bitter, small little man. I never got the whole he-was-a-crappy-president-but-good-man meme. And he’s underminded every president that followed him in the sleaziest of ways– just ask Bill Clinton, of all people.

Pasalubong on October 25, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Cheer up, Jimmah- you’re now only the 2nd worse President in my lifetime.

jjshaka on October 25, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Considering that third party candidate John B Anderson was a REPUBLICAN, it makes Carters point even dumber

The 2 republicans got like 60% of the popular vote

But oh yes Carter woulda won Mano a Mano vs Reagan

JUSt LiKE MONDALE 1984

picklesgap on October 25, 2010 at 8:08 PM

And if it weren’t for gravity he would have invented the perpetual motion machine that would have solved our energy problems once and for all!

MJBrutus on October 25, 2010 at 8:08 PM

If not for the extremely lopsided media bias (no Fox, no conservative talk radio), Reagan would’ve won with 65% of the vote.

itsnotaboutme on October 25, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Allah, you’re a great blogger, but did his claim really merit serious analysis? Sometimes, just sometimes, you can explain a whole lot of crap away with just…

“lol”

Jimmah, is nutters!

hawkdriver on October 25, 2010 at 8:10 PM

I’d forgotten all about John Anderson (I bet everyone else has as well).

Why are Carter and Mondale bringing up these old elections? Are the midterms stirring up some need to “set the record straight”??

INC on October 25, 2010 at 8:10 PM

The 1980 election was the first time I ever voted. My very first vote was for Reagan.

I remember the MSM at the time wrote reagan off saying that the election was “Too Close to Call”. They really were trying hard to play that Carter was still in this race.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_1980.html

With all the problems Jimmy Carter faced that year, it’s hardly surprising that he was soundly beaten by Republican challenger Ronald Reagan in the presidential election of 1980. What is remarkable is that just a week before Election Day, the contest was a dead heat. “People think of the 1980 election as this huge landslide for Reagan, which in terms of the numbers, it was,” remembers journalist Elizabeth Drew. “But I saw the numbers on the Friday before the election — and both sides will tell you this — it was a tie.”

Consider this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsDe-8cOSYY

William Amos on October 25, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Click the image to watch.

DO I have too? I was made to watch him when I was a small child. I don’t want to endure him as an adult. Don’t make me watch!

upinak on October 25, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Mr. Carter should forsake political analysis in favor of his natural calling, poetry.

NCC on October 25, 2010 at 8:10 PM

I’m just surprised he didn’t blame the Jews for his loss.

amerpundit on October 25, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Carter was senile when he was in his prime. Now he has slipped into dementia-oldtimers.

DuctTapeMyBrain on October 25, 2010 at 8:10 PM

LE-Fricken-AGACY… Carter

MeatHeadinCA on October 25, 2010 at 8:05 PM

crud… that french pronunciation is cracking me up!

upinak on October 25, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Senility is sad.

CWforFreedom on October 25, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Jimmah Carter…after all these years, still a putz.

coldwarrior on October 25, 2010 at 8:12 PM

What a shame. In the closing years of his life, Reagan could not recall the great things he did. In Carter’s last years, he can clearly recall great things he never did.

GarandFan on October 25, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Wow!! Jimmy has really gone off the deep end this time!!

Khun Joe on October 25, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Well, at least he didn’t say it was because of the Jews.

But you know he wanted to.

SlaveDog on October 25, 2010 at 8:12 PM

And he’s underminded every president that followed him in the sleaziest of ways– just ask Bill Clinton, of all people.

Pasalubong on October 25, 2010 at 8:08 PM

If by that you mean that his brain is smaller than all the other presidents’, I suspect you are correct.

peski on October 25, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Carter, a once admired as a good ex-president has become a fool. Reagan got 50.7% of the vote. If Bush I or Bob Dole wanted to blame a 3rd party it may be plausible but not for grinning Jimmah.

What an embarrassment he has become… another example of the worthlessness of the Nobel Peace Prize.

roux on October 25, 2010 at 8:14 PM

No analysis necessary Allah.

Reagan kicked his sorry butt and rubbed it in his face.

Jimmah’s never gotten over that.

fogw on October 25, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Jimmy Carter will go down in history as one of the Presidents who didn’t go down in history.

SlaveDog on October 25, 2010 at 8:15 PM

He’s still not over it. Everything he has done in the intervening 30 years has been to assuage the pain of that defeat. He has tried everything he knows how to do to build himself up from that loss. And yet, he can’t let it go.

Gore has gone that same route. He too, is slowly losing his mind.

keep the change on October 25, 2010 at 8:15 PM

I think Jimmy Carter has fallen off of too many Habitat for Humanity Roofs.

Sit down Jimmy, before you fall down.

portlandon on October 25, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Khun Joe on October 25, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Gone? No. He has been wading in the kiddie pool for quite some time.

upinak on October 25, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Mr. Carter should forsake political analysis in favor of his natural calling, poetry.

NCC on October 25, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Yes poetry or photo ops where he hammers in a nail or two for HFH. He has made his mark there and should be proud. The double digit inflation, three hour gas lines and nightly embarrassment from Iran thumbing their nose in our face, not so much.

hawkdriver on October 25, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Every time I almost forget about this man, like forgetting a bad dream, he resurfaces with yet another reason to try to forget him…

ArgoNunya on October 25, 2010 at 8:16 PM

crud… that french pronunciation is cracking me up!

upinak on October 25, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Hey, Obama did want us to learn French or something … because errr he knows a phrase.

Seriously, though, Carter is the enculé of American Presidents.

MeatHeadinCA on October 25, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Haaaa! thanks for the 1980 election link, AP. Now THAT was an ass whoopin….and just a prelude to the one in 1984!!

awesome, I luvs me some reagan, and the map just makes me wax nostalgic!

ted c on October 25, 2010 at 8:16 PM

… BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Reagan only won because John Anderson ran? Jimmah, you DO know that Anderson only got about 1% of the vote, right? You got your *ss WHIPPED by Reagan, so that wouldn’t have made a difference.

teke184 on October 25, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Been hitting the Billy Beer again, eh Jimma?

Kini on October 25, 2010 at 8:18 PM

Atleast Reagan knew when he had Alzheimers and left with class and grace. His goodbye letter still makes me tear up.

Carter’s recent musings best reflect what drowning people do, which is to grab onto anyone/thing and drag it down with them.

portlandon on October 25, 2010 at 8:18 PM

MeatHeadinCA on October 25, 2010 at 8:16 PM

to bad he couldn’t figure out he was our malaise… that never ends. So this is what a poop sandwich feels like.

upinak on October 25, 2010 at 8:18 PM

Why on earth would a Democrat in independent’s clothing like Bloomy want to spend a 10-digit sum from his personal fortune to elect the major party candidate with whom he has the least in common politically? Does not compute.

Let me break it down for ya straight, AP. Deep, deep down…ol’ Bloomie is a Cuda’lover too….he’s just not out of the closet with it yet.

ted c on October 25, 2010 at 8:19 PM

From the PBS link above. The democrats show the politics of fear have been a way of life.

Without a strong record to run on, the Carter team decided its only chance was to go after Ronald Reagan, painting him as a wild-eyed conservative ideologue who could not be trusted to maintain the peace. With the help of several gaffes from Reagan, the strategy worked, and by October the race was too close to call. Why, then, the landslide for Reagan? What happened in those final days?

William Amos on October 25, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Carter’s recent musings best reflect what drowning people do, which is to grab onto anyone/thing and drag it down with them.

portlandon on October 25, 2010 at 8:18 PM

That rabbit wasn’t drowning though.

*listens for the drum*

upinak on October 25, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Reagan only won because John Anderson ran? Jimmah, you DO know that Anderson only got about 1% of the vote, right?

My mistake… 6%. Even if Carter had gotten all of Anderson’s 6%, I’m fairly certain he still would have gotten thumped in the electoral college by Reagan.

teke184 on October 25, 2010 at 8:20 PM

After Arthur Schlesinger died and portions of his private diary were made public, we learned, or had confirmed, how much the Kennedy’s and other establishment Democrats loathed Jimmy Carter. George McGovern’s whole family voted for Jerry Ford and Jackie O did actually vote for Anderson. However, I think it’s highly doubtful that she would have voted for Carter had Anderson not run.

SukieTawdry on October 25, 2010 at 8:20 PM

You can’t say with certainty the GOP would control the House for a Presidential vote. The House votes by states not members in such a case, and it’s possible the Dems could have a majority of state delegations,not likely, but possible. Also the new House votes for POTUS so there’s a second variable.

xkaydet65 on October 25, 2010 at 8:20 PM

I think Anderson got something like 6 million votes. If every one of them had voted for Carter instead, he’d still have come up 3 million short in the popular vote. In other words, Carter’s delusional. No news there.

ddrintn on October 25, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Shut up stupid! And I don’t mean that in a, “I want to win the lottery someday. Shut up stupid!” funny kind of way.
I mean it in the, “Carter you’re a mountain of dumbass, you are stupid, shut up!, kind of way.

Geronimo on October 25, 2010 at 8:22 PM

William Amos on October 25, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Thank you Mr Amos, I needed that.

Les in NC on October 25, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Gun to my head, who would I prefer as president, Obama or Carter………

*takes gun, shoots himself*

ThePrez on October 25, 2010 at 8:25 PM

In which case … what is this guy talking about?

His failed presidency has tormented him for 30 years now.

ddrintn on October 25, 2010 at 8:25 PM

I dimley remember they did poll Anderson voters after the election and 50% said if not for Anderson they would have voted for Reagan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980

John Anderson won 6.6% of the popular vote and failed to win any state outright. He found the most support in New England, fueled by liberal Republicans who felt Reagan was too far to the right; his best showing was in Massachusetts, where he won 15% of the popular vote. Conversely, Anderson performed worst in the South. Anderson failed to achieve the spoiler effect, due to Reagan’s strong showing and the fact that he arguably attracted at least as many Democrats to his ticket as Republicans.

William Amos on October 25, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Carter is insane. No Kennedy voters stayed home. Kennedy was pretty much vilified by the time the convention was over. It might have affected Carter’s cash though.

But if Bloomberg was to run he would be successful in attempting to do what John Anderson could not, which is take enough votes from the Republican/Conservative so that he loses. Anderson’s goal was to kill Conservatism, not win the presidency. It would work now because the Dems have a much solider base of electoral votes now then they did in 1980. Reagan was able to compete successfully in all 50 states but that isn’t a reality anymore. No amount of cash will ever win the North east or West Coast for any Republican candidate. Bloomberg would not win them either. The battle would be over the same purple states from 2008 but Bloomberg could eat up the margins Obama has lost in those states and keep him competitive. He would almost certainly swing Florida and Ohio firmly into Obama’s camp.

Rocks on October 25, 2010 at 8:26 PM

He’d spend a billion dollars or more and would need a clear majority of 270 electoral votes to win, an utter impossibility…

Period. Bloomberg wouldn’t win squat, no matter what opposition he has.

ddrintn on October 25, 2010 at 8:28 PM

That was the first Presidential election for me and I do not remember the Ayatollah Khomeini (sp?) being on the ballot and that’s the third party that sent peanut packin’.

darwin-t on October 25, 2010 at 8:28 PM

GarandFan on October 25, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Beautiful!

MJBrutus on October 25, 2010 at 8:28 PM

“Ronald Reagan won because of a third party candidate”???!!!

Hahahahahahaha!

Maybe he meant that Reagan won because of a third rate candidate.

I hope that this bitter, small, worthless buffoon is able to appear in public for many years, so that his legacy is deeply ingrained in the public’s mind.

justltl on October 25, 2010 at 8:29 PM

ddintrn is right, IMO. Carter’s failed presidency has tormented him. I don’t believe that Obama’s failures will torment him. He’ll go into old age and the golden years always thinking that he was right, despite the facts.

ted c on October 25, 2010 at 8:29 PM

“Ronald Reagan won because of a third party candidate”???!!!

Hahahahahahaha!

Maybe he meant that Reagan won because of a third rate candidate.

I hope that this bitter, small, worthless buffoon is able to appear in public for many years, so that his legacy is deeply ingrained in the public’s mind.

justltl on October 25, 2010 at 8:29 PM

dude, that’s a money quote right there.

ted c on October 25, 2010 at 8:30 PM

But if Bloomberg was to run he would be successful in attempting to do what John Anderson could not, which is take enough votes from the Republican/Conservative so that he loses.

Rocks on October 25, 2010 at 8:26 PM

No way. Bloomberg would drain some votes away from Obama in the Northeast, but that’s about it. If anything, he’d be Obama’s Perot.

ddrintn on October 25, 2010 at 8:30 PM

BTW, AP. Alicia Menendez is rapidly knocking the former top hottie known as KP off of her pedestal as the cutest lib talker on Fox. Tonight especially, either that, or I need an HD TV… she is sucking up to BOR un tiempo mas grande.

ted c on October 25, 2010 at 8:33 PM

ddrintn on October 25, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Can you imagine what The Won will be like? Of course, he thinks so highly of himself it isn’t likely he would believe he had a bad presidency regardless of re-election and pundits.

Cindy Munford on October 25, 2010 at 8:33 PM

No way. Bloomberg would drain some votes away from Obama in the Northeast, but that’s about it. If anything, he’d be Obama’s Perot.

ddrintn on October 25, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Perot got Clinton elected. Most certainly the first time in 1992 and probably the 2nd too.

And Bloomberg would not be running to win. He would be running to set himself up for 2016 as a Democrat. Bloomberg isn’t so stupid that he doesn’t know the only road to the White house is through a major party and he is never going to get the Republican nomination.

Rocks on October 25, 2010 at 8:34 PM

awwww dude. BOR has Jesse Waters hounding the npr top cheese in a parking lot ambush on here in a couple shakes.

ted c on October 25, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Carter still doesn’t understand that Reagan winning was the best outcome for the world, for peace, for humanity.

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 8:36 PM

I swear they only trot this guy out to try and make Obama look better by comparison.
Not quite there yet guys.

Grayson on October 25, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Somebody PLEASE take up a collection to pay this old fart to STFU!

fred5678 on October 25, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Bloomberg? I don’t know if that nanny state stuff will play in the rest of the country.

Cindy Munford on October 25, 2010 at 8:37 PM

He sent the nuclear codes to the cleaners!!!!!

Blake on October 25, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Also there are liberal republicans everywhere. mostly crowded around cities with the dems. It’s not a lot outside the DC-Boston corridor but it’s enough to make a difference in some places like Florida and Ohio. He would make the NE and west coast closer than 2008 but Obama would still win them easily.

Rocks on October 25, 2010 at 8:38 PM

I’m getting real tired of this stupid mother… oh forget it.

Hummer53 on October 25, 2010 at 8:38 PM

There’s really no nice way to put it: Carter’s just a douche. It’s not about Republican vs Democrat.

I forget the title, but go read that recent book by the Secret Service agent that worked with the White House for the last 40 years. Other than those Hillary issues, the Secret Service guys say they’ve been treated well by all occupants, up to and including the Obamas… except for the Carters. Both of them. They treated the agents as if they were maids and butlers and otherwise didn’t even acknowledge them as human.

Carter’s about Carter, and believes he’s not just the smartest guy in the room, but possibly the only smart guy on the planet. We all know Obama’s got a gigantic ego, but I bet any honest psychological profile of the two men would reveal it’s only Carter who has, and always has had, some amount of legitimate Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

The Lone Platypus on October 25, 2010 at 8:38 PM

ted c on October 25, 2010 at 8:35 PM

MKH is on, who thinks Ted Baxter will let her talk?

Cindy Munford on October 25, 2010 at 8:38 PM

Would have won?

I remember standing in a very long line to vote after the media had already called it for Reagan. No one was leaving. We weren’t going to take any chances that this turd would be around for another four years. I’m pretty sure the rest of the country had the same perspective.

What an ass.

Trainwreck on October 25, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Rocks on October 25, 2010 at 8:34 PM

Well I just think that Bloomberg would do nothing more than muck things up for Obama, just as Perot did for Bush I. I don’t think Bloomberg would have anywhere near the overall impact that Perot had in the 90s though. He’d be a non-factor. He wouldn’t play at all south of Maryland except maybe among some communities in FL.

ddrintn on October 25, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Wow, that photo of Carter looks like the Grinch!

http://tinyurl.com/2ezjt2s

disa on October 25, 2010 at 8:40 PM

BTW, AP. Alicia Menendez is rapidly knocking the former top hottie known as KP off of her pedestal as the cutest lib talker on Fox. Tonight especially, either that, or I need an HD TV… she is sucking up to BOR un tiempo mas grande.

ted c on October 25, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Kirsten Powers = old and busted.

Alicia Menendez = fuego nuevo

SlaveDog on October 25, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Anyone else think Jimmy might have a touch of the Alzheimer’s?

Daveyardbird on October 25, 2010 at 8:40 PM

I honestly think Alzheimer’s is better then being living in a fantasy land and spewing your garbage as if you are totally sane.
As we had pity on Reagan, we should pity Carter, the poor man has lost all sense of reality.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 8:41 PM

He would make the NE and west coast closer than 2008 but Obama would still win them easily.

Rocks on October 25, 2010 at 8:38 PM

I think the NE and California at least are hopelessly blue anyway. Jerry Brown is on the verge of winning in CA. Come on. It’s going to take a complete collapse of some of these “blue” states for them to wake up.

ddrintn on October 25, 2010 at 8:42 PM

But if Bloomberg was to run he would be successful in attempting to do what John Anderson could not, which is take enough votes from the Republican/Conservative so that he loses. Anderson’s goal was to kill Conservatism, not win the presidency. It would work now because the Dems have a much solider base of electoral votes now then they did in 1980. Reagan was able to compete successfully in all 50 states but that isn’t a reality anymore. No amount of cash will ever win the North east or West Coast for any Republican candidate. Bloomberg would not win them either. The battle would be over the same purple states from 2008 but Bloomberg could eat up the margins Obama has lost in those states and keep him competitive. He would almost certainly swing Florida and Ohio firmly into Obama’s camp.

Rocks on October 25, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Bloomberg? I think you seriously overestimate his impact on the race. As I recall, he barely managed to win reelection in New York City. I think he’d have even less impact that John Anderson, not more.

tom on October 25, 2010 at 8:42 PM

1980 was my first experience in voting. I was 18 years old and a flaming liberal – charter member of “People for the American Way”.

No way I was going to vote for Reagan – though I admired him, I didn’t trust him because he was a Republican.

No way I was going to vote for Carter – because Carter caused the Iranian crisis, in fact – he was the architect of Islamofascist rule in Iran imho. And besides – I didn’t think Carter was liberal enough. He forced us out of the Olympics when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and he also re instituted Selective Service Registration. Carter was into “empty gestures” like that – same as Obama is today.

So I voted for John Anderson – yeah, a Republican for sure – but a FLAMING LIBERAL ALSO. Way more liberal than Carter was! I was pretty excited about it. I still think John Anderson was an honest guy and I still hold a high opinion of him – though time has taught me that everything he stood for was incorrect.

Oh yeah – and if Anderson hadn’t run – I would have been more likely to vote for Reagan than Carter. Even though Reagan was Conservative – he just seemed to me like a really decent guy. I was a libbie in the sense that JFK was – I believed in a strong national defense and I believed that American was a shining light. Reagan held those ideals more than Carter did.

So I guess John Anderson actually siphoned my vote away from Reagan!

HondaV65 on October 25, 2010 at 8:42 PM

The juxtaposition of the two worst presidents in modern history on the main page is sublime.

Peas in a pod, birds of a feather.

tru2tx on October 25, 2010 at 8:42 PM

This man thinks he was in 1976 what Obama was in 2008. The public took their anger at Nixon out on Ford, and had the election been held a week later, might have gone the other way. So horrible was Carter as president, the GOP considered Ford in 1980, Reagan did in fact have him vetted for VP. Carter, who did not stand out as a governor, was in the right place at the right time. But for a Senate reelection campaign and renewed interest in Chapaquiddick, Teddy would have rolled. But for a late start, Scoop Jackson could have emerged from an unremarkable field. Seriously, Mo Udall?

Greek Fire on October 25, 2010 at 8:42 PM

What an ass.

Trainwreck on October 25, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Thanks for the memories. People forget, that was when they were calling the race minutes after the East coast closed (and some before). The west coast knew who won, so many, many stayed home and partied.
It would have been worse for Carter if they had not announced any winner until the West Coast polls had closed.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Good Greif

America hasn’t improved much over past 3 decades, Jimmy Carter says

We had almost complete harmony with every nation on Earth,” the Nobel Peace Prize winner said of his administration.

“We not only preserved peace for our country, we never went to war. We never dropped a bomb. We never fired a missile.”

The political environment has become polarized in individual states and among voters, Carter says, caused primarily “by the massive and unprecedented infusion of millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of candidates, which are used mostly just for negative advertising to destroy the reputation or character of your opponents.”

but in general, the American people wanted me as president to be successful. Because when I was successful in dealing with jobs and when I was dealing with international affairs and peace and human rights and energy and that sort of thing, then America (was successful).”

William Amos on October 25, 2010 at 8:45 PM

What we have here is not only a failure to communicate but an old koot with delusions of grandeur and a less than a healthy gasp of reality.

esnap on October 25, 2010 at 8:46 PM

Well I just think that Bloomberg would do nothing more than muck things up for Obama, just as Perot did for Bush I. I don’t think Bloomberg would have anywhere near the overall impact that Perot had in the 90s though. He’d be a non-factor. He wouldn’t play at all south of Maryland except maybe among some communities in FL.

ddrintn on October 25, 2010 at 8:39 PM

He doesn’t need to play. In some places, the battleground states, 2-3% is critical.

Rocks on October 25, 2010 at 8:46 PM

Believe it or not, I worked briefly for John Anderson’s campaign while in college, he was from my hometown.

If anything, Anderson would have pulled votes from Reagan.

He was a moderate Republican but he was still a Republican and he drew his main support from other Republicans, not Democrats.

I do feel bad for Jimmy Carter. He is never going to be the president that he wants history to think he was.

Fallon on October 25, 2010 at 8:46 PM

I guess Carter forgot about the misery index, double digit interest rates, the energy crisis (wear a sweater)etc. Carter was only a viable candidate because of Nixon/Ford. He was milquetoast.

Beaglemom on October 25, 2010 at 8:46 PM

Bloomberg? I think you seriously overestimate his impact on the race. As I recall, he barely managed to win reelection in New York City. I think he’d have even less impact that John Anderson, not more.

tom on October 25, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Halve Anderson’s impact and then apply it to the electoral map of 2000 and 2004 and tell me what you get. 2012 is going to be a very close election unless the economy completely turns around right away.

Rocks on October 25, 2010 at 8:48 PM

Regarding John Anderson: Please keep in mind that he was the kind of “Republican” that became the darling of college campuses and the MSM. Garry Trudeau even made Mike Doonesbury an Anderson campaign staffer. You do not get any of those things by being even remotely conservative:

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/19916

The guy was pretty much a sort of Paleolithic combination of Howard Dean, Obama and Ron Paul. And he did not run the sort of campaign that would peel off Reagan Democrats.

In short: Liberal. Leftist. “Progressive”.

The Lone Platypus on October 25, 2010 at 8:49 PM

ted c on October 25, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Thank you, sir.

And ddrintn is spot on re 30 years of torment for Carter.

justltl on October 25, 2010 at 8:50 PM

He doesn’t need to play. In some places, the battleground states, 2-3% is critical.

Rocks on October 25, 2010 at 8:46 PM

He wouldn’t play in any battleground states, not even PA (in my opinion). Heck, the guy had problems winning re-election in NYC.

ddrintn on October 25, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3