Favorable or Unfavorable #13: John B Anderson

[vcczar]

Rep. John B. Anderson (IL-R) began as a conservative GOP member, but Goldwater came off as so radical to him that LBJ seemed reasonable. From 1964 on, he was a Rockefeller Republican. His best known for his 3rd party protest bid against Reagan (and Carter). While this may establish him as a fringe candidate, he was the Chairman of the House Republicans through the 1970s. His 3rd party bid was basically the last of the Old Guard Republicans protesting against the Reagan Republicans, who were clearly about 50% of the party in 1976. By 1980, Ford's defeat in 1976 and overall mediocre leadership saw GOP voters abandoning the Old Guard for a new kind of energy. 

Here are Anderson's actions:

Anderson, John B	1961	1st time he Introduces Constitutional Amdt to recognize Jesus Christ's authority over the US; does so 2x more
Anderson, John B	1968	GOPer who votes for Housing and Urban Development Act
Anderson, John B	1973	GOP critic of Nixon during Watergate and of the Vietnam War
Anderson, John B	1980	Indep Pres nom; had been Rep pres candidate during GOP primary
Anderson, John B	1984	Supports Mondale over Reagan

[vcczar]

I'm ignoring the 1961 Anderson in my vote. 

Note: There will be a Robert B Anderson up next. Don't get confused. 

[ShortKing]

I probably could be convinced to support John B Anderson as a whole, but based on this list, I just find him odd. As a Christian, I still find the idea of a Con amendment to recognize Christ's authority over the US to be imprudent at best and I hadn't realized he ran for the GOP nomination in 1980 and then ran as an indy, I respected it more when I thought he was an indy candidate from the jump instead of a sore loser. 

[OrangeP47]

I guess it's kinda required, but people who run third party are inherently a little weird.

[vcczar]

2 hours ago, ShortKing said:

I probably could be convinced to support John B Anderson as a whole, but based on this list, I just find him odd. As a Christian, I still find the idea of a Con amendment to recognize Christ's authority over the US to be imprudent at best and I hadn't realized he ran for the GOP nomination in 1980 and then ran as an indy, I respected it more when I thought he was an indy candidate from the jump instead of a sore loser. 

Yeah, he saw Reagan as a threat, the same way many saw Goldwater as a radical. His strategy to turn Reagan into a Goldwater 2.0 failed partially because 1) Reagan was somewhat moderate as a Gov of CA in action, although rhetorically conservative, and 2) Reagan wasn't making the kind of comments that would backfire as Goldwater did. 3) Reagan was likable. 4) Carter's presidency wasn't comparable to JFK/LBJ in terms of galvanizing support. Anderson hoped to make Reagan Goldwater 2.0, but Reagan sort of turned it around to make himself into a Conservative, old version of JFK--a messenger of hope and positivity. I don't like 90% of Reagan's policies, but I think he was phenomenal for messaging, even when I disagree with much of his rhetoric. 

[ShortKing]

5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, he saw Reagan as a threat, the same way many saw Goldwater as a radical. His strategy to turn Reagan into a Goldwater 2.0 failed partially because 1) Reagan was somewhat moderate as a Gov of CA in action, although rhetorically conservative, and 2) Reagan wasn't making the kind of comments that would backfire as Goldwater did. 3) Reagan was likable. 4) Carter's presidency wasn't comparable to JFK/LBJ in terms of galvanizing support. Anderson hoped to make Reagan Goldwater 2.0, but Reagan sort of turned it around to make himself into a Conservative, old version of JFK--a messenger of hope and positivity. I don't like 90% of Reagan's policies, but I think he was phenomenal for messaging, even when I disagree with much of his rhetoric. 

Who would you say matches or exceeds Reagan's skills in communication in US history? 

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, OrangeP47 said:

I guess it's kinda required, but people who run third party are inherently a little weird.

It is weird unless you have a shot at 270 EVs. You can't even rely on sending the election to the House because the House will vote for one of the two major parties because they are members of one of those two parties. 

Only TR in 1912 had any outside shot of that. Only he could have sent it to the House and possibly won votes from enough GOP and progressives of both parties to defeat Wilson in a House vote, potentially. 

There was basically zero % chance that Perot would have won in 1992, for instance, even if he had never dropped out. 

The only time I see a 3rd party run being smart really is in this scenario:

1. Say you're a left-leaning charismatic celebrity with good, clear political ideas and extremely popular in Texas. The incumbent president is unpopular and looking at likely defeat, although the election will be close because of a polarized nation. 

2. The GOP candidate is MAGA-ish, but lacks the appeal that Trump had, but he's polling a victory because he's at least not the incumbent. 

3. Despite the unpopularity of the president; Democrats are projected to have more state delegations than the GOP after this hypothetical election, even if they lose the US House, as expected. 

4. During the election, the GOP candidate has the most EVs, but falls short of 270 EVs because the 3rd party independent Democrat wins Texas, a state the incumbent Democratic president would never have won. 

5. The election goes to the House and the incumbent president wins. It is later leaked that the 3rd Party run was a ploy to get the incumbent reelected. 

Even in the above situation, it would be hard for the incumbent to not lose states because of a divided vote.

[vcczar]

7 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

Who would you say matches or exceeds Reagan's skills in communication in US history? 

I'll just mention people in the age of TV, Radio, and Film, since we don't know for certain how Lincoln, Webster, Clay, etc would have compared. 

I think those that exceed Reagan are FDR and JFK. 

I think one that is comparable to Reagan in communication skill (although they're different) is Obama. 

I think those that could be considered as rivals include Bill Clinton, RFK, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Jordan, Jesse Jackson, Huey P Long, Teddy Roosevelt, and probably three or so more people I'm not thinking of at the moment. The interesting this is that the 20th-21st century orators of notable talent all seem to be left-wing overall. Reagan--a former New Deal Democrat--is an exception. Part of me wonders is if this is because conservatives tend to have a business-first mentality and liberals have a people-first mentality. To understand rhetoric and speak it authentically you have to have a strong capacity for empathy, or at least a great understanding of how it works. 

[OrangeP47]

26 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It is weird unless you have a shot at 270 EVs. You can't even rely on sending the election to the House because the House will vote for one of the two major parties because they are members of one of those two parties. 

Only TR in 1912 had any outside shot of that. Only he could have sent it to the House and possibly won votes from enough GOP and progressives of both parties to defeat Wilson in a House vote, potentially. 

There was basically zero % chance that Perot would have won in 1992, for instance, even if he had never dropped out. 

The only time I see a 3rd party run being smart really is in this scenario:

1. Say you're a left-leaning charismatic celebrity with good, clear political ideas and extremely popular in Texas. The incumbent president is unpopular and looking at likely defeat, although the election will be close because of a polarized nation. 

2. The GOP candidate is MAGA-ish, but lacks the appeal that Trump had, but he's polling a victory because he's at least not the incumbent. 

3. Despite the unpopularity of the president; Democrats are projected to have more state delegations than the GOP after this hypothetical election, even if they lose the US House, as expected. 

4. During the election, the GOP candidate has the most EVs, but falls short of 270 EVs because the 3rd party independent Democrat wins Texas, a state the incumbent Democratic president would never have won. 

5. The election goes to the House and the incumbent president wins. It is later leaked that the 3rd Party run was a ploy to get the incumbent reelected. 

Even in the above situation, it would be hard for the incumbent to not lose states because of a divided vote.

My point was more "if you weren't weird, you'd be mainstream".