|Sent on:||Saturday, October 19, 2013 10:41 AM|
Jimmy Carter Delusion: "Ronald Reagan Won Because Of A Third Party Candidate"
While doing some research last night, I came across a 2012 TV interview of Jimmy Carter on Chris Mathhews' Hard Ball. The interview was about the possibility of a third party candidate running in the 2012 presidential election. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXrsOx12usM
Carter told Matthews: "A third party candidate came in and picked up a lot of the liberal Democratic votes." Matthews responded: "Right." Cater went on: "Ronald Reagan only got less than 51% of the votes but he only won because of the third party candidate." Carter continued: "That's what happened in 1980 when Ronald Reagan moved in because of a split Democratic Party."
Talk about two delusional, lying incompetents. Let's look at the facts, the math and the truth.
First, the third party candidate Carter talked about, and conveniently didn't name, was John Anderson, a congressman from Illinois. Anderson was a moderate Republican, not a liberal Democrat. If anything, Anderson took more votes away from Reagan.
Second, Jimmy Carter, the spineless jelly fish, refused to debate Anderson in the 1980 campaign, while Reagan debated Anderson and mopped the floor with him. If Carter considered Anderson a threat, Carter should have debated Anderson to pick up some of Anderson voters. So, Carter was not only spineless, but if he believes his narrative about Anderson is true, Carter is also a very poor tactician.
Third, Reagan won the largest electoral college victory in history over an incumbent president by picking up 45 states and 489 electoral votes versus Carter's 5 states, Washington DC and 49 electoral votes, and beat Carter by 8.5 million votes. Anderson received 5.7 million votes. Reagan's margin of victory was more than all the votes Anderson received.
Fourth, at best the moderate Repubican Anderson took an equal amount of votes away from both Reagan and Carter. Even if every one of Anderson's votes went to Carter, Reagan still would have won the popular vote by over 2.7 million votes. Reagan received 43,904,153 votes (50.75%), to Carter's 35,483,883 votes (41.01%) and Anderson's 5,720,060 votes (6.61%). Adding every Anderson vote to Carter's, Carter would have received 41,203,943 (47.62%) to Reagan's 43,904,153 (50.75%).
Lastly, if you looked at the electoral college map and gave every Anderson vote to Carter, Carter still would have lost. And lost big. If Carter had every Anderson vote added to his, he would have picked up the following states: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and Wisconsin. These states combined added up to 154 electoral votes. Carter still would have lost with 203 electoral votes to Reagan's 335 electoral votes.
What is amazing about Matthews and Carter, and most liberals for that matter, is their need to rewrite history in order to prove a false narrative. In other words, they constantly lie in order to prove another lies are true.
Even more interesting is that liberals like Mathews and Carter called Barack Obama's 2012 victory over Mitt Romney a landslide. Obama won 50.60% of the popular vote and 332 electoral votes to Romney's 47.8% of the popular vote and 206 electoral votes.
So, even if you added all of Anderson's votes to Carter's, according to Matthew's and Carter's interpretation of a landslide, Reagan would still have had a larger victory in 1980 than Obama's "landslide" in 2012. Oops!
I wonder what Matthews and Carter would have said about the 1984 presidential election when the third party candidate was the Libertarian Party's David Bergland? Reagan beat Walter Mondale, Carter's vice president, by winning 49 states, 525 electoral votes and 58.8% of the popular vote to Mondale's 13 electoral votes and 40.5% of the popular vote.
I guess that election didn't fit Matthews' and Carter's narrative of lies.