I voted neither. On one hand, he was a principled and respectable person whose views are quite a bit more nuanced than is taught in your typical US History class.
On the other hand, his version of conservatism, and the movement he helped usher in (whether he intended it or not).. I find rather objectionable, to say the least. As well as, shall we say, tacky and very petit bourgeois. (It should be noted that Goldwater did oppose some of the more tacky elements that emerged in this new movement).
The "Old Right" and paleoconservatism is much more to my liking, although I hesitate to necessarily call myself an ardent believer in either.
That being said, I still find myself, from time to time, voting for modern conservatives, the Reagan-ites, and so on, though it is frequently a question of the lesser of two ghastly choices.
I've opined this many times in the past, but if MODERN "paleoconservatives" are being attracted to Republicans in the early 1900s who appear "nationalist" (specifically via their support of protectionism), I think you're REALLY making the wrong bedfellows. The "Old Right" of the GOP had a decidedly less "populist" attitude - and one much closer to the traditional conservatism of Hamilton, IMO - than your Pat Buchanan types. Let's keep in mind that the GOP adopted protectionism at a time when the American business community was pushing for it.
Poll
