Which election loosers were "sacrificial lambs"?

[darklordoftech]

- Dole 1996
- Mondale 1984
- Smith 1928

Any others?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Stevenson 1956

[SingingAnalyst]

McGovern and Mondale; many Democrats (John Connally, along with the Democratic mayors of Philadelphia PA, Warren MI, and Roseville MI) endorsed Nixon in '72.

[OSR stands with Israel]

McGovern and Mondale; many Democrats (John Connally, along with the Democratic mayors of Philadelphia PA, Warren MI, and Roseville MI) endorsed Nixon in '72.

I don’t think McGovern was a “sacrificial lamb” because he was not the choice of the Democratic Establishment.

[dw93]

McGovern and Mondale; many Democrats (John Connally, along with the Democratic mayors of Philadelphia PA, Warren MI, and Roseville MI) endorsed Nixon in '72.

I don’t think McGovern was a “sacrificial lamb” because he was not the choice of the Democratic Establishment.

The Democrats would be putting up a sacrificial lamb that year whether it was Humphrey, Muskie, or McGovern. Same with 1964, with regards to Goldwater. Even if Rocky or Romney got it instead of Goldwater, they to would be sacrificial lambs.

[bagelman]

All of the Republicans who ran against FDR.

The 3 Democratic candidates before FDR, especially Cox.

[brucejoel99]

Pinckney 1804, Pinckney 1808, King 1816, Scott 1852, Greeley 1872, Parker 1904, Hoover 1932, Stevenson 1952, Carter 1980.

[Politician]

Dole 96
Mondale 84
McGovern 72
Goldwater 64
Stevenson, both times
Dewey 44
Wilike 40
Landon 36 (lol)
Hoover 32
Smith 28
Davis 24 (lol)
Cox 20

[here2view]

McCain was not a sacrificial lamb for most of the cycle, but he became more so one during the last few weeks of the 2008 election. Obama was favored by about 7-8 points in the NPV during the end of October, and McCain needed to win some pretty unlikely states to just eek out a victory (Pennsylvania being one of them, which Obama ended up winning by 10)

[Epaminondas]

Dewey 44

The election was so close that the Chicago Daily Tribune famously headlined "Dewey defeats Truman".

[Karpatsky]

Dewey 44

The election was so close that the Chicago Daily Tribune famously headlined "Dewey defeats Truman".

That was 48

[junior chįmp]

McGovern and Mondale; many Democrats (John Connally, along with the Democratic mayors of Philadelphia PA, Warren MI, and Roseville MI) endorsed Nixon in '72.

I don’t think McGovern was a “sacrificial lamb” because he was not the choice of the Democratic Establishment.

Pretty much this. McGovern actually had the rules changed to benefit himself for the 1972 nomination and not because he actually cared about reforming the system.

And in the early 1970s, George McGovern helped to engineer the Democratic Party’s new rules for delegate selection as cochair of the party’s McGovern-Fraser Commission, and “praised them repeatedly during his campaign for the 1972 nomination”; but less than a year later he advocated repealing some of the most significant rules changes. Asked why McGovern’s views had changed, “an aide said, ‘We were running for president then’” (Ranney 1975, 73–74).

https://casparoesterheld.com/2017/06/18/summary-of-achen-and-bartels-democracy-for-realists/

[morgankingsley]

Could Goldwater in 1964 count? Everybody knew he wouldn't win

[darklordoftech]

McGovern and Mondale; many Democrats (John Connally, along with the Democratic mayors of Philadelphia PA, Warren MI, and Roseville MI) endorsed Nixon in '72.

I don’t think McGovern was a “sacrificial lamb” because he was not the choice of the Democratic Establishment.

Pretty much this. McGovern actually had the rules changed to benefit himself for the 1972 nomination and not because he actually cared about reforming the system.

And in the early 1970s, George McGovern helped to engineer the Democratic Party’s new rules for delegate selection as cochair of the party’s McGovern-Fraser Commission, and “praised them repeatedly during his campaign for the 1972 nomination”; but less than a year later he advocated repealing some of the most significant rules changes. Asked why McGovern’s views had changed, “an aide said, ‘We were running for president then’” (Ranney 1975, 73–74).

https://casparoesterheld.com/2017/06/18/summary-of-achen-and-bartels-democracy-for-realists/

Which rule changes did McGovern later advocate reversing?

[junior chįmp]

McGovern and Mondale; many Democrats (John Connally, along with the Democratic mayors of Philadelphia PA, Warren MI, and Roseville MI) endorsed Nixon in '72.

I don’t think McGovern was a “sacrificial lamb” because he was not the choice of the Democratic Establishment.

Pretty much this. McGovern actually had the rules changed to benefit himself for the 1972 nomination and not because he actually cared about reforming the system.

And in the early 1970s, George McGovern helped to engineer the Democratic Party’s new rules for delegate selection as cochair of the party’s McGovern-Fraser Commission, and “praised them repeatedly during his campaign for the 1972 nomination”; but less than a year later he advocated repealing some of the most significant rules changes. Asked why McGovern’s views had changed, “an aide said, ‘We were running for president then’” (Ranney 1975, 73–74).

https://casparoesterheld.com/2017/06/18/summary-of-achen-and-bartels-democracy-for-realists/

Which rule changes did McGovern later advocate reversing?

The increase in the number of primaries by the commission caused the front loading problem in the primaries:



Another was the opening up of the primary process then allowed idiot journos and pundits to create narratives about election outcomes thus influencing public opinion:

[junior chįmp]

Could Goldwater in 1964 count? Everybody knew he wouldn't win

The GOP establishment didnt want Goldwater. One of the reasons so many Republicans voted for Great Society legislation was to distance themselves from the Goldwater faction of the GOP.

My vote goes to Mondale who did have establishment and primary voter backing:

[MT Treasurer]

Unpopular opinion: McCain was more of a sacrificial lamb than Dole in the sense that 1996 was more winnable for Republicans than 2008.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Unpopular opinion: McCain was more of a sacrificial lamb than Dole in the sense that 1996 was more winnable for Republicans than 2008.

At the time of the primary and event the convention: Most Certainly Not

After Lehman fell : Maybe but I still doubt it

[Pericles]

Mondale definitely, Adlai Stevenson both times, maybe Landon, Smith for sure, John W Davis, Cox, Bryan twice and Alton Parker.

[dw93]

Unpopular opinion: McCain was more of a sacrificial lamb than Dole in the sense that 1996 was more winnable for Republicans than 2008.

At the time of the primary and event the convention: Most Certainly Not

After Lehman fell : Maybe but I still doubt it

This. 1996 was a much less polarizing (surprising to say as the '90s were pretty polarizing) than 2008. Clinton was also a, for the most part, popular incumbent in 1996 whereas 2008 was an open election.

[Alben Barkley]

I still say McCain was more or less a sacrificial lamb. Republicans were never favored to win that election after eight years of Dubya, who was historically unpopular even before the economic crash. McCain basically won that primary as the elder statesman who was being honored with the nomination but that the party didn’t really expect would actually win, much like Dole and Stevenson before him, and to an extent Mondale. That’s not to say they didn’t try to win the election, but the fact that they even took gambles like Sarah Palin (and remember Mondale similarly gambled with Geraldine Ferraro) suggests they saw it as a desperate longshot. I think the GOP establishment actually would have backed Romney and pushed him harder if they thought there was a good shot of winning. Instead he was basically saved for 2012.

And I would actually disagree McGovern was a sacrificial lamb, at least in the traditional sense. I think the Democrats started out actually intending to contest that election, but things swiftly became a clusterf—k, in part due to Nixon’s meddling, in part due to their own messes like the convention and the VP debacle. Plus McGovern only got the nomination because it was the first post-1968 race where primaries played a bigger role than before and grassroots support was a bigger factor than establishment backing. Otherwise probably Humphrey would have been re-nominated, and THAT would have been a sacrificial lamb. Nominating McGovern instead was more an ideological statement like Goldwater’s nomination in 1964. And the country wasn’t nearly left or right enough to elect either one of them, clearly, which pushed both parties back to the center in subsequent cycles. And the GOP probably would have stayed there if not for the Reagan Revolution.

Also Dukakis is probably the biggest bomb of a candidate in recent memory. He was NOT a sacrificial lamb, nor was he an ideologue. He was intended to be a serious candidate who could actually win. And for a while there it looked like he had a real shot; he was up big in the polls. Partly due to Lee Atwater’s dirty tricks, but mostly thanks to his own baffling fails (the tank??), he lost a 17 point lead and got destroyed nearly as badly as the actual sacrificial lambs.

[Mr. Smith]

Adlai Stevenson, Walter Mondale, Wendell Willkie, Alf Landon, Al Smith, John W. Davis, Alton Parker, Horace Greeley, Fillmore 1856, the Whig Palette of 1836.

[Ilhan Apologist]

Unpopular opinion: McCain was more of a sacrificial lamb than Dole in the sense that 1996 was more winnable for Republicans than 2008.

At the time of the primary and event the convention: Most Certainly Not

After Lehman fell : Maybe but I still doubt it

This. 1996 was a much less polarizing (surprising to say as the '90s were pretty polarizing) than 2008. Clinton was also a, for the most part, popular incumbent in 1996 whereas 2008 was an open election.

But any Republican would be tied to Bush, whose approval ratings were in the trash even before Lehman.

[dw93]

Unpopular opinion: McCain was more of a sacrificial lamb than Dole in the sense that 1996 was more winnable for Republicans than 2008.

At the time of the primary and event the convention: Most Certainly Not

After Lehman fell : Maybe but I still doubt it

This. 1996 was a much less polarizing (surprising to say as the '90s were pretty polarizing) than 2008. Clinton was also a, for the most part, popular incumbent in 1996 whereas 2008 was an open election.

But any Republican would be tied to Bush, whose approval ratings were in the trash even before Lehman.

McCain was leading in the polls before Lehman brothers collapsed despite Bush's approval ratings. Dole Never lead Clinton in 1996.

[Arbitrage1980]

McGovern and Mondale; many Democrats (John Connally, along with the Democratic mayors of Philadelphia PA, Warren MI, and Roseville MI) endorsed Nixon in '72.

I don’t think McGovern was a “sacrificial lamb” because he was not the choice of the Democratic Establishment.

The Democrats would be putting up a sacrificial lamb that year whether it was Humphrey, Muskie, or McGovern. Same with 1964, with regards to Goldwater. Even if Rocky or Romney got it instead of Goldwater, they to would be sacrificial lambs.

The other Dems would still have lost to Nixon, but it would not have been the epic bloodbath of McGovern. Nixon got 30% of Dem votes that year and won rock solid blue counties such as Cook IL, Queens NY, Fulton GA, Erie NY.