Were Goldwater, Humphrey, and McGovern sacrificial lambs?

[darklordoftech]

?

[McGarnagle]

I think they intended to win, but expected to lose

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

One of the three is not like the others.

[Alcibiades]

No Republican was beating LBJ in 1964, and I’m sure that Republicans were fully aware that Goldwater would do particularly badly, but in the eyes of the Goldwaterites, the more important thing was to nominate an ideologically pure movement conservative; the 1964 Republican nomination was about winning over the party, not the country. Goldwater lost the battle, but he and his supporters won the war.

Humphrey was certainly not a sacrificial lamb. Democratic prospects looked pretty dire at the beginning of 1968, but HHH ran a good campaign and almost pulled it back; were it not for Nixon’s alleged sabotage/treason, he may have won.

In hindsight, Nixon was not going to be beaten in 1972, but candidates like Muskie would have fancied their chances. However, McGovern won out because he understood how to navigate the newly instituted primary system. While McGovern’s legacy in his party is more mixed than Goldwater’s, as later candidates tried to project an image of moderation following his failure, he did succeed in helping to turn the party from New Deal, lunch-pail economic populism to social liberalism.

Overall, then, none really fit the definition of “sacrificial lamb”, which suggests a low-profile candidate who reluctantly takes one for the team as everyone knows any candidate of their party will lose. Goldwater and McGovern were nominated due to huge grassroots enthusiasm for them (and in their supporters’ eyes, a chance to remake the party), and Humphrey was a serious party insider who, unlike the other two, actually had a chance.

Ironically, the candidate who initially seemed most like a sacrificial lamb was Bill Clinton. Most of the big Democratic names didn’t run for the nomination in 1992 as they assumed they would be handily beaten by an incumbent who has just presided over the end of the Cold War and won the First Gulf War, so a little-know Southern governor was nominated...

[darklordoftech]

“sacrificial lamb”, which suggests a low-profile candidate

I wouldn’t call Al Smith, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, or John McCain “low-profile”.

[Alcibiades]

“sacrificial lamb”, which suggests a low-profile candidate

I wouldn’t call Al Smith, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, or John McCain “low-profile”.

This is the usual connotation - obviously with Presidential elections, they are going to be fairly high-profile. But each of those candidates was far from ideal - Smith a Catholic, Mondale having been on a ticket that was beaten soundly 4 years before, Dole was the worst here and if the GOP felt they could have won in 1996, they would have fielded a better candidate, and McCain’s age meant 2008 was a case of “now or never”.

[darklordoftech]

No Republican was beating LBJ in 1964, and I’m sure that Republicans were fully aware that Goldwater would do particularly badly, but in the eyes of the Goldwaterites, the more important thing was to nominate an ideologically pure movement conservative; the 1964 Republican nomination was about winning over the party, not the country. Goldwater lost the battle, but he and his supporters won the war.

Humphrey was certainly not a sacrificial lamb. Democratic prospects looked pretty dire at the beginning of 1968, but HHH ran a good campaign and almost pulled it back; were it not for Nixon’s alleged sabotage/treason, he may have won.

In hindsight, Nixon was not going to be beaten in 1972, but candidates like Muskie would have fancied their chances. However, McGovern won out because he understood how to navigate the newly instituted primary system. While McGovern’s legacy in his party is more mixed than Goldwater’s, as later candidates tried to project an image of moderation following his failure, he did succeed in helping to turn the party from New Deal, lunch-pail economic populism to social liberalism.

Overall, then, none really fit the definition of “sacrificial lamb”, which suggests a low-profile candidate who reluctantly takes one for the team as everyone knows any candidate of their party will lose. Goldwater and McGovern were nominated due to huge grassroots enthusiasm for them (and in their supporters’ eyes, a chance to remake the party), and Humphrey was a serious party insider who, unlike the other two, actually had a chance.

Ironically, the candidate who initially seemed most like a sacrificial lamb was Bill Clinton. Most of the big Democratic names didn’t run for the nomination in 1992 as they assumed they would be handily beaten by an incumbent who has just presided over the end of the Cold War and won the First Gulf War, so a little-know Southern governor was nominated...

Had Jesse Jackson or Gary Hart defeated Mondale in 1984 or had Phil Gramm or Pat Buchanan defeated Dole in 1996, would it have been a similar situation to Goldwater and McGovern?

[Alcibiades]

No Republican was beating LBJ in 1964, and I’m sure that Republicans were fully aware that Goldwater would do particularly badly, but in the eyes of the Goldwaterites, the more important thing was to nominate an ideologically pure movement conservative; the 1964 Republican nomination was about winning over the party, not the country. Goldwater lost the battle, but he and his supporters won the war.

Humphrey was certainly not a sacrificial lamb. Democratic prospects looked pretty dire at the beginning of 1968, but HHH ran a good campaign and almost pulled it back; were it not for Nixon’s alleged sabotage/treason, he may have won.

In hindsight, Nixon was not going to be beaten in 1972, but candidates like Muskie would have fancied their chances. However, McGovern won out because he understood how to navigate the newly instituted primary system. While McGovern’s legacy in his party is more mixed than Goldwater’s, as later candidates tried to project an image of moderation following his failure, he did succeed in helping to turn the party from New Deal, lunch-pail economic populism to social liberalism.

Overall, then, none really fit the definition of “sacrificial lamb”, which suggests a low-profile candidate who reluctantly takes one for the team as everyone knows any candidate of their party will lose. Goldwater and McGovern were nominated due to huge grassroots enthusiasm for them (and in their supporters’ eyes, a chance to remake the party), and Humphrey was a serious party insider who, unlike the other two, actually had a chance.

Ironically, the candidate who initially seemed most like a sacrificial lamb was Bill Clinton. Most of the big Democratic names didn’t run for the nomination in 1992 as they assumed they would be handily beaten by an incumbent who has just presided over the end of the Cold War and won the First Gulf War, so a little-know Southern governor was nominated...

Had Jesse Jackson or Gary Hart defeated Mondale in 1984 or had Phil Gramm or Pat Buchanan defeated Dole in 1996, would it have been a similar situation to Goldwater and McGovern?

Jackson would have lost every state and only won DC. Hart does better than Mondale but Reagan still wins comfortably.

With Buchanan, yes, you may have been looking at a Goldwater- or McGovern-scale defeat. Gramm would probably have done similar to Dole, maybe a little better in the South.

[Wrenchmob]

Definitely Not Humphery.

[darklordoftech]

No Republican was beating LBJ in 1964, and I’m sure that Republicans were fully aware that Goldwater would do particularly badly, but in the eyes of the Goldwaterites, the more important thing was to nominate an ideologically pure movement conservative; the 1964 Republican nomination was about winning over the party, not the country. Goldwater lost the battle, but he and his supporters won the war.

Humphrey was certainly not a sacrificial lamb. Democratic prospects looked pretty dire at the beginning of 1968, but HHH ran a good campaign and almost pulled it back; were it not for Nixon’s alleged sabotage/treason, he may have won.

In hindsight, Nixon was not going to be beaten in 1972, but candidates like Muskie would have fancied their chances. However, McGovern won out because he understood how to navigate the newly instituted primary system. While McGovern’s legacy in his party is more mixed than Goldwater’s, as later candidates tried to project an image of moderation following his failure, he did succeed in helping to turn the party from New Deal, lunch-pail economic populism to social liberalism.

Overall, then, none really fit the definition of “sacrificial lamb”, which suggests a low-profile candidate who reluctantly takes one for the team as everyone knows any candidate of their party will lose. Goldwater and McGovern were nominated due to huge grassroots enthusiasm for them (and in their supporters’ eyes, a chance to remake the party), and Humphrey was a serious party insider who, unlike the other two, actually had a chance.

Ironically, the candidate who initially seemed most like a sacrificial lamb was Bill Clinton. Most of the big Democratic names didn’t run for the nomination in 1992 as they assumed they would be handily beaten by an incumbent who has just presided over the end of the Cold War and won the First Gulf War, so a little-know Southern governor was nominated...

Had Jesse Jackson or Gary Hart defeated Mondale in 1984 or had Phil Gramm or Pat Buchanan defeated Dole in 1996, would it have been a similar situation to Goldwater and McGovern?

Jackson would have lost every state and only won DC. Hart does better than Mondale but Reagan still wins comfortably.

With Buchanan, yes, you may have been looking at a Goldwater- or McGovern-scale defeat. Gramm would probably have done similar to Dole, maybe a little better in the South.

What I meant is, “Would a Jackson, Hart, Buchanan, or Gramm nomination have been a takeover of their party rather than a sacrificial lamb?”

[dw93]

No Republican was beating LBJ in 1964, and I’m sure that Republicans were fully aware that Goldwater would do particularly badly, but in the eyes of the Goldwaterites, the more important thing was to nominate an ideologically pure movement conservative; the 1964 Republican nomination was about winning over the party, not the country. Goldwater lost the battle, but he and his supporters won the war.

Humphrey was certainly not a sacrificial lamb. Democratic prospects looked pretty dire at the beginning of 1968, but HHH ran a good campaign and almost pulled it back; were it not for Nixon’s alleged sabotage/treason, he may have won.

In hindsight, Nixon was not going to be beaten in 1972, but candidates like Muskie would have fancied their chances. However, McGovern won out because he understood how to navigate the newly instituted primary system. While McGovern’s legacy in his party is more mixed than Goldwater’s, as later candidates tried to project an image of moderation following his failure, he did succeed in helping to turn the party from New Deal, lunch-pail economic populism to social liberalism.

Overall, then, none really fit the definition of “sacrificial lamb”, which suggests a low-profile candidate who reluctantly takes one for the team as everyone knows any candidate of their party will lose. Goldwater and McGovern were nominated due to huge grassroots enthusiasm for them (and in their supporters’ eyes, a chance to remake the party), and Humphrey was a serious party insider who, unlike the other two, actually had a chance.

Ironically, the candidate who initially seemed most like a sacrificial lamb was Bill Clinton. Most of the big Democratic names didn’t run for the nomination in 1992 as they assumed they would be handily beaten by an incumbent who has just presided over the end of the Cold War and won the First Gulf War, so a little-know Southern governor was nominated...

Had Jesse Jackson or Gary Hart defeated Mondale in 1984 or had Phil Gramm or Pat Buchanan defeated Dole in 1996, would it have been a similar situation to Goldwater and McGovern?

Jackson would have lost every state and only won DC. Hart does better than Mondale but Reagan still wins comfortably.

With Buchanan, yes, you may have been looking at a Goldwater- or McGovern-scale defeat. Gramm would probably have done similar to Dole, maybe a little better in the South.

What I meant is, “Would a Jackson, Hart, Buchanan, or Gramm nomination have been a takeover of their party rather than a sacrificial lamb?”

Hart would've been seen as a trial run for 1988, Jackson would be viewed as McGovern 2.0 without the long term influence on the party, Buchanan would get crushed, even worse than Dole, it's debatable as to whether he'd have had meaningful influence on the GOP in the long term, while Gramm would be just a slightly more conservative version of Dole.