Who Was More Likely To Win?

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Well?

[Thomas D]

Nixon. At least Reagan's opponent didn't change running mates in the middle of the race.

[hcallega]

Nixon could have lost had he faced a very strong candidate and had they run a good campaign. Not McGovern, but still.

Reagan wasn't going to loose to anybody in 1984.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Reagan was more likely to win, but McGovern was more likely to lose.

[Dr. Cynic]

Reagan was more likely to win, but McGovern was more likely to lose.

Bingo.

Nixon could've been beaten by say a Humphrey or a non-Chappaquidick Kennedy or even a Muskie without the crying incident.

No one was gonna beat Reagan and really, outside of John Glenn, Mondale was about as good as you could've gotten in 84.

[Bo]

Nixon, since his opponent was a much worse candidate than Reagan's opponent was. Even though I think no one could have beaten either of them in those years since both of their approvals were around 60% on Election Day.

[Goldwater]

Reagan was more likely to win, but McGovern was more likely to lose.

Bingo.

Nixon could've been beaten by say a Humphrey or a non-Chappaquidick Kennedy or even a Muskie without the crying incident.

No one was gonna beat Reagan and really, outside of John Glenn, Mondale was about as good as you could've gotten in 84.

This.

[Phony Moderate]

Nixon. The economy was stronger.

[hcallega]

Nixon. The economy was stronger.

Except that the economy wasn't the focus of the election. Had HHH or Muskie been the nominee there is a very high chance of Nixon being taken to the mat.

[Dr. Cynic]

Nixon. The economy was stronger.

Except that the economy wasn't the focus of the election. Had HHH or Muskie been the nominee there is a very high chance of Nixon being taken to the mat.

Yep. Either HHH or Muskie could've made easy cases that the wrong choice was made in 1968. Unemployment was higher, so was inflation (On marginal levels I recall). Vietnam had been escalated. Humphrey and Muskie both had an easy track to say they would've done things better.

[feeblepizza]

Reagan. He was FAR more popular and had no strong Democratic/primary challengers. Nixon could have been unseated by Pete McCloskey or lost his general election bid to HHH or Muskie. McGovern (who was nominated via dirty tactics) was a nut-job and unelectable.

[Bo]

Nixon. The economy was stronger.

Except that the economy wasn't the focus of the election. Had HHH or Muskie been the nominee there is a very high chance of Nixon being taken to the mat.

Yep. Either HHH or Muskie could've made easy cases that the wrong choice was made in 1968. Unemployment was higher, so was inflation (On marginal levels I recall). Vietnam had been escalated. Humphrey and Muskie both had an easy track to say they would've done things better.

Unemployment wasn't that high in 1972 (it was 5% on Election Day) and inflation was low that year. Nixon withdrew most U.S. troops from Vietnam by the end of 1972. That, combined with Nixon's 60% approvals, would have made it highly unlikely for Nixon to be defeated by anyone in 1972. A President with those kinds of approvals just doesn't lose.

[DS0816]

(Remember the line an Oscar-winning Jason Robards' Washington Post Ben Bradlee had in 1976's All the President's Men?)

… 1972 Richard Nixon.