Which election loosers were "sacrificial lambs"? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 07, 2024, 01:05:37 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Which election loosers were "sacrificial lambs"? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Which election loosers were "sacrificial lambs"?  (Read 4585 times)
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,882
United States


« on: April 25, 2019, 06:18:04 PM »

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.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,882
United States


« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2019, 10:39:43 PM »

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.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,882
United States


« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2019, 09:48:53 PM »

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.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,882
United States


« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2019, 01:48:04 PM »

It was initially thought that the 1992 Democratic nominee would be a sacrificial lamb, but that turned out not to be the case.

I was 2 at the time but did the thought not cross anyone’s mind that 4 straight terms in the modern era is virtually impossible? They were sick of GOP rule of the White House, look at some of the states he won: Arkansas (2), Louisiana (2), Tennessee (2), Kentucky (2), Montana (1), Arizona (1), Georgia (1)....
The Gulf War had given Bush 90% approval ratings, and 1988 made many Democrats think that the Presidency was unwinnable for them. They thought a tough-on-crime Democrat wouldn’t be able to get through the primaries.

How early in 1992 did it become clear Bill could be the nominee

I would imagine sometime after New Hampshire.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 11 queries.