|
Title: Goldwater VS McGovern Post by: Burn baby, Burn on September 13, 2005, 07:02:42 PM this is a creul one, a question of who sucks more, the worst republican candidate in the last 90 years, or the worst democratic candidate in the same time period.
Title: Re: Goldwater VS McGovern Post by: A18 on September 13, 2005, 08:57:49 PM IMO, Goldwater was one of the best Republican candidates in the last 90 years.
Or do you mean electability? Title: Re: Goldwater VS McGovern Post by: WalterMitty on September 13, 2005, 09:10:45 PM i admire mcgovern a great deal.
he was and is a very decent person. goldwater...ack. thinly veiled racism won him the few votes he received. he turned into a bit of a media whore in later years. is there something in the water in arizona that causes that? Title: Re: Goldwater VS McGovern Post by: Lincoln Republican on September 13, 2005, 09:16:42 PM ()
1964 McGovern 344 Goldwater 194 McGovern benefits greatly from the Kennedy legacy or at least the perceived Kennedy legacy, and by a desire in the nation to carry on to some extent with the Kennedy agenda. Title: Re: Goldwater VS McGovern Post by: A18 on September 13, 2005, 09:51:47 PM thinly veiled racism won him the few votes he received. he turned into a bit of a media whore in later years. is there something in the water in arizona that causes that? Goldwater was instrumental in desegregating the Arizona national guard. You are very ignorant if you're calling him racist. Title: Re: Goldwater VS McGovern Post by: Lincoln Republican on September 13, 2005, 10:06:58 PM ()
1968 Goldwater 535 McGovern 3 Four years of President McGovern were, without a doubt, the most incompetent, amateurish, blundering, fumbling, directionless, most morally bankrupt Presidency in the history of the United States. The nation was mired in debt, the social programs were broke, taxes were at an all time high, morale in the military, what was left of it, was at an all time low, the nation was being run by incompetent liberals appointed for their radical views and because they fit a "quota" McGovern wanted to achieve, rather than for any qualifications to do the job. In the rematch in 1968 between Senator Goldwater and President McGovern, Goldwater wins all 50 states, McGovern wins DC. The popular vote breaks down 70% Goldwater 25% McGovern, 5% others. Title: Re: Goldwater VS McGovern Post by: Burn baby, Burn on September 13, 2005, 11:19:40 PM ()
327 - Goldwater 211 - McGovern that's what I think would happen. I dont think McGovern could beat anyone. if McGovern was running in Wilson's place in 1912, Roosevelt would have been elected EDIT - using 1972 map - 326-212 () Title: Re: Goldwater VS McGovern Post by: Lincoln Republican on September 14, 2005, 09:33:34 AM If the election is the 1964 election, I believe it would have been very difficult for any Republican to win, as there was a desire in the country to continue on with the work that Kennedy had begun.
There was a huge "sympathy" vote that the Democrats tapped into in 1964 as well. I agree, McGovern would be a terrible candidate, but circumstances in 1964 were far different than they were in 1972 when he actually ran for President. Title: Re: Goldwater VS McGovern Post by: Burn baby, Burn on September 14, 2005, 03:19:48 PM I have the game president elect, which compares candidates well. I ran 64, 68 (w wallace) and 72 with these two candidates. The first map showed this:
() (http://imageshack.us) () (http://imageshack.us) () (http://imageshack.us) you'd need to adjust these maps for good/bad campaigns Title: Re: Goldwater VS McGovern Post by: afleitch on October 19, 2005, 03:14:42 PM I personally would have boted for Goldwater, but I think we would have seen a North South divide that extended across the mid-west too.
Title: Re: Goldwater VS McGovern Post by: Beet on November 03, 2005, 06:17:08 PM Here is my old map based on the actual results of 64+72 combined into a single map:
() |