Poll: Biggest "Sacrificial Lamb" Presidential candidate

[Lincoln Republican]

Who, in your view, is the biggest "Sacrificial Lamb" Presidential candidate?

Please vote and discuss.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Goldwater. if Jesus Christ himself had been the Republican nominee in 1964, it might have been a close race, but any other Republican was destined to lose to LBJ in a landslide.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Of the elections since the war, John Davis (1924) fits the bill rather nicely—from what I've read, hardly anyone though he could win and the nomination went his way only after the delegates failed to break the deadlock between the heavyweight contenders. Perhaps Winfield Scott (1852) or Rufus King (1816) ought to be considered as well.

[Lincoln Republican]

Of the elections since the war, John Davis (1924) fits the bill rather nicely—from what I've read, hardly anyone though he could win and the nomination went his way only after the delegates failed to break the deadlock between the heavyweight contenders. Perhaps Winfield Scott (1852) or Rufus King (1816) ought to be considered as well.

Thank you.

Yes, I was in fact going to put James Cox 1920 and John W Davis 1924 on the list, and should have, but decided not to. 

[TPIG]

Goldwater. If Jesus Christ himself had been the Republican nominee in 1964, it might have been a close race, but any other Republican was destined to lose to LBJ in a landslide.

Exactly. Goldwater was a trailblazer in terms of running a conservative campaign on the national level. It just happened to be one of the worst years to do so.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Hillary Clinton.

[Boss_Rahm]

Dewey in '44.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I dont think you can call Goldwater or McGovern Sacrificial Lamb candidates because neither were really wanted by their party's establishment.

[HisGrace]

I dont think you can call Goldwater or McGovern Sacrificial Lamb candidates because neither were really wanted by their party's establishment.

Yep, it doesn't really fit with the definition.

I would say Stevenson in 56, since he'd already been shellacked by Eisenhower in 52. The Dems were pretty much throwing in the towel by nominating him again. Mondale would be a good choice too.

I thought of Landon in 36 for a second but then remembered that people contemporaneously expected a close election and were stunned by the huge landslide. They didn't really have scientific polling back then.

[dw93]

Voted Goldwater, but now that I think about it, I'm kind of in agreement with Old School Republican in that:

I dont think you can call Goldwater or McGovern Sacrificial Lamb candidates because neither were really wanted by their party's establishment.

So, Goldwater and McGovern aside, I'd probably go with Stevenson, with Mondale and Bob Dole in 1996 (I'm surprised Dole wasn't an option) tied for second.

[Orser67]

Voted Stevenson in '56, since he's the only one who never truly had a chance or believed he had a chance. Federalist candidates in 1804, 1808, and 1816, and Democratic candidates in 1904, 1920, 1924, and 1928, also never had a chance.

[Lechasseur]

Voted Goldwater, but now that I think about it, I'm kind of in agreement with Old School Republican in that:

I dont think you can call Goldwater or McGovern Sacrificial Lamb candidates because neither were really wanted by their party's establishment.

So, Goldwater and McGovern aside, I'd probably go with Stevenson, with Mondale and Bob Dole in 1996 (I'm surprised Dole wasn't an option) tied for second.

This. I actually think Stevenson would have beaten anyone other than Eisenhower, it's a shame he never became president.

And Bob Dole was at the very least the biggest sacrificial lamb in my lifetime, I think the only other candidate who was a bigger sacrificial lamb than him in the last 40 years was Mondale. I really do think that had the GOP seriously thought they could win in 1996 they would never have made Dole their nominee.

[darklordoftech]

Smith because America wasn't ready for a Catholic.

[The Mikado]

Horace Greeley's probably the canonical answer.

[Free Bird]

Smith because America wasn't ready for a Catholic.

I don't think that's the main factor. For one, he didn't even want to run. Second, you DO know who he was running against, right?

[TheLeftwardTide]

Voted Alf Landon but I forgot about the fact that hindsight is 20/20...

Now I'd probably go with Stevenson '56

[BundouYMB]

Smith because America wasn't ready for a Catholic.

I don't think that's the main factor. For one, he didn't even want to run. Second, you DO know who he was running against, right?

Then you should probably read some history. His Catholicism was a massive factor in why he lost in a landslide. Why did you think he only got 51% in Alabama?

[hunter gatherer]

if by sacrificial lamb you mean someone who ran against a popular president with whom he had no chance of beating, I'm going to go with Walter Mondale.

[dw93]

Also, why is Carter in 1980 included? He was a sitting President, and actually had a chance (a very, very slim one) at winning.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't think Greeley qualifies as a sacrificial lamb candidate.   The Democrats backed the Liberal Republicans because they thought they stood a chance to win with Democratic support whereas the Democrats on their own would not. 

[Mr. Smith]

Landon

Smith was a very enthusiastic campaigner on the trail. Even if he didn't have a chance, he was clearly of the Goldwater/McGovern sort, running to make a point. That he nearly flipped New York and flipped Massachusetts and Rhode Island permanently and performed the best in the Northeast since Wilson in 1912 should only exacerbate where things were going and what kind of point he was trying to make.


But Landon added nothing and was noted for being mostly absent.

Even Stevenson in 1956 put in more effort.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Alton B. Parker.

The sheer absurdity is unmatched, of nominating a judge who barely even wanted to run for the job and who’d hardly made a peep about national politics before he was nominated.

The even funnier part is that he probably could’ve done a decent job.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Alton B. Parker.

The sheer absurdity is unmatched, of nominating a judge who barely even wanted to run for the job and who’d hardly made a peep about national politics before he was nominated.

The even funnier part is that he probably could’ve done a decent job.

I read somewhere that Parker is the only MAJOR PARTY presidential nominee who hasn't had a biography written on him.

[Flyersfan232]

Who, in your view, is the biggest "Sacrificial Lamb" Presidential candidate?

Please vote and discuss.

mondale since he had the worst results of them all.

[Lechasseur]

Alton B. Parker.

The sheer absurdity is unmatched, of nominating a judge who barely even wanted to run for the job and who’d hardly made a peep about national politics before he was nominated.

The even funnier part is that he probably could’ve done a decent job.

Agreed lol