Trump versus Goldwater (1964)

[steve2470]

Goldwater lost big in 1964, winning only 52 electoral votes and 38.4% of the popular vote. He won only six states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

Will Trump's loss be as spectactular or worse (hopefully) ?

14 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	A more crushing loss
	3 (21%)
	A less crushing loss
	7 (50%)
	He will barely lose
	1 (7%)
	Other which includes any conceivable option
	0 (0%)
	42
	1 (7%)
	Beer
	0 (0%)
	Larry the mouser cat at 10 Downing Street
	0 (0%)
	Palmerston the mouser cat at the UK Foreign Office
	0 (0%)
	Gladstone the mouser cat of the UK Treasury Office
	0 (0%)
	Puppies
	2 (14%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I remember Goldwater, and that Johnson commercial with the daisy...

that wiped him out.

I never thought Goldwater deserved that-- he was conservative, but old school conservative, which meant he handled his life and business with honor. Maybe he wouldn't have been a great president, but maybe he wouldn't have snuck us into Viet Nam. And although he believed in civil rights, maybe he wouldn't have fought for them like Johnson did. Can't ever know "what could have been."

But, for sure, I can't compare this lowlife piece of shit running now with Goldwater. No, the two are not even the same species.

Could Trump possibly end up with no states? that would be nice.

[steve2470]

2. yes, Goldwater was a much better human being from what I have read! nt

[Warpy]

3. Goldwater despised the fundies

and a win might have prevented his party from courting them in 1980 by cleaning out all the crooked Nixon appointees who thought they were a worthy voting bloc. Goldwater knew they'd never compromise with anyone on anything and would kill the party.

He was a lot better than that daisy commercial but he had stuffed his foot in his mouth over the possibility of using nuclear bombs on Vietnam. Had he not done that, his loss wouldn't have been such a massive one.

As for the Orange Maggot, I don't know how big his loss will be. It all depends on how far down his spiral goes before there's any recovery among the Archie Bunker types.

[unblock]

4. while hillary will win comfortably,

there are too many hyper-partisans, particularly in the republican party, for a proper landslide.

[tirebiter]

5. Johnson was running as Kennedy2.0 in 1964

My parents had voted for Nixon in 1960. Then they voted for Johnson out of guilt in 1964 but went right back to Nixon in 1968. I don't think they were alone.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Can't predict, but I voted for a much better candidate than Trump: Larry the Cat

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Less than Goldwater because this year Trump will get votes

symbolizing protest like Brexit, not support for him.

[book_worm]

8. Johnson had huge approval ratings his first year as president and Goldwater was always

running 30-40 points behind in the polls. The GOP was less conservative back then too with lots of liberals and moderates in the party who defected to LBJ. Trump will lose but not as badly as Goldwater did.

[steve2470]

9. anyone else ? nt

[Matrosov]

10. It will be much closer

Between the two, Trump is the one who deserves a crushing loss, but I think there will be enough people voting for him for the sake of opposing Clinton rather than supporting Trump that it will be a much closer contest than 1964.

[TwilightZone]

11. Too much of the country is solidly red for that kind of blowout, unfortunately.

Much of the South and the middle of the country are going to vote R, even if it's Trump.

I could see 55/45 and maybe 350-370 electoral votes for Clinton, but much beyond that is probably unrealistic.

In reality, it should be worse than Goldwater, but there's just too much ignorance entrenched in large swaths of the US. Why anyone would vote for Trump is beyond my understanding, but a large number of people are going to do it.