I never got the point of that "shoot the wounded" quote and I'm not sure if he uses it right, but the conclusion -- "absent Goldwater, it’s doubtful Republicans would have ventured near the battlefield at all" -- is probably accurate.
Goldwater played a pivotal role in recreating Republicans as a real alternative to 60s liberalism, something all those politicians and pundits the article cites didn't see or didn't want to see.
Still, Hayward doesn't disprove the notion that Goldwater's candidacy meant losing seats that the GOP couldn't afford to lose.
The 1964 campaign was polarized from the outset -- Goldwater vs. Rockefeller or Scranton or Henry Cabot Lodge -- and bound to end badly for Republicans.
A candidate somewhere in between Barry and Rocky might have served the party well, but thee was no such candidate in the field.
“A candidate somewhere in between Barry and Rocky might have served the party well, but thee was no such candidate in the field.”
That candidate was Richard Nixon, who was waiting in the wings to be asked (or if something happened to one of the other two). He did end up doing well four years later. And, though he really didn’t like the conservatives either, he did see which way the wind was blowing and got a number of them elected in ‘66 and beyond.