A. The writer appears to be completely ignorant of why Goldwater lost—and why the margin was so large. There are several factors unique to that election—among them the deliberate sabotage by the Rockefeller wing of the party; the honey-moon allowed LBJ, because of the Kennedy assassination; and the false perception that LBJ was a “conservative,” which was deliberately promoted. Another was the war scare, because Goldwater favored a more aggressive foreign policy than LBJ (or Trump, for that matter).
B. Whether one likes Trump or not, Jeb Bush is virtually irrelevant. The ease with which Trump reduced Bush to a fifth-string factor, says more about Bush’s basic inadequacy, than about Trump’s skill. (Note, it was not Trump’s skill, just his presence, that caused Bush to also drop below several other candidates, when people began to look more critically at the former Florida Governor.)
Quote; “A. The writer appears to be completely ignorant of why Goldwater lost—and why the margin was so large.”
Karl Rove, err, I mean the writer isn’t ignorant. They just don’t care. They have their “Goldwater = coservatives = disaster” narrative and that is that.
Ohioan, good analysis. I would add that Goldwater’s foreign policy regarding Viet Nam was either go in big and win it fast or stay the hell out of there. LBJ took the first part and clubbed Goldwater over the head with it making him seem like a war monger. Remember the Daisy ad?
In hindsight, Goldwater was proven 100% correct - especially in light of LBJ and McNamara utterly screwing up Viet Nam with meandering political calculations that drug it out.