OTL, Johnson was able to win in '64 by running a generally feel-good campaign that emphasized his continuity with the New Frontier, and his own plans for a better future, with only slight mention of Goldwater's supposed irresponsibility, mostly in regards to military matters.
But, given some of Goldwater's more, umm, interesting statements(eg. flying a missile into the Kremlin men's rooom), not to mention his perceived alignment with extremist groups, could the Democrats have done even better by portraying him as some sort of raving lunatic? Or would the public just assume that was just so much scaremongering and view Johnson himself as unhinged?
But, given some of Goldwater's more, umm, interesting statements(eg. flying a missile into the Kremlin men's rooom), not to mention his perceived alignment with extremist groups, could the Democrats have done even better by portraying him as some sort of raving lunatic? Or would the public just assume that was just so much scaremongering and view Johnson himself as unhinged?