1988: Bush/Quayle vs. Clinton/Gore

[rebeltarian]

Nah, in 1988 America was riding high on the Reagan revolution.  Dukakis lead early in the polls only by virtue of the golly-wow factor.  Clinton was in his early fourties and Gore would have been only 39, which means Clinton never would have even selected Gore as his running mate.  He would have gone with a more established veteran from the Northeast or Midwest, of which, alas, there were really no solid candidates.   

But, for sake of your arguement, a Clinton-Gore '88 ticket would have done more or less the same as Dukakis/Bentson.  They would have picked up some blue-collar Democrats in the heartland, but independents and senior citizens would have gone for Bush.  Some social liberal/progressive/anti-southern voters in states like Vermont and Washington would have even stayed home or voted for Bush.  The Bush campaign would have hammered Clinton/Gore for their youth and inexperience in foreign policy, touted the steady economy, Reaganomics and the generally positive mood of the nation.  Republicans still win this in a landslide.  Clinton was wise to back out and wait for '92.

[rebeltarian]

I've still got a 373-165 landslide for Bush/Quayle.  Clinton and Gore carry Arkansas and Tennessee, swing Missouri, hold Maryland (no Willie Horton disaster here, lol!) and Pennsylvania, and cut it close in Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota and New Mexico.  Bush holds moderate intellectuals in Vermont, Delaware, Illinois, California and Washington state and wins moderates and seniors on age-factor and foreign policy experience to easily carry New Jersey, Michigan and Ohio.