If you were Michael Dukakis's campaign manager, what would you have done ...

[Bo]

differently? I'm talking about 1988 here.

[Guderian]

I would lock Dukakis in basement and pretend like Bentsen is running for President.

[redcommander]

I would have incapacitated Dukakis for the length of the campaign, and by default made Bentson the presidential nominee with either Gore or Cuomo as the VP choice.

[hawkeye59]

Get Dukakis to really respond to Bush's attacks. and don't do the tank photo-op. That probably would have won it for him.

[Psychic Octopus]

Picked Jackson as VP, just for the luls.

[perdedor]

Told him that coming off as apathetic to the idea of his wife being raped and murdered would play badly with the American people, for starters. Secondly, I would tell him that he looked effing ridiculous in that tank.

[Max Electric]

Called Bush a racist for the Willie Horton ad... repeatedly enough to make it the story...

I'm not implying it would have gotten Dukakis elected, but it would have been fun nonetheless.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Calling Bush out on all of his bullshit.

[hawkeye59]

Calling Bush out on all of his bullshit.

[Stranger in a strange land]

First I would have:

Called Bush a racist for the Willie Horton ad... repeatedly enough to make it the story...

and then after a few weeks of that:

I would lock Dukakis in basement and pretend like Bentsen is running for President.

[Bo]

I would have told him to drop out and either endorse Gore or encourage Cuomo to run.

[Mechaman]

I would've told him to not carry around his ACLU membership card like it was his dick, aka don't openly brag about how liberal he was.

[Vepres]

I would lock Dukakis in basement and pretend like Bentsen is running for President.

[Bo]

The Dukakis campaign in 1988 was interesting in my opinion. As they got towards November, Dukakis was praying (probably literally) for that eighteen state strategy. And when Ohio went first to Bush and some others of those eighteen fell Bush's way early in the evening, the Michael Dukakis campaign was over.

But, Dukakis should not have been in that tight of a schedule. To some sense, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He would have been better coming back again in 1992. Dukakis and any democrat would have had a better chance at beating George Bush and Dan Quayle in 1992 instead of 1988.

But, we are not talking about 1992...we are talking about 1988. The republicans made a lot of smart decisions. Probably due to the economy and the Iran Contra, the republicans were far behind in the summer. But, Bush did great when he brought Ronald Reagan in to campaign for him. Reagan called it part of his long farewell. Reagan helped a great deal. And a mistake that HW Bush made in 1992 that he did well in 1988, was that he let George W Bush help in 1988. George W came up with the Willie Horton ad and probably some other things. The Horton ad was great for the Bush campaign. That pulled emotional support from women and other groups. They should have dug something up like that on Bill Clinton in 1992.

But, the question is about the Dukakis campaign. Dukakis probably could have performed stronger and maybe pulled a squeaker upset if he had not made some gaffes during the fall campaign. Dukakis could do nothing to prevent the Horton ad from coming out. Someone on here said that he should have called it racist. Well, the Bush people could have found another prisoner who got a "weekend prison pass" that was white and put it back on Dukakis. The point was not the prisoner's race but the point was the crime that Horton committed.

So, what could Dukakis have done better? He should not have had made those gaffes in the debates.

The economy was in good shape in 1988, so that helped, not hurt, Bush Sr. The economy was kinda bad in some Midwestern states but they were mostly an exception to the rule. Also, I don't think Reagan helped too much--his approval rating was between 50 and 55% throughout 1988. That might have helped Bush a bit with the conservative base (who were a little distrustful of him due to his previous record) but I don't think Reagan really helped Bush Sr. too much with demographics outside the Republican/conservative base and the Religious Right.

[Bo]

The Dukakis campaign in 1988 was interesting in my opinion. As they got towards November, Dukakis was praying (probably literally) for that eighteen state strategy. And when Ohio went first to Bush and some others of those eighteen fell Bush's way early in the evening, the Michael Dukakis campaign was over.

But, Dukakis should not have been in that tight of a schedule. To some sense, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He would have been better coming back again in 1992. Dukakis and any democrat would have had a better chance at beating George Bush and Dan Quayle in 1992 instead of 1988.

But, we are not talking about 1992...we are talking about 1988. The republicans made a lot of smart decisions. Probably due to the economy and the Iran Contra, the republicans were far behind in the summer. But, Bush did great when he brought Ronald Reagan in to campaign for him. Reagan called it part of his long farewell. Reagan helped a great deal. And a mistake that HW Bush made in 1992 that he did well in 1988, was that he let George W Bush help in 1988. George W came up with the Willie Horton ad and probably some other things. The Horton ad was great for the Bush campaign. That pulled emotional support from women and other groups. They should have dug something up like that on Bill Clinton in 1992.

But, the question is about the Dukakis campaign. Dukakis probably could have performed stronger and maybe pulled a squeaker upset if he had not made some gaffes during the fall campaign. Dukakis could do nothing to prevent the Horton ad from coming out. Someone on here said that he should have called it racist. Well, the Bush people could have found another prisoner who got a "weekend prison pass" that was white and put it back on Dukakis. The point was not the prisoner's race but the point was the crime that Horton committed.

So, what could Dukakis have done better? He should not have had made those gaffes in the debates.

The economy was in good shape in 1988, so that helped, not hurt, Bush Sr. The economy was kinda bad in some Midwestern states but they were mostly an exception to the rule. Also, I don't think Reagan helped too much--his approval rating was between 50 and 55% throughout 1988. That might have helped Bush a bit with the conservative base (who were a little distrustful of him due to his previous record) but I don't think Reagan really helped Bush Sr. too much with demographics outside the Republican/conservative base and the Religious Right.

Do you agree that there was nothing that Dukakis could have done to stop the Horton ad from hurting him in some way?

He could have called it racist and said that this case was the exception and not the rule. He could have also said that the program to release prisoners was started before he was Governor and indicate some cases in Massachusetts when he was tough on crime.

[Bo]

The Dukakis campaign in 1988 was interesting in my opinion. As they got towards November, Dukakis was praying (probably literally) for that eighteen state strategy. And when Ohio went first to Bush and some others of those eighteen fell Bush's way early in the evening, the Michael Dukakis campaign was over.

But, Dukakis should not have been in that tight of a schedule. To some sense, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He would have been better coming back again in 1992. Dukakis and any democrat would have had a better chance at beating George Bush and Dan Quayle in 1992 instead of 1988.

But, we are not talking about 1992...we are talking about 1988. The republicans made a lot of smart decisions. Probably due to the economy and the Iran Contra, the republicans were far behind in the summer. But, Bush did great when he brought Ronald Reagan in to campaign for him. Reagan called it part of his long farewell. Reagan helped a great deal. And a mistake that HW Bush made in 1992 that he did well in 1988, was that he let George W Bush help in 1988. George W came up with the Willie Horton ad and probably some other things. The Horton ad was great for the Bush campaign. That pulled emotional support from women and other groups. They should have dug something up like that on Bill Clinton in 1992.

But, the question is about the Dukakis campaign. Dukakis probably could have performed stronger and maybe pulled a squeaker upset if he had not made some gaffes during the fall campaign. Dukakis could do nothing to prevent the Horton ad from coming out. Someone on here said that he should have called it racist. Well, the Bush people could have found another prisoner who got a "weekend prison pass" that was white and put it back on Dukakis. The point was not the prisoner's race but the point was the crime that Horton committed.

So, what could Dukakis have done better? He should not have had made those gaffes in the debates.

The economy was in good shape in 1988, so that helped, not hurt, Bush Sr. The economy was kinda bad in some Midwestern states but they were mostly an exception to the rule. Also, I don't think Reagan helped too much--his approval rating was between 50 and 55% throughout 1988. That might have helped Bush a bit with the conservative base (who were a little distrustful of him due to his previous record) but I don't think Reagan really helped Bush Sr. too much with demographics outside the Republican/conservative base and the Religious Right.

Do you agree that there was nothing that Dukakis could have done to stop the Horton ad from hurting him in some way?

He could have called it racist and said that this case was the exception and not the rule. He could have also said that the program to release prisoners was started before he was Governor and indicate some cases in Massachusetts when he was tough on crime.

Still, the Horton ad was going to strike an emotional cord with women and maybe some other groups just because of the scale of the crime. That is what I meant.

Well, in that case maybe Dukakis should have countered by attacking Bush Sr. for the enormous deficit and rapidly rising income inequality. Willie Horton would have most likley hurt Dukakis, but those attacks should have at least somewhat compensated for it. Also, in regards to the "wife raped" question Dukakis should have refused to answer or call the media's bluff. He should have said that this question was inappropriate for a debate.

[Mechaman]

The Dukakis campaign in 1988 was interesting in my opinion. As they got towards November, Dukakis was praying (probably literally) for that eighteen state strategy. And when Ohio went first to Bush and some others of those eighteen fell Bush's way early in the evening, the Michael Dukakis campaign was over.

But, Dukakis should not have been in that tight of a schedule. To some sense, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He would have been better coming back again in 1992. Dukakis and any democrat would have had a better chance at beating George Bush and Dan Quayle in 1992 instead of 1988.

But, we are not talking about 1992...we are talking about 1988. The republicans made a lot of smart decisions. Probably due to the economy and the Iran Contra, the republicans were far behind in the summer. But, Bush did great when he brought Ronald Reagan in to campaign for him. Reagan called it part of his long farewell. Reagan helped a great deal. And a mistake that HW Bush made in 1992 that he did well in 1988, was that he let George W Bush help in 1988. George W came up with the Willie Horton ad and probably some other things. The Horton ad was great for the Bush campaign. That pulled emotional support from women and other groups. They should have dug something up like that on Bill Clinton in 1992.

But, the question is about the Dukakis campaign. Dukakis probably could have performed stronger and maybe pulled a squeaker upset if he had not made some gaffes during the fall campaign. Dukakis could do nothing to prevent the Horton ad from coming out. Someone on here said that he should have called it racist. Well, the Bush people could have found another prisoner who got a "weekend prison pass" that was white and put it back on Dukakis. The point was not the prisoner's race but the point was the crime that Horton committed.

So, what could Dukakis have done better? He should not have had made those gaffes in the debates.

The economy was in good shape in 1988, so that helped, not hurt, Bush Sr. The economy was kinda bad in some Midwestern states but they were mostly an exception to the rule. Also, I don't think Reagan helped too much--his approval rating was between 50 and 55% throughout 1988. That might have helped Bush a bit with the conservative base (who were a little distrustful of him due to his previous record) but I don't think Reagan really helped Bush Sr. too much with demographics outside the Republican/conservative base and the Religious Right.

Do you agree that there was nothing that Dukakis could have done to stop the Horton ad from hurting him in some way?

He could have called it racist and said that this case was the exception and not the rule. He could have also said that the program to release prisoners was started before he was Governor and indicate some cases in Massachusetts when he was tough on crime.

Still, the Horton ad was going to strike an emotional cord with women and maybe some other groups just because of the scale of the crime. That is what I meant.

Well, in that case maybe Dukakis should have countered by attacking Bush Sr. for the enormous deficit and rapidly rising income inequality. Willie Horton would have most likley hurt Dukakis, but those attacks should have at least somewhat compensated for it. Also, in regards to the "wife raped" question Dukakis should have refused to answer or call the media's bluff. He should have said that this question was inappropriate for a debate.

Because that really worked miracles for Mondale, didn't it?

[Bo]

The Dukakis campaign in 1988 was interesting in my opinion. As they got towards November, Dukakis was praying (probably literally) for that eighteen state strategy. And when Ohio went first to Bush and some others of those eighteen fell Bush's way early in the evening, the Michael Dukakis campaign was over.
 
But, Dukakis should not have been in that tight of a schedule. To some sense, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He would have been better coming back again in 1992. Dukakis and any democrat would have had a better chance at beating George Bush and Dan Quayle in 1992 instead of 1988.

But, we are not talking about 1992...we are talking about 1988. The republicans made a lot of smart decisions. Probably due to the economy and the Iran Contra, the republicans were far behind in the summer. But, Bush did great when he brought Ronald Reagan in to campaign for him. Reagan called it part of his long farewell. Reagan helped a great deal. And a mistake that HW Bush made in 1992 that he did well in 1988, was that he let George W Bush help in 1988. George W came up with the Willie Horton ad and probably some other things. The Horton ad was great for the Bush campaign. That pulled emotional support from women and other groups. They should have dug something up like that on Bill Clinton in 1992.

But, the question is about the Dukakis campaign. Dukakis probably could have performed stronger and maybe pulled a squeaker upset if he had not made some gaffes during the fall campaign. Dukakis could do nothing to prevent the Horton ad from coming out. Someone on here said that he should have called it racist. Well, the Bush people could have found another prisoner who got a "weekend prison pass" that was white and put it back on Dukakis. The point was not the prisoner's race but the point was the crime that Horton committed.

So, what could Dukakis have done better? He should not have had made those gaffes in the debates.

The economy was in good shape in 1988, so that helped, not hurt, Bush Sr. The economy was kinda bad in some Midwestern states but they were mostly an exception to the rule. Also, I don't think Reagan helped too much--his approval rating was between 50 and 55% throughout 1988. That might have helped Bush a bit with the conservative base (who were a little distrustful of him due to his previous record) but I don't think Reagan really helped Bush Sr. too much with demographics outside the Republican/conservative base and the Religious Right.

Do you agree that there was nothing that Dukakis could have done to stop the Horton ad from hurting him in some way?

He could have called it racist and said that this case was the exception and not the rule. He could have also said that the program to release prisoners was started before he was Governor and indicate some cases in Massachusetts when he was tough on crime.

Still, the Horton ad was going to strike an emotional cord with women and maybe some other groups just because of the scale of the crime. That is what I meant.

Well, in that case maybe Dukakis should have countered by attacking Bush Sr. for the enormous deficit and rapidly rising income inequality. Willie Horton would have most likley hurt Dukakis, but those attacks should have at least somewhat compensated for it. Also, in regards to the "wife raped" question Dukakis should have refused to answer or call the media's bluff. He should have said that this question was inappropriate for a debate.

Because that really worked miracles for Mondale, didn't it?

Mondale ran against Reagan and promised to raise taxes. Dukakis ran against Bush Sr. and both of these were greater problems in 1988 than 1984, along with the skyrocketing national debt.

[SingingAnalyst]

It's a longshot, and difficult to answer without benefit of hindsight. Dukakis was perceived as weak, and like Mondale did poorly among voters under 30, particularly white males (including blue collar ones).

Having said that:

(1) After Bush's gaffe in the first debate, in response to the abortion question where he started out by saying "I haven't sorted out the penalties" (at which the audience gasped), I would have hit him relentlessly on that. Said Bush wants to take us back to the days when men could boss and slap women around. Not cool. Even in 1988, young people, though they leaned GOP, had a strong libertarian streak and would not have wanted a President who would drag us back what was then 15 years. Tolerable for Reagan, with his working-class Hollywood Democratic pedigree. But for a blueblood patrician like GHWB, no go. He should have hit Bush relentlessly on that, particulaly with blue collar workers and women under 80. (Meanwhile he could let Bentsen paint Bush as a flip-flopper in TX, as Bush was once pro-choice).

(2) Hit Bush for his choice of Quayle. Risky since being an Evangelical was still pretty popular in 1988, but point out that Quayle was weak and unqualified. Hit him, in a manly way, on the "deer in headlights" issue, rather than let the media and Gail Sheehy do all the talking. (Twenty years later of course this strategy would work wonders against Sarah Palin, but this was 1988 not 2008).

(3) Lay out a plan for the future independent of his Boston handlers. Campaign against Bush's Deweyesque aloofness. Point out saying that he has a weakness for country music and pork rinds just makes him look stupid. Campaign like Harry Truman.

(4) At the end when Lee Atwater pulled his tricks, point out that Atwater was associated with an influential fundamentalist who had called Betty Ford a whore, implying she should be drowned. Then watch GHWB get embarrassed, watch as moderate voters in MI and IL and MD and other states abandon Bush for Dukakis.

Bottom line is Dukakis didn't fight to win, he didn't have it in him. He may not have won, but he would have made it a lot closer and Bush would have been weak from the start.