1988: Bill Clinton vs. George H.W. Bush

[Alben Barkley]

Let's suppose a young, charismatic Arkansas governor named William Jefferson Clinton decided to run for president four years earlier than he actually did. Let's say he gets the nomination and runs his campaign in the general election in a pretty similar way to how he did in 1992, including the selection of Al Gore as his running mate and James Carville as his campaign manager.

In this scenario, I would think Clinton would be far more likely to capitalize on the farm crisis and Iran-Contra and use them to attack Bush relentlessly. Certainly he would be less prone to attacks for being "too liberal" and "soft on crime" and such compared to Dukakis, and not make political blunders like the tank.

So could he win then, despite 1988 being a year in which Bush was running as the "third term" of the popular Reagan? I think he certainly could have made it much closer at the very least. The situation would be far more comparable to 1960 than the actual 1988. If Clinton played all his cards right, I think he even could have pulled a sweep of the plains/farms states where Dukakis overperformed AND won much of the South just as he would eventually do anyway.

[One Term Floridian]

I could see Clinton/Gore do even better in 1988 than they actually did in 1992. An all-southern ticket would make a mockery of HW’s New England roots and would cause him to crash in his own home state as well as much of the South

[darklordoftech]

It would be easy for Clinton to tie Bush to job losses and income inequality. B. Clinton, Carville, and Stephanopoulos knew how to show empathy and appeal to “the forgotten man”.

Governor Bill Clinton/Senator Al Gore: 371
Vice President George Bush/Senator Dan Quayle: 167

[Sir Mohamed]

It would have been much closer, but HW still wins. Clinton could still run (and win) in a 1992 rematch after coming this close.

I think Bill Clinton would have picked a more experienced VP than Al Gore. Bentsen still was a strong choice for either candidate.

✓ Vice President George HW Bush (R-TX)/Senator Dan Quayle (R-IN): 280 EVs.; 50.1%
Governor Bill Clinton (D-AR)/Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX): 258 EVs.; 48.8%

[bagelman]

Clinton should win. 1988 was the Democrat's race to lose and they lost it. Duke was a poor candidate. Clinton meanwhile is a good campaigner. I may not think he's the best President for the "forgotten man" but he's what the national atmosphere really demanded.

[ALGOREBOT2000]

Clinton would have won a close victory in 1988, similarly to 1960. He would have done better  in counterattacking Lee Atwater and the Bush campaign, compared to Dukakis. Also, Clinton couldn't be labeled as a "Massachusetts Liberal" and would win some Southern states. But, Clinton is not picking Gore in 88 due to the lack of experience on a national ticket. I could see John Glenn, Sam Nunn, and Lloyd Bentsen as possible running-mates.

[MIKESOWELL]

I think that Clinton would do better than Bush, but one thing that has to be remembered here is that the country's tolerance for infidelity for presidential candidates was not quite yet what it gradually became in the 1990s and onwards. Gary Hart had to drop out a year prior due to the Donna Rice scandal. I think that's one of Clinton's weak spots. I also think that his age (42) and his lack of foreign policy expertise hurts him more in 1988 as opposed to 1992 due to Communism still being an existing threat. I think Clinton does better but Bush prevails.