1988: Al Gore the Democratic nominee

[darklordoftech]

Senator Al Gore: 379
Vice President George Bush: 159

[Agonized-Statism]

Vice President George Bush (R-TX) / Senator Dan Quayle (R-IN) ✓
Senator Al Gore (D-TN) / Governor Michael Dukakis (D-MA)

Swap Dukakis out for any Northern liberal of your choice. Gore does better than Dukakis because he had a better grip on the party's DLC Democrat future, but he still loses due to the Republicans' popularity and wedge issues like crime. A shift to the right was needed for the Democrats to do better at that time, and I assume Gore would run to the right of Dukakis. Give or take Maryland, but IIRC the Willie Horton stuff had a very strong impact there. Nor do I think Gore has a strong enough home state advantage to swing Tennessee unless he's winning nationwide given his collapse there in 2000. Maybe that was because Bush Jr. was a more flamboyant Southern personality with Southern appeal, but Bush Sr. had also improved on Reagan's margins there despite an arguably more Southern, more conservative ticket in opposition than in 1984.

[darklordoftech]

Vice President George Bush (R-TX) / Senator Dan Quayle (R-IN) ✓
Senator Al Gore (D-TN) / Governor Michael Dukakis (D-MA)

Swap Dukakis out for any Northern liberal of your choice. Gore does better than Dukakis because he had a better grip on the party's DLC Democrat future, but he still loses due to the Republicans' popularity and wedge issues like crime. A shift to the right was needed for the Democrats to do better at that time, and I assume Gore would run to the right of Dukakis. Give or take Maryland, but IIRC the Willie Horton stuff had a very strong impact there. Nor do I think Gore has a strong enough home state advantage to swing Tennessee unless he's winning nationwide given his collapse there in 2000. Maybe that was because Bush Jr. was a more flamboyant Southern personality with Southern appeal, but Bush Sr. had also improved on Reagan's margins there despite an arguably more Southern, more conservative ticket in opposition than in 1984.

Gore supported the death penalty and all other “law and order” policies and seemed more “southern” in 1988 than he did in 2000 and geographical polarization hadn’t yet reached the point it would by 2000.

[Agonized-Statism]

Gore supported the death penalty and all other “law and order” policies and seemed more “southern” in 1988 than he did in 2000 and geographical polarization hadn’t yet reached the point it would by 2000.

Right, but you also have to factor in the running mate. Clinton's decision to run with a fellow Southern New Democrat in 1992 was against conventional wisdom. Gore didn't even make that call in his 2000 run, when he followed the old New Dealer paradigm of balancing the ticket with a Northerner. Gore would be likely to run with a Northerner who would be more liberal on that stuff in 1988, giving Bush an opening.

[darklordoftech]

Gore supported the death penalty and all other “law and order” policies and seemed more “southern” in 1988 than he did in 2000 and geographical polarization hadn’t yet reached the point it would by 2000.

Right, but you also have to factor in the running mate. Clinton's decision to run with a fellow Southern New Democrat in 1992 was against conventional wisdom. Gore didn't even make that call in his 2000 run, when he followed the old New Dealer paradigm of balancing the ticket with a Northerner. Gore would be likely to run with a Northerner who would be more liberal on that stuff in 1988, giving Bush an opening.

The running mate never makes a difference outside of their home state unless the Presidential candidate is old or in poor health. Gore was 40 years old, so there’d be a 0% chance of his running mate taking over.

[Agonized-Statism]

Gore supported the death penalty and all other “law and order” policies and seemed more “southern” in 1988 than he did in 2000 and geographical polarization hadn’t yet reached the point it would by 2000.

Right, but you also have to factor in the running mate. Clinton's decision to run with a fellow Southern New Democrat in 1992 was against conventional wisdom. Gore didn't even make that call in his 2000 run, when he followed the old New Dealer paradigm of balancing the ticket with a Northerner. Gore would be likely to run with a Northerner who would be more liberal on that stuff in 1988, giving Bush an opening.

The running mate never makes a difference outside of their home state unless the Presidential candidate is old or in poor health. Gore was 40 years old, so there’d be a 0% chance of his running mate taking over.

In a campaign, yes it does. Say Gore talks about how his administration will be hardcore law and order at a debate. Bush would point out that his running mate isn't, that his ticket is contradictory, and that the Republicans are therefore better qualified on that issue. The candidates could only do so much to separate themselves from the connotations of their party label even back then. No doubt he would do better in the South, but in a scenario where he loses, those states stay more narrowly with the GOP. Even Clinton struggled with the region in his landslide victories.