Could Dukakis have won?

[136or142]

A better campaign could have made it closer. He wasn't all that far from getting over 200 electoral votes and making the race competitive.

Bush's percentage of the vote was about in line with Reagan's approval rating, which helps disprove the notion that Dukakis was a horrible candidate (unless you believe Bush was, as well, and the two canceled each other out). Dukakis consolidated the anti-Reagan vote, but he was unable to convince the country that the Reagan administration had been a failure and that a change was needed.

I agree that he ran a bad campaign, but there is a difference between that and being a bad candidate.

I wrote above the six states that Dukakis lost by less than 4% of the vote (I think all but Missouri by less than 3% of the vote) that were worth 120 electoral votes. So, he could have won 232 electoral votes.

[RRusso1982]

Strong economy+popular incumbent make a Dukakis win extremely unlikely.

See Richard Nixon in 1960 and Al Gore in 2000

[Oldiesfreak1854]

He could have, but it would have been a long shot.  He lacked the name recognition that Bush had and wasn't prepared for a national campaign, as evidenced by his missteps with the tank and the debate question about his wife.  Not to mention that voters were generally happy with the state of the nation at the time, which made his case harder to make.

Strong economy+popular incumbent make a Dukakis win extremely unlikely.

See Richard Nixon in 1960 and Al Gore in 2000

Although you're right that satisfaction with the status quo doesn't always mean a win for the incumbent party, I would argue that Bush was a much stronger candidate than Nixon in 1960 or Gore in 2000.  In 1960, Nixon refused to let Ike campaign for him until the last few days before the election, and Gore similarly refused to appear with Clinton in 2000.  Bush, meanwhile, used Reagan's support to his advantage and made a convincing case that he would continue those policies.  Not to mention that he was also more aggressive at attacking the opposition than Nixon and Gore were.

After the conventions, he led by 17 points in the polls and then lost by margin, that was never outperformed since then (53.4% of the vote and 426 electoral votes).

That was after the Democratic convention.  Prior to the conventions, the polls had him even with Bush, and after the Republican convention Bush took the lead.  (See this video, for instance.)

[NeverAgain]

Yes, he had a 17 point lead until halfway through September, they evened out of course, but they always do.

If he had defended the 'Willie Nelson' shpeal, pushed hard against Iran-Contra with Bush, and then not f'd up the Death Penalty Question. Dukakis could have pushed against the Reagan debt, and attacked the Reagan administration, but due to their popularity, it would have been tricky. I think if he had stuck to a strong message about his backstory and his 10 strong years in the Massachusetts Governor's Mansion, he would have beaten Bush.

[HisGrace]

Yes, he had a 17 point lead until halfway through September, they evened out of course, but they always do.

If he had defended the 'Willie Nelson' shpeal, pushed hard against Iran-Contra with Bush, and then not f'd up the Death Penalty Question. Dukakis could have pushed against the Reagan debt, and attacked the Reagan administration, but due to their popularity, it would have been tricky. I think if he had stuck to a strong message about his backstory and his 10 strong years in the Massachusetts Governor's Mansion, he would have beaten Bush.

The crime attack ads (both Willie Horton and Revolving Door and there may have been other) and the ensuing perception of him being naive and "soft on crime" hurt him more than anything. Plus Reagan had approval ratings solidly over 50 percent and the economy was doing well, so how effective could attacking Reagan be if most people liked him? The incumbent party only loses in that scenario if their candidate screws up royally.

[RRusso1982]

1988 was the last time California went Republican.  Bush won it by about 4 points.  Do you think that this was because it was Reagan's state?

[Nym90]

Dukakis never led in the polls after the Republican convention. The 17 point lead that he held in the Gallup poll was between conventions.

[Vega]

I think Dukakis could have, but it was better that he didn't. He would probably be defeated for re-election.

Can you imagine if he lost in 1992 for re-election, and then the Republicans managed to win 96 and 2000, with a Democrat finally being elected in 2004... just in time for the economic collapse.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Dukakis never led in the polls after the Republican convention. The 17 point lead that he held in the Gallup poll was between conventions.

Exactly right.  It was a post-convention boost, nothing more.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

1988 was the last time California went Republican.  Bush won it by about 4 points.  Do you think that this was because it was Reagan's state?

Maybe, but I suspect it had more to do with the fact that moderates and socially liberal suburbanites were more likely to vote R at that time, before Pat Buchanan came along and declared a "culture war."

[Breton Racer]

Had he been able to characterize Bush as ineffective, and inept, successfully tie him to Iran-Contra, and avoid himself being classified as a 'Massachusetts Liberal he could have won.
Dukakis: 52% (314)
Bush 47% (224)

[hopper]

1988 was the last time California went Republican.  Bush won it by about 4 points.  Do you think that this was because it was Reagan's state?

I read somwhere in article on the internet which as titled "The Myth on How Republican's lost California"(having to do with Prop 187.) Latino's in California in 1990 identified as 23% Republican but in 1992 only identified as 12% Republican. Also there was a swing of the White Vote in California to the Dems in 1992.

[Redban]

I was not alive at the time, so I may only offer an answer based on what I have read:

In 1988, Reagan had extremely high approval ratings; his charm was still indefectible; the economy was healthy; and foreign relations were, for the first time in a long time, stable (i.e. the end of the Cold War).

As Reagan's VP, George H.W. Bush had those benefits in his arsenal, which means the answer to your question is no; Dukakis couldn't have won against the popular, successful Reagan Revolution.

Bush wasn't a great candidate, as indicated by Dukakis's significant gains over Mondale and Carter (i.e. the Northeast) as well as Clinton's big victory 4 years later. Thus, you can probably surmise that Reagan was the sole reason for which George H.W. Bush became President.