1988- Ted Kennedy vs George H. W.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

In 1988, Ted Kennedy wins the nomination (secretly due to dirty tricks) and decides to pick Bill Clinton as his running mate to "balance things out". Vice President Bush wins the Republican nomination and chooses Illinois Representative and Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference, Lynn Martin as his VP. Who would come out on top?

[HomestarSB9]

Sen. Ted Kennedy / Gov. Bill Clinton - 292
Vice Pres. George H.W. Bush / Rep. Lynn Martin - 246

[OSR stands with Israel]

Bush/Martin 348
Kennedy/Clinton 190

[MillennialModerate]

Sen. Ted Kennedy / Gov. Bill Clinton - 343

Vice Pres. George H.W. Bush / Rep. Lynn Martin - 195


Dukakis had a huge summer lead on Bush as GOP fatigue was setting in and GHWB role in Iran contra was becoming a bigger issue - Dukakis blew it with some dumb moves, a politician like Ted Kennedy wouldn't let that happen. And Bill Clinton is a unbelievable retail politician which only helps.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

 With his liberal record on crime and immigration, Kennedy would have been an even riper target for the Bush-Atwater strategy of playing to the public's distrust of ideological liberalism. Bush wins with 400-450 EV.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Edward Moore Kennedy(D-MA)/William Jefferson Clinton(D-AR) - 310
George Herbert Walker Bush(R-TX)/Lynn Martin(R-IL) - 228

[HisGrace]

With his liberal record on crime and immigration, Kennedy would have been an even riper target for the Bush-Atwater strategy of playing to the public's distrust of ideological liberalism. Bush wins with 400-450 EV.

Yep, Kennedy probably wins a few extra Northern states but its probably about the same result.

[Mr. Smith]

With his liberal record on crime and immigration, Kennedy would have been an even riper target for the Bush-Atwater strategy of playing to the public's distrust of ideological liberalism. Bush wins with 400-450 EV.

Wouldn't matter. Ted would have an excellent defense for that and would do more to hammer in on Iran-Contra, and neither would've gone solely after Dan Quayle.

Edward Moore Kennedy(D-MA)/William Jefferson Clinton(D-AR) - 310
George Herbert Walker Bush(R-TX)/Lynn Martin(R-IL) - 228

So yeah, this seems about right, give or take with SD and Montana.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

With his liberal record on crime and immigration, Kennedy would have been an even riper target for the Bush-Atwater strategy of playing to the public's distrust of ideological liberalism. Bush wins with 400-450 EV.

Wouldn't matter. Ted would have an excellent defense for that and would do more to hammer in on Iran-Contra, and neither would've gone solely after Dan Quayle.

Edward Moore Kennedy(D-MA)/William Jefferson Clinton(D-AR) - 310
George Herbert Walker Bush(R-TX)/Lynn Martin(R-IL) - 228

So yeah, this seems about right, give or take with SD and Montana.

The Republican machine would have made Chappaquiddick a household word again. Iran-Contra would seem like small potatoes in comparison.

[Mr. Smith]

With his liberal record on crime and immigration, Kennedy would have been an even riper target for the Bush-Atwater strategy of playing to the public's distrust of ideological liberalism. Bush wins with 400-450 EV.

Wouldn't matter. Ted would have an excellent defense for that and would do more to hammer in on Iran-Contra, and neither would've gone solely after Dan Quayle.

Edward Moore Kennedy(D-MA)/William Jefferson Clinton(D-AR) - 310
George Herbert Walker Bush(R-TX)/Lynn Martin(R-IL) - 228

So yeah, this seems about right, give or take with SD and Montana.

The Republican machine would have made Chappaquiddick a household word again. Iran-Contra would seem like small potatoes in comparison.

Trump University and his many scandals should've made those Emails small potatoes, didn't happen because he was a celebrity with a name, and Hillary was on the scene for too long and people had their ideas.

Bush Sr is that man on the scene, office hopping for too long with the Iran-Contra, whereas Kennedy was a Kennedy, and JFK was an icon.

Also, Ted might very have defeated Carter in 1980 if the Hostage Crisis hadn't given a rally-around-the-flag effect.


Anyway, only Dukakis could lose California.

[HisGrace]

With his liberal record on crime and immigration, Kennedy would have been an even riper target for the Bush-Atwater strategy of playing to the public's distrust of ideological liberalism. Bush wins with 400-450 EV.

Wouldn't matter. Ted would have an excellent defense for that and would do more to hammer in on Iran-Contra, and neither would've gone solely after Dan Quayle.

Edward Moore Kennedy(D-MA)/William Jefferson Clinton(D-AR) - 310
George Herbert Walker Bush(R-TX)/Lynn Martin(R-IL) - 228

So yeah, this seems about right, give or take with SD and Montana.

The Republican machine would have made Chappaquiddick a household word again. Iran-Contra would seem like small potatoes in comparison.

Trump University and his many scandals should've made those Emails small potatoes, didn't happen because he was a celebrity with a name, and Hillary was on the scene for too long and people had their ideas.

Bush Sr is that man on the scene, office hopping for too long with the Iran-Contra, whereas Kennedy was a Kennedy, and JFK was an icon.

Also, Ted might very have defeated Carter in 1980 if the Hostage Crisis hadn't given a rally-around-the-flag effect.


Anyway, only Dukakis could lose California.

The 2016 analogy doesn't work because Kennedy had been a household name for longer than Bush. He didn't really become a true national figure until his foreign service work in the mid 70's, and even then was likely known mostly to political wonks until his presidential run in 1980. People knew who Ted Kennedy was since the 60's and he'd consistently been building baggage. If anything he's Clinton in the analogy.

People always overestimate the Kennedy effect too. RFK, who was much better liked than Ted, lost most the primaries to McCarthy in 68 (just five years after the assassination) despite the big win in California before he died, and might not have got the nomination even if he lived. It's not like being a Kennedy was an auto-win.

He could have beaten Carter if not for the hostage crisis, but Carter pre-hostage crisis was much less popular nationally than Bush was in 88.

People always treat Bush 41 like he was a super-weak candidate in discussions like this ignoring the fact that he won 400 EVs and a bigger PV share than any candidate since.

[Kingpoleon]

258: George H. W. Bush/Jack Kemp - 47.5%
264: Ted Kennedy/Terry Sanford - 44.4%
16: Cliff Finch/George Wallace Jr. - 7.0%
Others - 1.2%

[HisGrace]

258: George H. W. Bush/Jack Kemp - 47.5%
264: Ted Kennedy/Terry Sanford - 44.4%
16: Cliff Finch/George Wallace Jr. - 7.0%
Others - 1.2%

You're gonna have to explain that one dude......

[Kingpoleon]

Finch is an Anderson-style "last gasp": in his gubernatorial bids, he united a post-Kennedy voting coalition of working class whites and blacks with his populist appeal. With two major party candidates that both exclude his populism, he runs for President on a third party ticket.

[Mr. Smith]

With his liberal record on crime and immigration, Kennedy would have been an even riper target for the Bush-Atwater strategy of playing to the public's distrust of ideological liberalism. Bush wins with 400-450 EV.

Wouldn't matter. Ted would have an excellent defense for that and would do more to hammer in on Iran-Contra, and neither would've gone solely after Dan Quayle.

Edward Moore Kennedy(D-MA)/William Jefferson Clinton(D-AR) - 310
George Herbert Walker Bush(R-TX)/Lynn Martin(R-IL) - 228

So yeah, this seems about right, give or take with SD and Montana.

The Republican machine would have made Chappaquiddick a household word again. Iran-Contra would seem like small potatoes in comparison.

Trump University and his many scandals should've made those Emails small potatoes, didn't happen because he was a celebrity with a name, and Hillary was on the scene for too long and people had their ideas.

Bush Sr is that man on the scene, office hopping for too long with the Iran-Contra, whereas Kennedy was a Kennedy, and JFK was an icon.

Also, Ted might very have defeated Carter in 1980 if the Hostage Crisis hadn't given a rally-around-the-flag effect.


Anyway, only Dukakis could lose California.

The 2016 analogy doesn't work because Kennedy had been a household name for longer than Bush. He didn't really become a true national figure until his foreign service work in the mid 70's, and even then was likely known mostly to political wonks until his presidential run in 1980. People knew who Ted Kennedy was since the 60's and he'd consistently been building baggage. If anything he's Clinton in the analogy.

People always overestimate the Kennedy effect too. RFK, who was much better liked than Ted, lost most the primaries to McCarthy in 68 (just five years after the assassination) despite the big win in California before he died, and might not have got the nomination even if he lived. It's not like being a Kennedy was an auto-win.

He could have beaten Carter if not for the hostage crisis, but Carter pre-hostage crisis was much less popular nationally than Bush was in 88.

People always treat Bush 41 like he was a super-weak candidate in discussions like this ignoring the fact that he won 400 EVs and a bigger PV share than any candidate since.

He was, he was lucky Dukakis managed to be even worse and Reagan managed to be really popular.

If it were Gore [who hadn't completely lost his charisma at the time], and Reagan only had low 50's, he probably would've lost quite easily.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Finch is an Anderson-style "last gasp": in his gubernatorial bids, he united a post-Kennedy voting coalition of working class whites and blacks with his populist appeal. With two major party candidates that both exclude his populism, he runs for President on a third party ticket.

Doesn't quite explain how a corpse won two states...

[Kingpoleon]

Finch is an Anderson-style "last gasp": in his gubernatorial bids, he united a post-Kennedy voting coalition of working class whites and blacks with his populist appeal. With two major party candidates that both exclude his populism, he runs for President on a third party ticket.

Doesn't quite explain how a corpse won two states...

Well, now I feel stupid. Any suggestions for a replacement?

[Lechasseur]

With his liberal record on crime and immigration, Kennedy would have been an even riper target for the Bush-Atwater strategy of playing to the public's distrust of ideological liberalism. Bush wins with 400-450 EV.

This, Ted Kennedy would have done at least as badly as Dukakis, if not worse, plus Kennedy was pretty shady (Chappaquiddick)

[The Govanah Jake]

Edward Moore Kennedy(D-MA)/William Jefferson Clinton(D-AR) - 310
George Herbert Walker Bush(R-TX)/Lynn Martin(R-IL) - 228

This but give Bush Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, South Dakota, and maybe California