If Reagan were allowed to run a third term, and did?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 06:32:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History
  Alternative History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  If Reagan were allowed to run a third term, and did?		 « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: If Reagan were allowed to run a third term, and did?  (Read 12637 times)
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 03, 2005, 03:32:23 PM »


Reagan-174
Dukakis-364

Your guess at a map?
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2005, 03:35:16 PM »
Quote from: Milk_and_Cereal on October 03, 2005, 03:32:23 PM


Reagan-174
Dukakis-364

Your guess at a map?

Check that math again.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2005, 03:41:03 PM »
I also feel that Reagan would have carried PA, as Bush did. 
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2005, 03:44:15 PM »
Oh, come on. We all know Reagan does better in the South than Bush.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2005, 03:44:21 PM »
Reagan would have done as well as Bush, imo, if not better.  Dukakis was a terrible candidate.

You know which states to switch because of that.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2005, 03:50:55 PM »
Dukakis loses badly, as in real life. That is, unless Reagan's health issues are leaked.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,562
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2005, 04:00:21 PM »
A better 1988 what-if is Clinton v. Bush.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2005, 04:15:56 PM »
Quote from: Boss Tweed on October 03, 2005, 04:00:21 PM
A better 1988 what-if is Clinton v. Bush.

Is this with that convention speech of his or not?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,562
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2005, 09:25:36 PM »
Quote from: Sam Spade (GM) on October 03, 2005, 04:15:56 PM
Quote from: Boss Tweed on October 03, 2005, 04:00:21 PM
A better 1988 what-if is Clinton v. Bush.

Is this with that convention speech of his or not?

Hah, up to you I suppose.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2005, 09:43:01 PM »
well, for all those who say Reagan would've won by more, I have to point out

1.I took the closest states for 1988; going by the trends-not the fact that Reagan was running instead of Bush.
2.The Iran-Contra was at that time a recent stain on Reagan's record-Dukakis could've used it against him.
3.John Ford-simple addition is not my strong point Tongue
I think I goofed after I added a state or something.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2005, 10:28:24 PM »
Quote from: Milk_and_Cereal on October 03, 2005, 09:43:01 PM
2.The Iran-Contra was at that time a recent stain on Reagan's record-Dukakis could've used it against him.
Well, he could've, but come on, this is Dukakis we're talking about here. Tongue
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2005, 11:35:41 PM »
(slaps forehead at the obvious mistake)  Roll Eyes
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 04, 2005, 02:40:28 PM »
Quote from: Bacon King on October 03, 2005, 10:28:24 PM
Quote from: Milk_and_Cereal on October 03, 2005, 09:43:01 PM
2.The Iran-Contra was at that time a recent stain on Reagan's record-Dukakis could've used it against him.
Well, he could've, but come on, this is Dukakis we're talking about here. Tongue

If he mentioned it he would have ended up implicating himself.
Logged
The Constitarian
Rookie
**
Posts: 229


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 04, 2005, 05:45:23 PM »
    Reagan would have won by a land slide.
Logged
George W. Hobbes
Mr. Hobbes
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 962


Political Matrix
E: -0.38, S: 1.03

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2005, 06:39:30 PM »
President Reagan.

Which brings up the interesting question...what does Ronnie do about Iraq?
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2005, 08:22:14 PM »
Reagan would have won a third term had he been able to, and chosen to, run.

Still, it's better he didn't.  It's always better to leave the audience wanting more, and as an old actor, I'm sure Reagan knew that.  I doubt he would have run again had he been able to.

His third term probably would have ended badly, as Bush's did, and his legacy would not be what it is today.

For executive offices, I think it almost never pays to go beyond two terms.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2005, 08:34:16 PM »
Quote from: The Constitarian on October 04, 2005, 05:45:23 PM
    Reagan would have won by a land slide.

Sad It's sad, but it's true Sad (but almost as good as a President Dukakis Wink)
Logged
BobOMac2k2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 280


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 10, 2005, 05:28:00 PM »
I don't think he would have won. No matter what they thought of him at the time, they would have wanted someone else.

Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 10, 2005, 09:16:57 PM »
Quote from: BobOMac2k2 on October 10, 2005, 05:28:00 PM
I don't think he would have won. No matter what they thought of him at the time, they would have wanted someone else.



A good candidate might have beaten Reagan in '88.  Dukakis was not a good candidate.  Heck, he falls below the level of bad.  He was actively bad. 
Logged
Moooooo
nickshepDEM
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,909


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 10, 2005, 09:20:48 PM »
Mario Cuomo vs Reagan in 1988?
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2005, 09:29:32 PM »

Closer, but no.  I'll say 325-350 to 175-200 roughly.

Could Cuomo have won anywhere in the South?  Nope, and neither could have any other Northeast Democrat at the time or now, frankly.

Could Cuomo have won California?  This is closer, but my feeling is still no.

If the Democrats lose the the entire South and California, they lose the election.  (Black's political book lesson #1)
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2005, 12:03:24 AM »

Cuomo never had a shot at national office.  He had/has way too many skeletons in his closet.  The scandals would have shredded him.
Logged
BobOMac2k2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 280


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2005, 01:43:21 PM »
Quote from: Tredrick on October 10, 2005, 09:16:57 PM
Quote from: BobOMac2k2 on October 10, 2005, 05:28:00 PM
I don't think he would have won. No matter what they thought of him at the time, they would have wanted someone else.




Nobody sane would have Nominated him to run against Reagan.
A good candidate might have beaten Reagan in '88.  Dukakis was not a good candidate.  Heck, he falls below the level of bad.  He was actively bad. 
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2005, 01:48:07 PM »
Quote from: BobOMac2k2 on October 11, 2005, 01:43:21 PM
Quote from: Tredrick on October 10, 2005, 09:16:57 PM
Quote from: BobOMac2k2 on October 10, 2005, 05:28:00 PM
I don't think he would have won. No matter what they thought of him at the time, they would have wanted someone else.



A good candidate might have beaten Reagan in '88.  Dukakis was not a good candidate.  Heck, he falls below the level of bad.  He was actively bad. 

Nobody sane would have Nominated him to run against Reagan.

Are you accusing the Democrats of being sane?  This is a party that managed to nominate Dukakis in the firs tplace.  If Reagan is still around, I see no reason for them to change.
Logged
Blank Slate
Rookie
**
Posts: 137


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2005, 01:23:51 PM »
Quote from: Boss Tweed on October 03, 2005, 04:00:21 PM
A better 1988 what-if is Clinton v. Bush.

Or another better what-if would have been:  Gore vs. Bush (Sr.) that is.  don't forget Gore had ran for President in the primaries and if not for a few mistakes, Gore might have had a chance to be the Democratic nominee in 1988.   
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 13 queries.