1988 Election

[CivicParticipant]

Could Dukakis have won if he ran as more of a moderate?

[Morgan Kingsley]

Him being a liberal was the least of his issues

But he might have won Illinois and Pennsylvania

[MIKESOWELL]

Dukakis biggest problem was that he was not aggressive enough and let the Bush campaign define who he was, which consistently left him on the defensive. Despite Bush's overwhelming electoral victory, Dukakis could have won that year.

[Redban]

Maybe. He was leading Bush by a lot in the polls early on, over 10%. Though it’s unclear how reliable polls were in 1988.

Being a liberal really hurt Dukakis. The Bush campaign hit him heavy on it. He was from Massachusetts, a state known for heavy liberalism. He supported prison furloughs for people accused of 1st degree murder (Willie Horton). He vetoed a bill that would’ve mandated teachers lead students in the Pledge if Allegiance. He vetoed mandatory sentences for drug dealers. He had ties to the extremely liberal ACLU. He vetoed the death penalty; later, he gave an unacceptably chill answer as to whether he would stay opposed to death penalty if his wife were raped. His lack of emotion while giving the answer really offended people.

The question is less, “Would Dukakis have won if he were more moderate instead of Dukakis?”

It’s more, “Would Bush have lost if the Dems had sent a moderate?”

Bush’s campaign were actually frightened at Gary Hart, the front runner before the sex scandal. Hart was a more moderate Democrat with some military background. Given Bush’s early poll numbers as well as Bush’s lack of charisma, it’s likely Hart would’ve beaten him.

[Mr. Smith]

Could Dukakis have won if he ran as more of a moderate?

Death penalty and some crime issues aside, he did.

No, Dukakis needed to go all-out on the attack, and he should've tapped someone besides Lloyd Bentsen for Veep.

[Bourbonfan]

^Why do you feel Bentsen was a bad pick? If your emphasis is aggression, he delivered the most memorable put-down of the election, not to mention how ruthless he was in picking up his senate seat in the first place.

[Mr. Smith]

^Why do you feel Bentsen was a bad pick? If your emphasis is aggression, he delivered the most memorable put-down of the election, not to mention how ruthless he was in picking up his senate seat in the first place.

Because Bentsen never seemed fully on board with Dukakis, neither ideologically nor personally. Yes, his takedown of Quayle was epic, but most of that debate he largely was lept over or a debate against Dukakis and he did seem tired and above it. Aggression only works if the chemistry is there too.


One thing that cannot be said about Mittens or Hillary is that they picked their veeps with just box-checking in mind, Paul Ryan and Tim Kaine were genuine attack dogs.

[Lechasseur]

Well if Dukakis ran as more of a moderate then he wouldn't be Dukakis then

No, Dukakis would never have won. Another Democrat quite possibly, but not Dukakis.

And I agree with L.D. Smith but not for the same reasons.

I think if anything Bentsen hurt Dukakis because he seemed like the guy who should have been at the top of the ticket rather than Dukakis. You don't want a VP whom a lot of voters think is more presidential material than you are.

I think Bentsen may well have beaten Bush had he been the nominee that year, but Dukakis wouldn't have.

[Orwell]

Well if Dukakis ran as more of a moderate then he wouldn't be Dukakis then

No, Dukakis would never have won. Another Democrat quite possibly, but not Dukakis.

And I agree with L.D. Smith but not for the same reasons.

I think if anything Bentsen hurt Dukakis because he seemed like the guy who should have been at the top of the ticket rather than Dukakis. You don't want a VP whom a lot of voters think is more presidential material than you are.

I think Bentsen may well have beaten Bush had he been the nominee that year, but Dukakis wouldn't have.

People in America weren't psyched about Bush in 1988, he was nowhere near as popular as Reagan and had the problem with Iran-Contra whether it was, "If you knew about it and you let it happen you're a criminal" or "You didn't know about it as VP how will you know about corruption"

[dw93]

Well if Dukakis ran as more of a moderate then he wouldn't be Dukakis then

No, Dukakis would never have won. Another Democrat quite possibly, but not Dukakis.

And I agree with L.D. Smith but not for the same reasons.

I think if anything Bentsen hurt Dukakis because he seemed like the guy who should have been at the top of the ticket rather than Dukakis. You don't want a VP whom a lot of voters think is more presidential material than you are.

I think Bentsen may well have beaten Bush had he been the nominee that year, but Dukakis wouldn't have.

People in America weren't psyched about Bush in 1988, he was nowhere near as popular as Reagan and had the problem with Iran-Contra whether it was, "If you knew about it and you let it happen you're a criminal" or "You didn't know about it as VP how will you know about corruption"

Agreed with the bolded comment, though Reagan wasn't that popular in 1988, Bill Clinton had a higher job approval in 2000 than Reagan had at the end of his Presidency. Any Democrat who wasn't named Jesse Jackson could've narrowly won that election or at the very least made it a very narrow Bush win, but Dukakis, who at one point was leading by double digits in the polls (though I doubt that big of lead would've lasted even in the best of circumstances) ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history and made it a landslide Bush win. Plus, despite Bush's landslide win he had, IIRC, no coattails down ticket.

As for Iran Contra, while I personally think it was and should've been an issue, by the time the primaries began it was no longer an issue, and thus had little to no impact on the general.

[Red Willow]

Bentsen as the Dem nominee in 1988 would have dominated the south, easily winning TX, LA, AR, KY, and making OK, AL, and dare I say even MS competitive.

[Lechasseur]

Could Dukakis have won if he ran as more of a moderate?

Death penalty and some crime issues aside, he did.

No, Dukakis needed to go all-out on the attack, and he should've tapped someone besides Lloyd Bentsen for Veep.

Oh just noticed this one now

Well true, on the economy I believe he was relatively moderate.

But that's NOT why people thought he was too liberal.

It was precisely due to his views on cultural issues and crime.

No one who opposed the death penalty like that was getting elected in 1988, combined with all the other stuff Dukakis was liberal on.

His liberalism I think would have to wait until at least the 2000s in order to be acceptable to enough people to win a presidential election, if not the 2010s.

[Intell]

Could Dukakis have won if he ran as more of a moderate?

Death penalty and some crime issues aside, he did.

No, Dukakis needed to go all-out on the attack, and he should've tapped someone besides Lloyd Bentsen for Veep.

Oh just noticed this one now

Well true, on the economy I believe he was relatively moderate.

But that's NOT why people thought he was too liberal.

It was precisely due to his views on cultural issues and crime.

No one who opposed the death penalty like that was getting elected in 1988, combined with all the other stuff Dukakis was liberal on.

His liberalism I think would have to wait until at least the 2000s in order to be acceptable to enough people to win a presidential election, if not the 2010s.

It was the suburbs that were in a frenzy about his opinions on crimes and cultural issues (military). These issues probably lost him Illinois, Pennsylvania and Maryland and probably like 2.5% of the vote. 

The white working class industrial tows meanwhile were Dukakis country.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Well if Dukakis ran as more of a moderate then he wouldn't be Dukakis then

No, Dukakis would never have won. Another Democrat quite possibly, but not Dukakis.

And I agree with L.D. Smith but not for the same reasons.

I think if anything Bentsen hurt Dukakis because he seemed like the guy who should have been at the top of the ticket rather than Dukakis. You don't want a VP whom a lot of voters think is more presidential material than you are.

I think Bentsen may well have beaten Bush had he been the nominee that year, but Dukakis wouldn't have.

People in America weren't psyched about Bush in 1988, he was nowhere near as popular as Reagan and had the problem with Iran-Contra whether it was, "If you knew about it and you let it happen you're a criminal" or "You didn't know about it as VP how will you know about corruption"

Agreed with the bolded comment, though Reagan wasn't that popular in 1988, Bill Clinton had a higher job approval in 2000 than Reagan had at the end of his Presidency. Any Democrat who wasn't named Jesse Jackson could've narrowly won that election or at the very least made it a very narrow Bush win, but Dukakis, who at one point was leading by double digits in the polls (though I doubt that big of lead would've lasted even in the best of circumstances) ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history and made it a landslide Bush win. Plus, despite Bush's landslide win he had, IIRC, no coattails down ticket.

As for Iran Contra, while I personally think it was and should've been an issue, by the time the primaries began it was no longer an issue, and thus had little to no impact on the general.

Not really , Reagan by the time he left office had approval of 63% according to Gallup and 67% according to NY Times

[Alben Barkley]

Gary Hart likely would have won, and what the media (and possibly Lee Atwater — supposedly on his deathbed he admitted to setting Hart up) did to him was disgraceful.

What Lee Atwater did to Dukakis was also disgraceful, but Dukakis was a terrible candidate with a lot of self-inflicted damage as well. It’s not so much he was too liberal as he was just weak and unprepared to handle the bombs being lobbed at him by Atwater and the Bush campaign. The whole tank photo thing was obviously a disaster. But in general he was wishy-washy and couldn’t either stand up for himself or hit back effectively at Bush.

Lloyd Bentsen probably would have been the most formidable candidate Bush could have faced. An actual Texan would have beaten a New England Yankee posing as one in Texas, and Bentsen likely would have done well in the South in general. He also was the best part of the Dukakis campaign — the most memorable moment of it comes from the VP debate. And he was experienced and tough enough to take on Bush and his dirty campaign tactics. Not being associated with liberal Massachusetts likely would have been an asset too, yes. Nobody could have credibly accused a man representing Texas of all states as being too lenient on crime.