Would a President Dukakis have won re-election?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:33:28 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  Would a President Dukakis have won re-election?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Would a President Dukakis have won re-election?  (Read 1237 times)
Don Vito Corleone
bruhgmger2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,268
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 24, 2020, 05:40:15 AM »

Suppose Dukakis keeps his initial lead and wins the 1988 Election. Would he win re-election in 1992?
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2020, 07:40:29 AM »

Honestly hard to say. He could either win a close one or lose a close one.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,451
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2020, 01:17:59 PM »

Dole would probably win the GOP nomination because he was the runner-up in 1988 & it - like real life's 1996 - would be considered "his turn." As real life's 1996 proved, though, Dole is an inept campaigner whose generational warfare rhetoric turned off many voters, & as we saw in real life's 2012, even a vulnerable incumbent President can still win re-election if they're facing a weak opponent. So I think this 1992 would probably be comparable to real life's 2012: either candidate would have a chance to win, but the incumbent President has the slight advantage because they're the incumbent.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,356


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2020, 06:28:12 PM »

Dole would probably win the GOP nomination because he was the runner-up in 1988 & it - like real life's 1996 - would be considered "his turn." As real life's 1996 proved, though, Dole is an inept campaigner whose generational warfare rhetoric turned off many voters, & as we saw in real life's 2012, even a vulnerable incumbent President can still win re-election if they're facing a weak opponent. So I think this 1992 would probably be comparable to real life's 2012: either candidate would have a chance to win, but the incumbent President has the slight advantage because they're the incumbent.

I think Kemp would beat Dole in the primaries then win in November including sweeping into power a Republican House and Senate
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,451
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2020, 06:40:05 PM »

Dole would probably win the GOP nomination because he was the runner-up in 1988 & it - like real life's 1996 - would be considered "his turn." As real life's 1996 proved, though, Dole is an inept campaigner whose generational warfare rhetoric turned off many voters, & as we saw in real life's 2012, even a vulnerable incumbent President can still win re-election if they're facing a weak opponent. So I think this 1992 would probably be comparable to real life's 2012: either candidate would have a chance to win, but the incumbent President has the slight advantage because they're the incumbent.

I think Kemp would beat Dole in the primaries then win in November including sweeping into power a Republican House and Senate

I'm sorry, I just don't see how Kemp beats Dole in the primaries, let alone wins in November, let alone does so in enough of a landslide to sweep congressional Republicans into power.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2020, 06:51:03 PM »

50/50 honestly.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,356


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2020, 08:30:23 PM »

Dole would probably win the GOP nomination because he was the runner-up in 1988 & it - like real life's 1996 - would be considered "his turn." As real life's 1996 proved, though, Dole is an inept campaigner whose generational warfare rhetoric turned off many voters, & as we saw in real life's 2012, even a vulnerable incumbent President can still win re-election if they're facing a weak opponent. So I think this 1992 would probably be comparable to real life's 2012: either candidate would have a chance to win, but the incumbent President has the slight advantage because they're the incumbent.

I think Kemp would beat Dole in the primaries then win in November including sweeping into power a Republican House and Senate

I'm sorry, I just don't see how Kemp beats Dole in the primaries, let alone wins in November, let alone does so in enough of a landslide to sweep congressional Republicans into power.


I think 1992 would be 1994 in a presidential year (the gulf war would stop 1990 from being 1994).


Also Kemp would have the support of the grassroots, the conservative base and Reagan probably would help him behind the scenes
Logged
Don Vito Corleone
bruhgmger2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,268
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2020, 09:40:26 PM »

Dole would probably win the GOP nomination because he was the runner-up in 1988 & it - like real life's 1996 - would be considered "his turn." As real life's 1996 proved, though, Dole is an inept campaigner whose generational warfare rhetoric turned off many voters, & as we saw in real life's 2012, even a vulnerable incumbent President can still win re-election if they're facing a weak opponent. So I think this 1992 would probably be comparable to real life's 2012: either candidate would have a chance to win, but the incumbent President has the slight advantage because they're the incumbent.

I think Kemp would beat Dole in the primaries then win in November including sweeping into power a Republican House and Senate

I'm sorry, I just don't see how Kemp beats Dole in the primaries, let alone wins in November, let alone does so in enough of a landslide to sweep congressional Republicans into power.


I think 1992 would be 1994 in a presidential year (the gulf war would stop 1990 from being 1994).


Also Kemp would have the support of the grassroots, the conservative base and Reagan probably would help him behind the scenes
Kemp was extremely doctrinaire and pretty boring. Dukakis could very easily portray him as out of touch and extreme.
Logged
Amanda Huggenkiss
amanda dermichknutscht
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 658


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2020, 04:48:16 AM »

Dole would probably win the GOP nomination because he was the runner-up in 1988 & it - like real life's 1996 - would be considered "his turn." As real life's 1996 proved, though, Dole is an inept campaigner whose generational warfare rhetoric turned off many voters, & as we saw in real life's 2012, even a vulnerable incumbent President can still win re-election if they're facing a weak opponent. So I think this 1992 would probably be comparable to real life's 2012: either candidate would have a chance to win, but the incumbent President has the slight advantage because they're the incumbent.

I think Kemp would beat Dole in the primaries then win in November including sweeping into power a Republican House and Senate

I'm sorry, I just don't see how Kemp beats Dole in the primaries, let alone wins in November, let alone does so in enough of a landslide to sweep congressional Republicans into power.


I think 1992 would be 1994 in a presidential year (the gulf war would stop 1990 from being 1994).


Also Kemp would have the support of the grassroots, the conservative base and Reagan probably would help him behind the scenes
Kemp was extremely doctrinaire and pretty boring. Dukakis could very easily portray him as out of touch and extreme.

Yeah, I see that Kemp is well known among people who know quite a lot of stuff about politics and that he is popular among modern-day conservatives, but he was a lousy campaigner with very low name recognition. There is a reason why he was only a minor candidate in 1988.
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,282
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2020, 11:55:41 AM »

I doubt it. There’s probably still a recession, and Dukakis simply wasn’t a great candidate, especially not great enough to survive that sort of thing. If he won in 1988, it’s probably more because Bush failed to run the hard-hitting Atwater campaign he did than because Dukakis did great. On the other hand, Dukakis also likely won because people were getting sick of the GOP, and if he’s lucky he can blame the economy on them and sell the American people on the idea that he needs four more years to clean things up. (Obama sort of did this in 2012.) However, again I have a hard time seeing Dukakis selling that successfully. It’s also a bit of an unknown how the whole Gulf War goes down with Dukakis. From what I’ve read, he probably would have intervened as well. But who knows if it turns out the same? Likewise for the end of the Cold War; does Dukakis manage that as smoothly?

It also does depend in part on who the GOP candidate is? Dole? Kemp? Bush again???  Someone else entirely like Alexander or Lugar? Some of these candidates I think have a better shot than others.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,356


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2020, 03:22:26 PM »

If you flipped all the states Dukakis lost by less than 10 points in 1988 this is the map :




by 1992 Allocation those states are worth 275 EV. After an economic recession which would take place during his presidency(for Obama in 2012 it began in the bush years), the early 90s crime wave would absolutely mean that he’d have to basically pull an inside straight again to even beat A Dole/Deukmejian ticket .


I think more likely is it would resemble 2016 and 2020 where Dukakis like Trump pulled an inside straight to win the first time but despite facing a bland old candidate would face an tough path to being re-elected from day 1(and Dukakis unlike trump has far less room to lose) and a recession would make that even tougher .

Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,389
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2020, 07:39:48 PM »

If a crime bill reaches Dukakis’s desk, him signing it could get him re-elected.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2020, 02:40:48 PM »

Bush 41 lost in 1992 because (A) he was perceived as indifferent to the plight of the unemployed, (B) he was blamed for the export of American jobs at a time when people were becoming very conscious of jobs being shipped to foreign countries, and (C) he angered Ross Perot, a person with a constituency and the money to bankroll a campaign.

There may not have been a Gulf War if Dukakis had been President.  There would not have been the Perot candidacy in 1992. 



This 274-264 map with a 50%-49% squeaker is the best I can see Dukakis doing in 1988.  He would not have won a single Southern state in 1988.

If the economy was on the ropes and Dole was the 1992 nominee, the VP candidate for the GOP would likely have been CA Gov. Pete Wilson.  Wilson was pro-choice on abortion, but the GOP would have worked something out to where that would have been smoothed over.  There would have been no Buchanan candidacy, and there would have been no Dan Quayle. 

Would there have been a fall of Communism in Eastern Europe?  Would there have been a Gulf War?  Would there have been the fall of the Soviet Union and a new Russia and a new multitude of independent states that were former Soviet Republics?  Bush 41 was viewed as having shaped these events, which were monumentous and he lost anyway.  Would there have been a NAFTA in the works?  Would Dukakis be seen as the architect of NAFTA?  What position would Dole take on NAFTA?



This would have been Dukakis/Bentsen's 49-48 victory map in 1992 over Dole/Wilson.  The race would have come down to CA and TX.  I believe that CA would have shifted to Dukakis, but I believe that TX would have shifted to Dukakis due to Bentsen.

That's if Dukakis did everything right.  A more likely scnario would be Dukakis losing to Dole. 

No one liked Dukakis.  People were OK running with him in that he was relatively safe, but he generated no enthusiasm.  People were only psyched about him because he seemed as if he could win.  His diffident style cost him the election.  His pick of Lloyd Bentsen was actually a blunder; he should have picked a VP who could have brought in his state for the ticket.  Fritz Hollings or Sam Nunn would have been a better pick.  If he had been elected, he would have been elected in a time of relative prosperity.  What is questionable is the degree to which Dukakis would have been able to inspire the nation when times were tough.  (America would have seen his "Massachusetts Miracle" come undone as President; in real life, Dukakis's approval ratings when he left the Governor's Mansion in MA was around 15%.).

So, no, I can't imagine Dukakis getting re-elected.  That's because I really don't see him as having ever gotten elected in the first place.
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2021, 11:58:55 AM »

Here's a better answer:

1988: Dukakis wins 335-203 if everything went right for him:



1992: His first term as president has it's ups and downs. The Cold War still ends, The Gulf War still takes place and there's a mild recession. The recession would've likely meant losing the plains states and struggling in Ohio. I also don't think Dukakis would've win Texas again. I could've seen Dukakis flipping New Jersey but it probably would've stayed Republican. Dukakis could've still won 272-266 if he retained everything else he won in 1988 but one more loss and he would've been toast. The GOP nominee would've definitely been the favorite to win.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2021, 08:40:38 PM »



We'd be posting about it regularly to this day.
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2021, 10:52:50 PM »



We'd be posting about it regularly to this day.

Interesting scenario.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 23, 2021, 01:06:58 PM »



We'd be posting about it regularly to this day.

Interesting scenario.

Clinton won for several reasons.  One was the economic slowdown and the push against globalism.  Another was the coming to fruition of the realignment where secular Northern moderate Republicans and Independents (and some secular nominal Republicans) switched to the Democrats in rebellion against the Religious Right (who had brought the realignment of religious conservatives in the South and Border States from the Democratic Party to the GOP in the early 1980s).  The last trend would have been the return of what was left of Organized Labor in the North and Midwest to voting Democratic.

A President Dukakis would likely not have been as globalist-oriented as Bush 41 was.  It's quite possible that a Dukakis Administration would not have seen the end of Soviet Communism as did play out, but that also may have resulted in less globalization, and the ends of this (for America) haven't been all that Americans hoped for in the 1990s.  A President Dukakis would have had labor support and would have been running at a time where the racial issues of the 1964-1976 period had eased considerably, and during an era where the realignment of the suburbs from Republican to toss-up had come to pass.  It's also possible that the economic downturn would have been blamed on President Dukakis.  But he may have pulled out re-election.  Had Dukakis (in my scenario) lost NJ or NH (states that often voted Republican on Tax issues), that would have been bad, but he may have also not lost Iowa and he may have pulled out Ohio or Missouri, both of which were more unionized and Democratic than they are now. 

Clinton won because the demographic trends were going his way.  Dukakis lost in 1988 because he couldn't see that and didn't take advantage of them.  In retrospect, Bentsen was a bad pick for Dukakis (who lost the entire South); picking Paul Simon, Dick Gephardt, or John Glenn may have proven to be a significantly better pick.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 12 queries.