Unpopular Opinion: Bush was realistically unbeatable in 1988 as long as he run a decent campaign

[OSR stands with Israel]

First of all the fundamentals favored Bush with him being the VP of a popular admin, 64% of Americans thought the state of the economy was good(https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/1988PresidentialElection) and more Americans thinking the nation was on the right track than wrong track similar to what those  numbers were in 2000. While Gore lost a huge reason for that was he distanced himself from the popular president while HW did the opposite.

While some may point to the huge polling leads Dukakis had, remember in those days nominees used to get huge convention bounces so while Dukakis was probably still up till the RNC it was probably not by much either. Much of it was also cause of the perception people and the media created of Bush as being a "wimp" and someone who as only successful cause Reagan chose him but once his campaign proved that wasnt true , HW was gonna surge especially with the fact that the economy was on an upswing in 1988 as well(in 2000 there were signs it was starting to go down), and Reagan populairty was rising back throughout the year as well.


Lastly people forget how huge the Geographic advantage the GOP had then, basically Republicans were guarnteed at the very least to have this map




And states like Ohio were extremely difficult for the Democrats to win then too(Bush won it by double digits) and not every Dukakis state on that map was solid for the Dems either and threading this needle seems almost impossible. While a Democrat like Lloyd Bentsen could do it(by taking Texas and making the south competitive) , realistically he would have no chance at the nomination.

I think HW Bush as long as he ran a decent campaign was practically unbeatable in both the primaries and the general as even in the primary while HW might have been distrusted by conservatives, Dole was considered less of a Reaganite than HW was and while Kemp was closer to Reagan on policy he didnt have anywhere near the name recognition HW or Dole did and Kemp's FP ideology was gonna always hurt his chances and it did as he voted against the IMF Treaty

[morgankingsley]

honestly i would probably agree with you. In some ways I would even argue that Dukakis was going to have a nearly impossible time winning the popular vote even with a electoral win

[Chips]

Yeah this seems reasonable.

[Red Wall]

Yes. It was the extent of the loss that could have been smaller had Dukakis run a good campaign. But he would still have lost.

[TML]

If we applied Allan Lichtman's 13 keys test to 1988, the result was that only three keys (incumbent seeking re-election, major policy change, and charismatic incumbent) were against the Republican Party at the time. On that basis, the fundamentals had Republicans as a clear favorite.

[Agonized-Statism]

As a caveat, I would say Bush was beatable if the Democrat was both a decent campaigner and DLC...and, let's be honest, Southern. Supporting the death penalty was a must to deflect the Willie Horton attacks. American society was further to the right at the time.

[Alcibiades]

Dukakis could also have won MT, SD, CO and NM, and TX, AR and KY at a stretch, while losing PA and MD really should never have happened.

[darklordoftech]

As a caveat, I would say Bush was beatable if the Democrat was both a decent campaigner and DLC...and, let's be honest, Southern. Supporting the death penalty was a must to deflect the Willie Horton attacks. American society was further to the right at the time.

That leaves Biden, Gore, and Gephardt as electable candidates.

[Arbitrage1980]

Dukakis could also have won MT, SD, CO and NM, and TX, AR and KY at a stretch, while losing PA and MD really should never have happened.

Dukakis' weakness on crime was a dealbreaker with white suburban voters in the northeast. It was especially key in Maryland, a state that even Carter won in 1980.