1996: George W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis If HW Wins in 1992?

[Pink Panther]

Let's say in 1992 for some reason Clinton's infedelities cause him lose in a landslide, flipping AR, but losing WI and OR in the process. Dubya still wins in 1994(yes, he has said in the past his spark for entering politics was his father's loss in '92, and it's questionable he even wins in the first place. But don't underestimate the role of ambition on someone, and he would still have a chance to defeat Richards). Even though he has been Governor for only two years up to this point, he decides to run and gets the GOP nomination. He chooses Jack Kemp as his running mate. Meanwhile, Dukakis after his run in MA ended in failure, somewhow wins the Democratic Nomination for a second time. He chooses Bob Graham as his running mate. Discuss what the results are.

[Don't Tread on Me]

In this scenario, Byrd ends up getting the nomination and losing in a landslide.



President George H.W. Bush/Vice President Dan Quayle: 352 E.V./51.6% P.V.
Senate Majority Leader Richard Byrd/Senator Joe Biden: 181 E.V./47.2% P.V.

After 16 years of Republican rule, Dukakis wins in a landslide despite the economy being in better shape than it was 4 years earlier. Bush is criticized for his lack of experience and the Christian Right is alienated by his choice of Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge as his VP.



Governor Michael Dukakis/Senator David Boren: 53.9% P.V.
Governor George W. Bush/Governor Tom Ridge: 45%

[Fuzzy Bear Stands With S019 And Israel]

Dukakis would not have been nominated in 1990.  His "Massachusetts Miracle", the economic recovery he claimed to have engineered in Massachusetts prior to his 1988 campaign, was exposed as smoke and mirrors.  Dukakis opted to not run for reelection in 1990 after his approval rating dropped to 15%.

There's a reason Dukakis simply faded away.  He's easily the most anonymous former nominee of either party since William Miller in 1964 (and Miller was only the VICE Presidential nominee for the GOP). 

Dukakis would have been CREAMED.  He's have been exposed as a fraud.  AND he was boring.

[MATTROSE94]

Dukakis would not have been nominated in 1990.  His "Massachusetts Miracle", the economic recovery he claimed to have engineered in Massachusetts prior to his 1988 campaign, was exposed as smoke and mirrors.  Dukakis opted to not run for reelection in 1990 after his approval rating dropped to 15%.

There's a reason Dukakis simply faded away.  He's easily the most anonymous former nominee of either party since William Miller in 1964 (and Miller was only the VICE Presidential nominee for the GOP). 

Dukakis would have been CREAMED.  He's have been exposed as a fraud.  AND he was boring.

I think Michael Dukakis could have very narrowly won in 1992 due to the economic recession and the economic recovery would have allowed him to be re-elected in 1996. Otherwise, I agree with your post.