Why was the '88 Dem field so weak?

[pragmatic liberal]

Both 1992 and 1988 were characterized by what people felt were weak Democratic primary fields.

I understand why none of the party's big names ran in '92 - Bush was widely seen as unbeatable, really to a shocking extent (if you read newspaper articles from the time, they simply flat out state that Bush would almost certainly win a wide reelection), most figured it'd be easier to wait till '96 when the pendulum would point towards the Dems.

But why didn't anyone prominent run in '88? Gary Hart was a national figure and he, of course, withdrew because of a sex scandal. But Cuomo didn't run. Sam Nunn didn't run. Ted Kennedy didn't run. Chuck Robb (considered a leading Southern rising star at the time) didn't run, instead opting for the Senate (ala Mark Warner).

Why? You'd think that a presidential election without an incumbent, following the '87 market crash, the savings-and-loan debacle, and economic problems in the industrial midwest would attract ambitious Democrats. And George Bush's numbers weren't that stunning at that point. So what happened?

[LastMcGovernite]

I'm not sure I agree that the field was weak in the first place.  You had a congressman, Gephardt, with strong ties to labor and the Midwest.  You had Dukakis, a governor of a state that was then undergoing an improbable economic boom.  You had Joe Biden, who could articulate a positive vision of liberalism better than anyone else in the field.  You had a promising young southernor, Al Gore.  And, as you mention, you had Gary Hart, who had a real shot at appealing to yuppies and westerners. 

Granted, some of these names- especially Gore and Biden- seem more prominent in hindsight, given their ascendency to the vice-presidency.  But it was still a strong field.

[J. J.]

Kennedy had personal problems, Biden got tripped up on the plagiarism thing.  Hart, the initial front runner, was in a sex scandal.

You also had Jackson, who was the runner up.  To an extent, Gore was seen as a bit of a red neck.  Ed Koch's rhetoric against Jackson helped increase that:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Koch#Political_endorsements 

Gephardt was never more than regionally successful.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Because after consecutive election defeats by the Nixons and Reagans, the Democrats had to make room for new leadership.  So, they cleared legislators like Gore, Biden and Gephardt to make room for new leadership.  The republicans had to do it in 1964 so the Dems had to do it in 1972, 1988, and 2000.

[Bo]

I'm guessing many prominent Democrats excepted Bush Sr. to easily win in both 1988 (which he did) and 1992 (which he didn't) and thus they decided against running what they thought would be a futile race.

[Psychic Octopus]

I'm guessing many prominent Democrats excepted Bush Sr. to easily win in both 1988 (which he did) and 1992 (which he didn't) and thus they decided against running what they thought would be a futile race.

No, actually; Many Democrats saw 1988 as leaning in their favor, for reasons probably known to you (Iran-Contra, National Debt, etc.), but all of their good potential candidates, Biden, Cuomo, Hart, all had either shot themselves in the foot or decided not to run. 1988 was probably going to go the Republican anyway with either of those candidates, but many expected the Democrats to win.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

1988 was probably going to go the Republican anyway with either of those candidates, but many expected the Democrats to win.

Cuomo could have won; Dukakis really shot himself in the foot throughout the campaign.

[President Mitt]

Dukakis defeated Dukakis. If you put anybody else there, except perhaps Jesse Jackson, the Democrats would probably have won in 1988.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Dukakis defeated Dukakis. If you put anybody else there, except perhaps Jesse Jackson, the Democrats would probably have won in 1988.

No.

[President Mitt]

Dukakis defeated Dukakis. If you put anybody else there, except perhaps Jesse Jackson, the Democrats would probably have won in 1988.

No.

why?

[Psychic Octopus]

1988 was probably going to go the Republican anyway with either of those candidates, but many expected the Democrats to win.

Cuomo could have won; Dukakis really shot himself in the foot throughout the campaign.

Possibly, but I think Bush still would have won narrowly.

[Bo]

I'm guessing many prominent Democrats excepted Bush Sr. to easily win in both 1988 (which he did) and 1992 (which he didn't) and thus they decided against running what they thought would be a futile race.

No, actually; Many Democrats saw 1988 as leaning in their favor, for reasons probably known to you (Iran-Contra, National Debt, etc.), but all of their good potential candidates, Biden, Cuomo, Hart, all had either shot themselves in the foot or decided not to run. 1988 was probably going to go the Republican anyway with either of those candidates, but many expected the Democrats to win.

I agree with you about the factors that favored the Democrats in 1988, but you forgot to mention two very important factors that favored Bush Sr. that year: the good economy (unemployment that year was between 5 and 6% pretty low/average levels) and the fact that the U.S. was not involved in any foreign wars. These two factors greatly helped Bush Sr. overtake Dukakis's lead throughout the fall, when many people began to pay more attention to the election (and the economy and foreign affairs). I know Dukakis's mistakes greatly hurt his campaign, but I think that Bush Sr. would have had a very large boost in his support and popularity throguhout the fall (possibly enough to win the election) regardless of who his opnent would have been.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Possibly, but I think Bush still would have won narrowly.

Certainly, but Dukakis was up 17 points in July; an experienced guy like Cuomo probably could have held that lead.

[Bo]

Possibly, but I think Bush still would have won narrowly.

Certainly, but Dukakis was up 17 points in July; an experienced guy like Cuomo probably could have held that lead.

I'm not so sure someone like Cuomo could have retained that lead when many people actually began to pay attention to the election throughout the Fall. The same case occured in 2000, when Bush led Gore by double-digits until the summer, and then when people began to pay attention to the race in the fall Bush's lead began decreasing.

[Psychic Octopus]

I'm guessing many prominent Democrats excepted Bush Sr. to easily win in both 1988 (which he did) and 1992 (which he didn't) and thus they decided against running what they thought would be a futile race.

No, actually; Many Democrats saw 1988 as leaning in their favor, for reasons probably known to you (Iran-Contra, National Debt, etc.), but all of their good potential candidates, Biden, Cuomo, Hart, all had either shot themselves in the foot or decided not to run. 1988 was probably going to go the Republican anyway with either of those candidates, but many expected the Democrats to win.

I agree with you about the factors that favored the Democrats in 1988, but you forgot to mention two very important factors that favored Bush Sr. that year: the good economy (unemployment that year was between 5 and 6% pretty low/average levels) and the fact that the U.S. was not involved in any foreign wars. These two factors greatly helped Bush Sr. overtake Dukakis's lead throughout the fall, when many people began to pay more attention to the election (and the economy and foreign affairs). I know Dukakis's mistakes greatly hurt his campaign, but I think that Bush Sr. would have had a very large boost in his support and popularity throguhout the fall (possibly enough to win the election) regardless of who his opnent would have been.

Ah yes, but I figured you knew the figures already. I think that the weak field, however, wasn't so weak after all, just that most people made mistakes. Dukakis had a 19-point lead at the end of his convention, (just forgot that, but it was probably an outlier anyway) so I'm not sure if it really favored Bush. I've always agreed with the notion that no one really starts paying attention until Mid-September, though. I do think that Bush was hard to beat, and that no one in the field really could have pulled it off.

I actually think the Democrats had a good group of people; and that at least at first, it seemed possible for them to win. During 1987 Reagan's approval hovered in the fifties, so maybe that led to some running.

A better question IMO is why was the Republican field so weak in 2000? Outside from Bush and McCain, there weren't any solid candidates that really stood a chance. Liddy Dole doesn't count, really, and Orrin Hatch couldn't win.

[© tweed]

Possibly, but I think Bush still would have won narrowly.

Certainly, but Dukakis was up 17 points in July; an experienced guy like Cuomo probably could have held that lead.

it had nothing to do with experience.  who knows what an adept Atwater smear campaign against mob boss guinea papist Cuomo would have looked like.

[Vepres]

I'm guessing many prominent Democrats excepted Bush Sr. to easily win in both 1988 (which he did) and 1992 (which he didn't) and thus they decided against running what they thought would be a futile race.

No, actually; Many Democrats saw 1988 as leaning in their favor, for reasons probably known to you (Iran-Contra, National Debt, etc.), but all of their good potential candidates, Biden, Cuomo, Hart, all had either shot themselves in the foot or decided not to run. 1988 was probably going to go the Republican anyway with either of those candidates, but many expected the Democrats to win.

I agree with you about the factors that favored the Democrats in 1988, but you forgot to mention two very important factors that favored Bush Sr. that year: the good economy (unemployment that year was between 5 and 6% pretty low/average levels) and the fact that the U.S. was not involved in any foreign wars. These two factors greatly helped Bush Sr. overtake Dukakis's lead throughout the fall, when many people began to pay more attention to the election (and the economy and foreign affairs). I know Dukakis's mistakes greatly hurt his campaign, but I think that Bush Sr. would have had a very large boost in his support and popularity throguhout the fall (possibly enough to win the election) regardless of who his opnent would have been.

Ah yes, but I figured you knew the figures already. I think that the weak field, however, wasn't so weak after all, just that most people made mistakes. Dukakis had a 19-point lead at the end of his convention, (just forgot that, but it was probably an outlier anyway) so I'm not sure if it really favored Bush. I've always agreed with the notion that no one really starts paying attention until Mid-September, though. I do think that Bush was hard to beat, and that no one in the field really could have pulled it off.

I actually think the Democrats had a good group of people; and that at least at first, it seemed possible for them to win. During 1987 Reagan's approval hovered in the fifties, so maybe that led to some running.

A better question IMO is why was the Republican field so weak in 2000? Outside from Bush and McCain, there weren't any solid candidates that really stood a chance. Liddy Dole doesn't count, really, and Orrin Hatch couldn't win.

Republicans in 2008 and Democrats in 2004 were arguably worse.

[Dr. Cynic]

I really don't think 88 was a bad field by comparison before their weaknesses were appearant.

Mario Cuomo, Dale Bumpers, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, etc. Were all considered strong candiates who chose not to run at all.

Gary Hart and Joe Biden had lots of appeal but scandals wrecked them.

Michael Dukakis wasn't known as a poor candidate yet. Then you had Jesse Jackson who was probably the worst of the field. Behind them you had solid people such as Al Gore, Richard Gephardt and Paul Simon. I think Simon would've been an excellent President if not for his lack of funds. Gore was not a strong campaigner and Gephardt lacked national appeal.

Seems it was more bad luck among them all and specific weaknesses rather than being a bad group like say the 08 Republicans or the 92 Dems. (The 92 Dems were really a poor group. Only Clinton really stood out. Jerry Brown was still off in space. Tsongas was fairly weak, and his health was poor. Bob Kerrey and Tom Harkin lacked national appeal, although I probably would've liked Harkin to be the nominee if I had the choice then)

[Derek]

The reason that the 1988 field was so weak for Dems is because Bush didn't look beatable due to Reagan's popularity. The better candidates were waiting for a year that looked winnable.