WI: Al Gore in 1988

Al Gore ran for the Democratic nomination for the 1988 Presidential election. At the time he declared his candidacy in 1987, he was only around 38 years old, and ran as a Southern Centrist. He also believed he would be the only Southern candidate, but ended up facing against Jesse Jackson, who had previously run in 1984, which took a lot of wind out of his campaign. He was also criticized for his attacks on Jackson and Dukakis, and was further damaged by an endorsement from Ed Koch, which turned out to be an albatross. In the end, Gore came in third in the Democratic primaries, behind Dukakis and Jackson.

1988 was not a year the Democratic party was destined to lose. It was a period where the Reagan administration had been seriously tarnished by Iran-Contra, and when the popular opinion was that the country was on the wrong path. What lost it was not even Lee Atwater. Dukakis ran a very lackluster campaign, the campaign message was mixed due to firing and bringing on various people and not settling on a solid message, the Bush campaign attacks were not responded to until it was too late, and John Sasso was fired, among other gaffes and issues. 1988 was, or rather could have been a competitive campaign year.

The interesting thing about Gore is that he had potential. Had those issues that ended his campaign been avoided, I do believe he could have taken the nomination. His youth and potential regional and centrist appeal seem to have been something the Democratic party was interested for 1988. Had Jackson not run, and in neither 1984 nor 1988 did Jackson actually believe he could win, he would have been the only Southern candidate and could have won in those areas Jackson won. Had Dukakis made the types of missteps he did that cost him the election during the Democratic primaries, Dukakis would have been in a weaker position. And Ed Koch could have been an albatross around someone else. Then again, given the missteps that occurred in the Democratic primaries, one wonders what could have come about during the general election had Gore won the nomination.

So what if Al Gore won the nomination in 1988?

I'd go further and suggest that 1988 was an election the Democrats *should* have won. Dukakis had a 17 percent lead, after all.

The obvious questions then become (1) would Gore make mistakes on the campaign trail that would allow Republicans back into the race, and (2) how the Bush campaign would have responded to Gore.

It's also worth remembering that Clinton's rapid response strategy was a result of having learnt from the Dukakis experience. With no Dukakis around as candidate, the chances of someone having to learn the hard way are significantly greater.

Maeglin said:

I'd go further and suggest that 1988 was an election the Democrats *should* have won. Dukakis had a 17 percent lead, after all.

The obvious questions then become (1) would Gore make mistakes on the campaign trail that would allow Republicans back into the race, and (2) how the Bush campaign would have responded to Gore.

It's also worth remembering that Clinton's rapid response strategy was a result of having learnt from the Dukakis experience. With no Dukakis around as candidate, the chances of someone having to learn the hard way are significantly greater.

Click to expand...

The problem is that leads dissipate after the nomination. I would argue that a lead shows something positive for the Democrats, but not that it would remain itself. I think it would be a competitive election and never a Democratic landslide.

I'm not sure what mistakes Gore could potentially make. I don't think they'd be in the league of what Dukakis made in the general election; there was a lot of stuff that was just boneheaded, a lot of ways he should have tackled things coming at him that he totally flubbed, and a lot of problems arising from his disposition (see the Kitty Dukakis issue, which he tried to handle in a cold, passionless manner which just alienated voters). There was no reason he should have taken till the nth hour to respond to Willie Horton - the response being Reagan had overseen the largest national furlough program in history. His name wasn't Willie Horton, by the way; it was William Horton. Atwater had him mentioned as "Willie" because it would instinctually sound Black to the voters. There's just so many things Dukakis dropped the ball on, and grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory.

Another benefit to Gore is he comes off as more piss and vinegar in 1988 than he did in 2000. In 2000 he was basically the Democratic robot. In 1988, he had a vigor that would do him well.

As to how Bush would respond to Gore, it would be something different than Dukakis. Dukakis was a Northeast Liberal at a time when that word was not 4 letters, but was soon to be, and Bush - more specifically Lee Atwater - lambasted him on that basis, brought up White fears and conservative fears, and so on. Gore is a Southerner running as a Centrist, who opposed federal funding for abortion, was in favor of a moment for prayer in school, and opposed banning the interstate sale of handguns. And, unlike Bush's OTL VP (not to say Quayle would necessarily still get the nomination) he had gone to Vietnam, even though he was personally opposed to the war because he felt a sense of duty and knew someone else would go in his place if he didn't go. What can Bush really do? Maybe he can try to attack Albert Gore Sr, calling him a racist and - if Jackson did feature in this 1988 - bring Gore's opposition to Jackson in as further proof of something sticking to Gore. Maybe he could get Black apathy in the election as a result of that, driving down Gore's numbers somewhat, but it wouldn't boost Bush's numbers. Reagan's Republican party didn't have a great track record on Black Americans.

A minor point of interest is that at this time, Rick Perry was a Democrat and in favor of Gore. Draw your potential alternia as you will.

I pretty much agree with the posts so far. Frankly, any Democrat in '88 would have done better than Dukakis. I don't know if Jackson would have won had he gotten the nomination (would 1988 America be ready for a black POTUS?) but he too wouldn't have been nearly as lacklustre as "Iron Mike". And Gore? I could very well imagine him winning against Bush, not by a landslide to be sure, but by enough.

Of course, had Gary Hart not screwed up, he would have been the clear favorite for the nomination...

John Farson said:

I pretty much agree with the posts so far. Frankly, any Democrat in '88 would have done better than Dukakis. I don't know if Jackson would have won had he gotten the nomination (would 1988 America be ready for a black POTUS?) but he too wouldn't have been nearly as lacklustre as "Iron Mike". And Gore? I could very well imagine him winning against Bush, not by a landslide to be sure, but by enough.

Of course, had Gary Hart not screwed up, he would have been the clear favorite for the nomination...

Click to expand...

Precisely on the point of Gary Hart, I think Gore would have been a good post-Hart candidate for the Democrats. He makes up for the void left behind (the young, good looking, post-New Dealer Atari Democrat), and he doesn't have the baggage Hart had. Frankly, I don't know how Hart could have avoided scandal given how flagrant he was. I think had Gore gotten the nomination, whether he won or not, the discussion we'd have about 1988 would be "what if it was Hart instead".

And Jackson would not have won the nomination. He had no expectation to nor the election. He was there to make a statement and get people registered to vote and active politically. Which only acted for a spoiler for Gore in 1988.

Emperor Norton I said:

And Jackson would not have won the nomination. He had no expectation to nor the election. He was there to make a statement and get people registered to vote and active politically. Which only acted for a spoiler for Gore in 1988.

Click to expand...

True, but what happens if Gore thinks Jackson got enough attention that he offers him the VP position in his ticket? The spoiling effect immediately disappears, but of course he'd have to think about those that would vote for Bush as a way to vote against Jackson. Not to mention, the moment Jackson gets offered the VP position, all kinds of mudslingers would jump in the fray.

who would gore choose as his veep?

On Dukakis' seventeen-point lead, which some people take as proof the Democrats had an advantage in 1988: George W. Bush lead Al Gore by seventeen points after the GOP convention in 2000. http://www.gallup.com/poll/2338/maj...-election-primary-season-party-conventio.aspx

That he actually lost the popular vote to Gore may be explained in one of three ways: (1) Far from being a genius, Karl Rove was an idiot, and Bush ran an incredibly bad campaign. (2) Al Gore's campaign, so criticized at the time, was absolutely brilliant. (3) Nobody should take huge leads after a party convention too seriously.

I don't think you'll be surprised to learn that I lean toward (3). Other examples besides 1988 and 2000: Jimmy Carter led Ford by 35(!) points after the Democratic convention in 1976. If you will say "Well, the fact that Carter almost lost shows that he was a poor campaigner, too" then consider this--Ronald Reagan led Carter by 28 points after the GOP convention in 1980. http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=1028,1944829 Yet he ended up winning by "only" ten points. This shows the absurdity of taking such leads seriously. Unless you believe that by a strange coincidence all those candidates with huge post-convention leads were terrible campaigners.

My own view is that while a better candidate than Dukakis could have made it closer, the election in 1988 was Bush's to lose, given peace and prosperity and the lack of any serious split in the GOP (Bush being acceptable to both moderates and conservatives). (One other thing that supports this belief: Dukakis had already lost his lead in the polls by the time of the GOP convention. This was long before the ride in the tank, the Willie Horton ad, the inept answer about whether he would still oppose capital punishment if someone raped and killed his wife, and all the other supposed defining moments of the campaign...)

(BTW, I looked up Reagan's job approval ratings after Iran-Contra. Yes, they took a hit in 1987; on one occasion in March 1987 they were actually negative, 43-46. But in every poll after that they were positive. His approvals were always at least five points higher than his disapprovals throughout 1988; in fact, in every poll but one they were at lrast eight points higher. By early July the positives always exceeded the negatives by double digits. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CF..._detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Reagan)

The problem wasn't Dukakis it was his campaign -different staff could've gotten Dukakis elected. So yeah Gore has a shot.

1988 was a fairly open election year. It definitely wasn't a great year for Democrats (regardless of Dukakis's infamous 17-point lead), but Republicans were tainted by Iran-Contra and a decently unpopular sitting President. The real problem for the Democrats was that they lacked a clear message. This absence allowed Republicans to brand them as un-patriotic, weak on crime, and soft on defense. '88 was an awkward transition from the last throws of New Deal Liberalism (1984-Mondale) to Third Way New Democrats (1992-Clinton). Ideologically, Dukakis had a lot more in common with Clinton than Mondale, but failed to effectively articulate a message and vision for the country beyond old-school Democratic solutions.

That's where Gore comes in. Along with Gary Hart, Gore represented the best chance for Democrats to take back the White House in 1988. Gore was a DLCer through and through, and would have effectively nullified Bush's attacks on liberalism. He would have appealed to Reagan Democrats in the North and South, while forcing Bush to get creative in attacking him. HOWEVER, I still believe Hart would have been a stronger nominee for several reasons. Most importantly, Hart had a well-articulated vision for America in a way no one else in the race did. He had a message on the future of the economy, on foreign policy, and on the changes in society. That was a winning message, and one which ended up having a lot in common with Clinton's in 1992 (though with significant differences).

Porsenna said:

True, but what happens if Gore thinks Jackson got enough attention that he offers him the VP position in his ticket? The spoiling effect immediately disappears, but of course he'd have to think about those that would vote for Bush as a way to vote against Jackson. Not to mention, the moment Jackson gets offered the VP position, all kinds of mudslingers would jump in the fray.

Click to expand...

AdmiralBlake said:

who would gore choose as his veep?

Click to expand...

I think the answer most of us would leap to would be Jesse Jackson. That doesn't mean it is right by any means. In a scenario where Jackson does not run, then he's a non-issue. I don't think he'd be looked at twice. And were he picked, I think it would be seen as something of a token; a blatant and shameless attempt to shore up and invigorate Black support. And as an aside, we should discuss how plausible it is for Jackson to not run for the nomination for 1988, as it clears the South for Gore.
Were Jackson to still run, for one thing you've complicated the Gore campaign per the OTL, and for another these men were at one another during the campaign for the Democratic nomination. I don't see how they can smash one another and then Gore picks Jackson for his running mate after lambasting him throughout the campaign; even if he toned it down in the ATL. Plus Jackson opens up a lot of complications. Yes, he invigorated Black voters and Black Americans politically in 1984 and 1988, but at the same time you have things like his stance on Palestinians which does not play well in a United States where the public policy and popular opinion has been pro-Israel since I think the Yom Kippur War.

I'm not sure who else Gore could choose, but I would argue it would be someone to shore up the areas he is weaker in and/or someone who could appeal to voters. He may be attacked on his age and experience, although he's been in political life since 1977. He may be attacked in terms of his father, as I mentioned. That would be interesting to see, because Lee Atwater ran the Bush campaign in a lot of ways by evoking white fears and doing the run around of saying the N-word. Again, I'll bring up Willie Horton. Lee Atwater's political strategy drew heavily from his Southerness; he knew things about common people no one was looking at, he knew how Southerners felt they were lectured and treated as idiots by outside parties, and he knew how to exploit White fears and ire and drum it up. Gore presents a unique issue. He's running as a Southern Centrist. Do you condemn Albert Gore Sr as a racist, and try to stick that to Gore? Well the Reagan Republicans don't exactly appeal to Black Americans, and Atwater's strategy comes from appealing to lingering White racism. Do you try to paint Albert Gore Sr as a Liberal? Well what about the race issue? It's a weird ground. I think Lee Atwater could get inside Gore's head by also being a fellow Southerner, and get something out of that, but I don't know if he could pull off Willie Horton ads and "Limousine Liberal" condemnations and all the other decimating smears he got off against Dukakis. Bearing in mind too that Bush could fire Lee Atwater; he nearly did in the OTL. (EDIT: An area of attack could be saying that Gore is actually a Liberal but is trying to pretend to be a Centrist).

In terms of VP, no one say Bill Clinton please. That's not going to happen. Clinton was a nobody in 1988 even if you could argue he could have been a Dark Horse candidate; that's not this POD. I do not believe Gore would have gone the route of choosing a fellow Southerner as happened in 1992. I think you could argue that the reason for Clinton picking Gore for 1992 was because of who he was in the 1988 race. Clinton was also very young in 1988, and if his DNC speech is any indication, he could seriously flub that campaign year, not to mention he's the governor of a nowhere state and not to mention the potential, unknown (in '87/'88) scandals arising from his womanizing.

I'm not sure who else. Bentsen is another knee-jerk answer, but he's also a Southerner. He has experience and age as something appealing, but I don't know if Gore would be appealed to go that route.

There's a pretty bizarre, teleological, groupthink reading of Gore's '88 candidacy on this board, which is very economically espoused by the OP.

In reality, Gore was not a particularly serious candidate, ever. He was not close to the nomination, at any point IOTL. His chances were not ruined by any singular mishap. Gore and Jackson were appealing to diametrically opposed groups in the South - white, Conservative Southern Democrats on the one hand, and black, Liberal democrats on the other. The idea that either was a spoiler for the other in that region is therefore very ropey - absent either one and the other probably (I say probably - Jackson's candidacy may actually have boosted Gore in the South) would have a better chance on Super Tuesday but that would be less due to crossover votes and simply due to the fact that Dukakis, Gephardt etc would not be able to corner those specific Southern demographic markets anything like as effectively as those two did IOTL.

And here we get onto the problem with both those candidacies: they were so sectional, so narrow in their appeal, that neither was ever going to be particularly realistic prospects for the nomination, even if one or the other had swept the South, because they would both be still fundamentally hamstrung by how they managed such a feat. Gore '88 is best viewed as the last blast of the old Southern Democrats as a national force in the party, not as Bubba come four years early but spurned by a perfidious Democracy which wasn't yet ready for triangulation, which is what some of you believe. Gore's campaign rhetoric was so far to the right for the tastes of the national party that he got compared to Joe frigging McCarthy.

You want a plausible Southern candidate that year who could have had potentially serious appeal both within the South and beyond it? I offer you the name of Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas, otherwise known as Historical Footnote in the Story of the Inevitable Rise of Bill Clinton.

(Ignoring the stuff about Hart not being a bona fide policy wonk nobody could trust or like)

Whanztastic said:

The problem wasn't Dukakis it was his campaign -different staff could've gotten Dukakis elected.

Click to expand...

Dukakis was definitely a very flawed candidate for a national election because of his, shall we say, mixed record as governor, and moreover he was undoubtedly a very crap campaigner. Politics didn't come naturally to the man. The problem wasn't Dukakis' staff, it was Dukakis - the man simply refused to countenance the notion that he had to hit back - yea, even when John Sasso, his brother from another mother, told him he had to do that. (Though Sasso did, eventually, get some sense out of the man, by which time it was too late)

There are strong echoes of The Duke in Mitt Romney, IMO.

Out of all the possible realistic nominees that year, (I exclude Gore and Jackson for obv. reasons) Dukakis, Sassoless or not, is quite possibly the most difficult to actually get elected IMO.

hcallega said:

1Most importantly, Hart had a well-articulated vision for America in a way no one else in the race did. He had a message on the future of the economy, on foreign policy, and on the changes in society. That was a winning message, and one which ended up having a lot in common with Clinton's in 1992 (though with significant differences).

Click to expand...

What were the significant differences?