Jesse Jackson v. Pat Robertson, 1988 presidential election

[vultan]

Fairly implausible premise, but just role with it. Say somehow Bush does something that really alienates conservative Republicans in late 1987/early 1988, boosting Robertson's performance. After a long, drawn-out primary process, Robertson narrowly wins the GOP nomination. Same thing with Jackson and the Democrats (though him winning his party's nomination is slightly more plausible).

So, going how does the campaign go? The debates? What running mates do each of them pick? How does the electoral college map look? And who wins the election?

(And before anyone asks, let's not make this an "Iran-Contra is a bigger deal" scenario, because that distracts from the question being posed.)

 

[Turquoise Blue]

No clue, but I think it'll be Pat Robertson, sadly.

 

[St. Just]

Thankfully Pat. America wasn't going to vote in the Irreverend Jesse Jackson.

Note: I am far from a Pat Robertson fan, and think he is a noxious influence on politics. But if Satan were running against Jesse Jackson, I'd at least put in a good reference for Satan.

 

[Whanztastic]

Thankfully Pat. America wasn't going to vote in the Irreverend Jesse Jackson.

Note: I am far from a Pat Robertson fan, and think he is a noxious influence on politics. But if Satan were running against Jesse Jackson, I'd at least put in a good reference for Satan.

Wow, that's harsh. Any reason why? Jackson of '88 is a different person from the Jackson of recent years. At least he doesn't support slave labor and blood diamonds.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

Thankfully Pat. America wasn't going to vote in the Irreverend Jesse Jackson.

Note: I am far from a Pat Robertson fan, and think he is a noxious influence on politics. But if Satan were running against Jesse Jackson, I'd at least put in a good reference for Satan.

Do you hate having a Democracy?

Because Pat Robertson's rather stated agenda in the 700 club is to replace US Democracy with a Theocratic state not too dissimmilar to Iran -- where there are only conservative candidates and clerics have veto over who actually runs. Look up 'Dominion Theology' sometime -- and shudder at the idea of allowing Pat Robertson anywhere near the levers of power. I'm personally not quite ready to live in the Handmaiden's Tale just yet. but in 1988, dominionsim was not as well documented as it is today.


Jesse Jackson is, in 1988, only radical by the standards of the 1980s and later. His platform in 1984 and 1988 would have been entirely recognizable to FDR in 1936.

But yes, the 1980s weren't ready for a Black president. With both candidates Ministers, it will be a heyday of 'seperation of church and state' ads on both sides.

I'd say Robinson will probly win this, but you won't like what comes of it.

 

[Sanderford]

I have no real use for Jesse Jackson personally, but that's neither here nor there right now. Let's all keep civil, yes?

I believe Mr. Robertson wins this one.

 

[St. Just]

Thought Robertson was more of a run-of-the-mill homophobe (which is still terrible, mind you); didn't known about his whole NWO bullshit and dominionism and the blood diamonds. Both of them are anti-Semites, and I am Jewish. Jesse Jackson is a race-baiting demagogue. Robertson sounds like scum. Let me rephrase my earlier bit:

If Jesse Jackson ran against Pat Robertson, and if I were alive at the time and old enough to vote, I'd write in for Satan.

 

[Nofix]

Third Party candidate probably gets something like 30% of the vote, if not wins outright.

Not factoring in that, I'd say Jackson wins, the media on boths sides would be in overdrive to smear both of them, and Buchanan would probably be covered in more shit by the end. The turnout would be like 35% of the voting public at best.

 

[St. Just]

Actually yeah, third party candidate sounds really good actually. Outside, of course, for a protest write-in for the Devil.

 

[JohanusCalvinusLibertas]

Can we say Reagan would endorse Libertarian candidate Ron Paul and urge other Republicans to do the same.

 

[The Red]

Paul could do respectably, possibly Nader levels of support. Besides that, Robertson wins in this thankfully absurd set-up.

 

[Super_Cool]

Ron Paul '88!

Also, he wouldn't have the newsletters to deal with at the time, so that will also be a huge boost. The key is getting him in the debates.

 

[Jasen777]

The major party candidates are considered too out of the mainstream, so......... people turn to Ron Paul

 

[The Red]

The major party candidates are considered too out of the mainstream, so......... people turn to Ron Paul

As the 'biggest' third party candidate he's likely to be the main beneficiary of the 'plague on both your houses' vote from those sick of such a polarised choice. He's also likely to appeal to some socially liberal, economically conservative voters, even if he's at the extreme's of both. Even then he's looking at 3-4% tops, barring Robertson or Jackson being found found with a live boy or a dead girl.

 

[The Kiat]

Third Party candidate probably gets something like 30% of the vote, if not wins outright.

Doubt it. Most voters are just too well trained to vote for something with a (D) or (R) in front of their names. If you put Ron Paul into the mix on the (L) ticket, I think he'd attract more Republicans than Democrats.

 

[Nofix]

Doubt it. Most voters are just too well trained to vote for something with a (D) or (R) in front of their names. If you put Ron Paul into the mix on the (L) ticket, I think he'd attract more Republicans than Democrats.

Perot got 19% in 1992, after dropping out for most of the campaign and after being polled as winning before that. In a race with two very controversial and unlikable candidates, 4 years before Perot I might add, I think that Thing 1 and Thing 2 are doomed.

 

[Andrew T]

With perceived extreme ideologues gaining both major party nominations, there'd be an even larger market for a John B. Anderson-type centrist statesmen Third Party ticket. So you'd be looking for people who are nationally-known, well-respected, liked across the aisle, with moderate voting records and -- most importantly -- not considered partisans for their particular party.

Some possibilities include Sam Nunn (D-GA), George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson (R-CA), Fritz Hollings (D-SC), John Chafee (R-RI), possibly Lowell Weicker (R-CT), and possibly Paul Tsongas (D-MA). There are undoubtedly others I'm overlooking.

A Deukmejian/Nunn ticket probably wins ~40+ percent of the vote and 300+ EV outright in this field.

 

[OnlyAlb]

With perceived extreme ideologues gaining both major party nominations, there'd be an even larger market for a John B. Anderson-type centrist statesmen Third Party ticket. So you'd be looking for people who are nationally-known, well-respected, liked across the aisle, with moderate voting records and -- most importantly -- not considered partisans for their particular party.

Some possibilities include Sam Nunn (D-GA), George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson (R-CA), Fritz Hollings (D-SC), John Chafee (R-RI), possibly Lowell Weicker (R-CT), and possibly Paul Tsongas (D-MA). There are undoubtedly others I'm overlooking.

A Deukmejian/Nunn ticket probably wins ~40+ percent of the vote and 300+ EV outright in this field.

Would John B. Anderson be to old to run as an independent candidate again? I know it's kind of ASB, but it would be an interesting premise.

 

[Nofix]

Would John B. Anderson be to old to run as an independent candidate again? I know it's kind of ASB, but it would be an interesting premise.

He'd be 66 in 1988 (being born in 1922) and has been out of office since 1981, so probably. Although, I imagine a hypothetical bipartisan ticket would have a lot of Moderates and Centrists promised roles in said administration, and would use their name brand and connections to help out the ticket. Anderson for say, Attorney General or such?

 

[Deleted member 16736]

Would John B. Anderson be to old to run as an independent candidate again? I know it's kind of ASB, but it would be an interesting premise.

He wouldn't be too old, but he might not be too inclined. Anderson was a "moderate" only where he disagreed with Reagan about economics and size-of-government issues. Robertson's economic platform didn't too closely mirror Reagan's and Anderson would probably agree with him on the social issues. I really can't even see him running in this scenario.

An interesting note: Goldwater would probably endorse whatever third-party Republican ran so long as they were more libertarian leaning on the social issues than Robertson was. He hated the Reverend.