1992,President Dukais Primaries.

Gorrister

Gorrister

I'm starting Another Alternate Primaries thread,this time with a President Michael Dukais.In 1988,Dukais Never Makes that Tank Picture and never fires His Staff and Lee Atwater is fired by Bush Midway through the campaign for fears of Alienating Black Voters,allowing Dukais to narrowly edge out a Democratic Victory.

Republicans
Bob Dole
Pat Buchanan
Phil GrammJames Baker
Richard Thornburgh
Tom Kean
Pete Wilson
Howard Baker
Dan Quayle
Jack Kemp
Richard Cheney
Ron Paul
David Duke

Democrats
Michael Dukais
Jerry Brown

Independant
Ross Perot


Libertarian

Populist

American Taxpayers
 
Last edited:

vultan

Why the heck is Dukakis getting so many high-profile Democrat primary challengers? Did he eat a baby or something? :confused:
 
Gorrister

Gorrister

vultan said:
Why the heck is Dukakis getting so many high-profile Democrat primary challengers? Did he eat a baby or something? :confused:
Click to expand...

Well I think Dukais would be a weak president,enough to piss off some Democrats,but yeah,it is kind of silly to have so many.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

I'm starting Another Alternate Primaries thread,this time with a President Michael Dukais.In 1988,Dukais Never Makes that Tank Picture and never fires His Staff,allowing him to narrowly edge out a Democratic Victory.
Click to expand...

While those were issues, they weren't really the main issues. The main issue was Lee Atwater, who could make a mountain out of a molehill and laid the seeds for every bit of Tea party reactionist thought in the right and in American culture in general where it exists. When polls were taken for 1988, Dukakis was in the lead. George Bush wasn't looking like he was going to win. And then came Lee Atwater. And then came Willie Horton, who was never called "Willie" Horton; he was William Horton. But Atwater knew "Willie" was identifiable to the public as a "Black name" and the whole ad campaign was an exercise in exploiting racism. As Atwater said later, you couldn't get away with saying "n*gger" anymore, so you had to work around it and talk about more abstract things like busing and welfare, but it was all the same thing. Mind you as well, while Dukakis did have that furlough program, the Reagan administration oversaw the largest furlough program in American history, on a national scale. Atwater decimated Dukakis, and paved the way for the "modern politics" we have had since, which are coming to a boiling point in recent years.

So Dukakis did make mistakes. The tank photo was a problem, his firing of staff and constantly changing staff was a problem, his fumbling around for a clear message was a problem, and his cool Massachusetts disposition were a problem. And he should have mentioned that the Reagan administration oversaw a massive furlough program earlier, rather than waiting eons. And he should have avoided even respecting the rape question during the debate with a reply. But he could have survived those at the end of the day. Lee Atwater was why he lost. Without Atwater, that Horton issue would not have been made, and those molehills wouldn't have been blown out of proportion.

The thing is, George Bush came very close to firing Lee Atwater. So that should be your POD or part of it.
 

Glass Onion

I could see Dukakis having a challenger. I think he may be destined, like Bush, to be a single term President, because I'm not sure the recession would be avoided, and anger over the recession. I could see Jerry Brown still running against President Dukakis for example. But it would have to be someone fairly on the fringe, and the existence of such a challenge depends a lot on how President Dukakis handles the recession and if the recession still happens. Honestly, I don't think such a challenger would really emerge, and certainly there wouldn't be that kind of wide open field unless the recession somehow turns into the Great Depression Part 2.

Given the dynamics of the Republican Party, Dole is going to be their nominee in 1992. In 1992 here, you won't have the same budget battle you had historically, which means Gingrich may well be less prominent than he was, which means I have a hard time seeing him run for President here. While it's possible he could gain notice as an opponent of a Dukakis deficit reduction deal, without the Bush broke his promise and defiance of the Republican Party narrative Gingrich is not going to have nearly the attention he had at that time. I don't think he runs.

I think there's going to be a fight between Buchanan and Dole, and that Dole will win. And that means the 1992 election is going to be incredibly dull. The economy may indicate a Dole victory.

But than again, it may depend on the relative strength of the two campaigns. Just as Bush could have won under the right circumstances, so too could Dukakis.

I also doubt Perot will be running at all here.
 

MaskedPickle

I could see Perot running against alt-NAFTA and tax raises, but as a Republican candidate. He could fare decently well as an anti-establishment candidate, as some sort of prototype Ron Paul.
 

JVM

Dukakis would be a better president than he was a campaigner. I won't say he'd be an amazing one, but despite his incompetence on the campaign trail, he was a mostly well-regarded Governor until after he lost the presidential election. Without the Gulf War, I think voters' views rest on the economy, and I think Dukakis would probably take a similar route to Bush OTL with a tax raise and possibly go further, but without the 'no new taxes' pledge I don't think it has the same negative effects.

I think the Republican nominee would be Bob Dole with little doubt, and while a strong Republican nominee could probably defeat Dukakis - and with absolutely no disrespect to Sen. Dole - I don't think Dole's the man to beat him. Dole has many of the same key weaknesses as Dukakis without bringing in many new strengths.
 

katchen

Banned
I don't think people know what Michael Dukakis has shrunken into. These days, his claim to celebrity fame is as a UCLA Political Science Professor whose claim to fame is as a local curmedgeon in his Westwood neighborhood near the UCLA campus. His speciality is complaining to the City about neighbors who allow students to park in their driveways while they attend class. He claims that it detracts from the neighborhood, puts too many cars on the streets and that there is some sort of law against it. And this is a man who ran for President.:rolleyes:

​
 
Last edited:

JVM

katchen said:
I don't think people know what Michael Dukakis has shrunken into. These days, his claim to celebrity fame is as a UCLA Political Science Professor whose claim to fame is as a local curmedgeon in his Westwood neighborhood near the UCLA campus. His speciality is complaining to the City about neighbors who allow students to park in their driveways while they attend class. He claims that it detracts from the neighborhood, puts too many cars on the streets and that there is some sort of law against it. And this is a man who ran for President.:rolleyes:

​
Click to expand...

George W. Bush paints himself in the shower now. That doesn't erase his time as Governor of Texas or President of the United States.
 

Whanztastic

If you look at the laws Bush vetoed and the negotiations the Democratic Congress made with the White House, there is a lot of potential for a better economy 1989 - 1993 with Dukakis in the White House. There were numerous progressive economic laws, like guarteened parental leave, that Bush vetoed and furthermore he watered down Democratic stimulus attempts and largely ignored the economy as President.

Dukakis is unlikely to have a major primary challenger unless he really pissed somebody off.

Now the economy won't be stellar but Dole is the likely candidate as denoted, and he was less than a stellar modern campaigner. He is going to have a primary challenge but not exactly by the people listed.

Richard Cheney, Alexander Haig, and Donald Rumsfeld are not running, and neither is failed candidate George HW Bush. Hatch and Robertson probably are not running either.

Here are some names you might want to include:
Tom Kean
James Baker
Richard Thornburgh
Pete Wilson
Jack Kemp
 
Gorrister

Gorrister

Whanztastic said:
If you look at the laws Bush vetoed and the negotiations the Democratic Congress made with the White House, there is a lot of potential for a better economy 1989 - 1993 with Dukakis in the White House. There were numerous progressive economic laws, like guarteened parental leave, that Bush vetoed and furthermore he watered down Democratic stimulus attempts and largely ignored the economy as President.

Dukakis is unlikely to have a major primary challenger unless he really pissed somebody off.

Now the economy won't be stellar but Dole is the likely candidate as denoted, and he was less than a stellar modern campaigner. He is going to have a primary challenge but not exactly by the people listed.

Richard Cheney, Alexander Haig, and Donald Rumsfeld are not running, and neither is failed candidate George HW Bush. Hatch and Robertson probably are not running either.

Here are some names you might want to include:
Tom Kean
James Baker
Richard Thornburgh
Pete Wilson
Jack Kemp
Click to expand...
Thanks,duly noted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top