AHC: Cuomo vs Bush in 1988

[GeographyDude]

@GeographyDude Here is an article you might find interesting:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/1/14313522/george-h-w-bush-dies

Essentially it blames Bush's 1992 defeat on the Fed, which in 1989 decided to take deflationary measures that caused a recession in 1990. Your thoughts?

I read the guy as saying the Fed was going to use the next recession to knock baseline inflation down a peg.

Plus, we have the fact that the relatively shallow 1990 and ‘91 recession took two-and-a-years to fully recover back to the same number of jobs.

* Philly Fed branch president Ed Boehne

although admittedly, welcoming the next recession may have blurred to bringing it about (but one branch president), not a slam dunk

 

[Amadeus]

I read the guy as saying the Fed was going to use the next recession to knock baseline inflation down a peg.

Plus, we have the fact that the relatively shallow 1990 and ‘91 recession took two-and-a-years to fully recover back to the same number of jobs.

* Philly Fed branch president Ed Boehne

although admittedly, welcoming the next recession may have blurred to bringing it about (but one branch president), not a slam dunk

I imagine that Cuomo, being a liberal Democrat, would've replaced Greenspan in 1991 and proposed an economic stimulus to reduce unemployment. (Interestingly, this is pretty much the opposite of what Clinton did - he not only kept Greenspan but worked with him to reduce the deficit. That's in addition to working with Congress to cut spending. It's surprising how in many ways Clinton's economic policies were mere continuations of Bush 41's policies, and had far more in common with Hoover/Eisenhower style Republicanism than the post-1933 Democratic Party).

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

One argument against Cuomo is his ethnic and religious background.

Ellis Island descended Americans have simply been under-represented in the White House, for reasons that are unclear, but its definitely a trend. The generic President has ancestry from the British Isles and is a not very religious Protestant.

I could be mistaken, but I think Cuomo would have been only the second President who could not trace any ancestry to the British Isles. The only other President in that category was Martin Van Buren.

Kennedy has been the only Catholic President. There has also been only one Catholic Vice President, and a total of three Catholic major party nominees for President. Only Baptists have come as close to being under-represented given their proportion of the population, and just not as badly (I can count three Baptist presidents without looking it up). Dukakis had the same issues, but of course Dukakis lost, and being Greek Orthodox seems less problematic than being Catholic.

Dukakis got about 46%, Kerry 48%, and Kennedy 49% of the popular vote and I have no doubt that Cuomo would have gotten a higher percentage of the popular vote than Dukakis, I just wonder if something wouldn't have come up from left field to keep him from getting over the top.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . what Clinton did - he not only kept Greenspan but worked with him to reduce the deficit. . .

As a good Keynesian, I’m in favor of running surpluses during good economic years.

 

[Amadeus]

As a good Keynesian, I’m in favor of running surpluses during good economic years.

I'm not arguing for or against what Clinton did. Rather, I'm pointing out that he was far from the liberal Boogeyman that many on the right portrayed at the time. And his Democratic Party was more moderate than people give credit. Cuomo was more of an old school New Deal liberal, even if he knew how to repackage those views as more moderate in order to win in a 1980s political environment. So it's interesting to think about how his economic and monetary polIcies might've differed from Clinton's.

Further, Cuomo would be running for re-election in (relatively) bad economic times, not good ones as Clinton was. So he'd be forced to change government policies in order to have a chance at the polls.

 

[darklordoftech]

The only other negative I can think of is Catholicism.

Considering who tends to be the most anti-abortion and the tendency for conservative SCOTUS justices to be Catholic, Cuomo being Catholic could be a positive.

 

[Amadeus]

Considering who tends to be the most anti-abortion and the tendency for conservative SCOTUS justices to be Catholic, Cuomo being Catholic could be a positive.

Cuomo did earn praise for his ability to balance his personal opposition to abortion with his public support for its legality, as shown in his famous Notre Dame speech:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?124642-1/cuomo-notre-dame-speech

That's not going to win over die hard anti-abortion activists, buy it would certainly play better in middle America than the standard liberal answer on the issue.

 

[Amadeus]

One argument against Cuomo is his ethnic and religious background.

Ellis Island descended Americans have simply been under-represented in the White House, for reasons that are unclear, but its definitely a trend. The generic President has ancestry from the British Isles and is a not very religious Protestant.

I could be mistaken, but I think Cuomo would have been only the second President who could not trace any ancestry to the British Isles. The only other President in that category was Martin Van Buren.

Kennedy has been the only Catholic President. There has also been only one Catholic Vice President, and a total of three Catholic major party nominees for President. Only Baptists have come as close to being under-represented given their proportion of the population, and just not as badly (I can count three Baptist presidents without looking it up). Dukakis had the same issues, but of course Dukakis lost, and being Greek Orthodox seems less problematic than being Catholic.

Dukakis got about 46%, Kerry 48%, and Kennedy 49% of the popular vote and I have no doubt that Cuomo would have gotten a higher percentage of the popular vote than Dukakis, I just wonder if something wouldn't have come up from left field to keep him from getting over the top.

There's hardly any doubt that Atwater's machine would spread rumors about Cuomo's supposed mafia ties, just as he spread rumors about Dukakis' mental health. But unlike Dukakis, Cuomo had spent a lifetime dealing with such attacks on his ethnicity going back to when he was denied jobs because he was Italian-American. From what I've read, he took those attacks very seriously and always made sure to combat them even when they came from Democrats like Bill Clinton. (Who compared Cuomo to a "mafioso.") A Cuomo campaign would certainly differ from Dukakis' candidacy in that he would fight back against Republican attacks, meaning that Atwater's dirty tricks could potentially backfire on Bush.

 

[Amadeus]

The other day I saw an interview with Bush confidante James Baker. According to Baker, Bush said that "if there was no 41, then there'd be no 43." I'm not so sure if that's the case. But let's imagine a scenario where Bush is right: 41 narrowly loses to Cuomo in 1988. By a small margin, Dubya beats Ann Richards in 1990 and becomes the Governor of Texas four years early. Re-elected in 1994, Bush Jr runs for the Republican nomination in 1996. However, under different circumstances Bush is not the consensus candidate of the GOP establishment like he was in 2000. Instead, the establishment is split between Bush, Pete Wilson, and Bill Weld. This creates a vacuum that allows the dark horse Arizona Senator John McCain to win in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and ultimately capture the 1996 Republican nomination. (Essentially, this is what happened with Jeb and Trump but twenty years early).

Vice-President Lloyd Bentsen doesn't run for President, citing his age. Tennessee Senator Al Gore, forgoing a third term in 1996, wins the Democratic nomination and faces McCain in the general. Who wins the election? In spite of the good economy and President Cuomo's popularity, my money is on McCain.

 

[BrilliantMistake]

I don't see a recovering alcoholic failed businessman like Dubya running for Governor of Texas if his father didn't become President...nobody votes for the Vice President's son . . .

The complication is if Ann Richards (or any Democrat) would be elected in Texas if there was a Democratic president in 1990, or if there'd be a backlash too big for anyone to beat. But if that were the case, the son of a failed presidential candidate is not going to be Texas GOP favorite.

 

[Amadeus]

But if that were the case, the son of a failed presidential candidate is not going to be Texas GOP favorite.

So what? The Bush family would still have a good deal of influence both nationally and at the state level on Texas. Dubya was extremely determined to succeed politically: defied the expectations of both his family and most observers by beating Richards and ultimately winning in 2000. IMO there's no doubt he would look to avenge his dad's defeat and create a political career of his own by running in 1990. And it's doubtful given the closeness of the OTL race that Bush would lose to Richards. Especially since in OTL he beat her by a pretty wide margin.

 

[BrilliantMistake]

In 1994, George W. was the son of a former President of the United States, one who had won Texas twice while running for President. That's prestige and statewide recognition. In this alt-1990 scenario, he'd be the son of a former Vice President (the pitcher of warm piss) who managed to lose two Senate elections in Texas, who was last seen losing to a Democrat in '78. And if it's a scenario where Poppy Bush lost Texas in '88 (a possibility), he'd be even more tarnished. There'd be no record of victory to build on and there'd really be nothing to avenge, just the political loser son of a political loser wanting higher office. There'd be more than enough Texas GOP Congressmen or State Senators or whatever who'd go "This guy can't win, he'll never win, he's from a carpetbagging family."

 

[Amadeus]

In 1994, George W. was the son of a former President of the United States, one who had won Texas twice while running for President. That's prestige and statewide recognition. In this alt-1990 scenario, he'd be the son of a former Vice President (the pitcher of warm piss) who managed to lose two Senate elections in Texas, who was last seen losing to a Democrat in '78. And if it's a scenario where Poppy Bush lost Texas in '88 (a possibility), he'd be even more tarnished. There'd be no record of victory to build on and there'd really be nothing to avenge, just the political loser son of a political loser wanting higher office. There'd be more than enough Texas GOP Congressmen or State Senators or whatever who'd go "This guy can't win, he'll never win, he's from a carpetbagging family."

As other users have discussed here before, it's unlikely that Bush would lose Texas in 1988. I think you're overestimating the amount of bad blood there would actually be between the GOP establishment and the Bush family in 1990. Remember that even after Dubya's disastrous Presidency, the GOP establishment annointed Jeb as the frontrunner in 2016. And speaking of Jeb, even after he lost his 1994 race in Florida he was given a second chance in 1998. Sure George W wouldn't be the son of a President but he'd be the son of a wealthy and well-connected Vice-President who barely lost two years before. (As for Garner's quote about the Vice-Presidency being a warm bucket of you know what, that had stopped being true by the time Mondale established the precedent of the powerful VP under Carter). Some might write him off as a loser like his dad, but this was the same attitude that politicians had toward Dubya anyway when he ran in 1994 as the son of the President who lost in a landslide two years before. He defied those low expectations and yet he won, I don't see how that wouldn't be true if Bush Sr had very narrowly lost in 1988.

 

[BrilliantMistake]

As other users have discussed here before, it's unlikely that Bush would lose Texas in 1988. I think you're overestimating the amount of bad blood there would actually be between the GOP establishment and the Bush family in 1990. Remember that even after Dubya's disastrous Presidency, the GOP establishment annointed Jeb as the frontrunner in 2016. And speaking of Jeb, even after he lost his 1994 race in Florida he was given a second chance in 1998. Sure George W wouldn't be the son of a President but he'd be the son of a wealthy and well-connected Vice-President who barely lost two years before. (As for Garner's quote about the Vice-Presidency being a warm bucket of you know what, that had stopped being true by the time Mondale established the precedent of the powerful VP under Carter). Some might write him off as a loser like his dad, but this was the same attitude that politicians had toward Dubya anyway when he ran in 1994 as the son of the President who lost in a landslide two years before. He defied those low expectations and yet he won, I don't see how that wouldn't be true if Bush Sr had very narrowly lost in 1988.

Those are good points. I dunno, I just still am having a hard time seeing it. I could see something further down along the trough, so-to-speak, than Governor of TX. Maybe a House seat again, or a party mandarin position like his old man (or Ronna Romney, uh, McDaniel for that matter) if he wanted it. But maybe Governor. I think it'd also depend on how big a 1990 anti-Democrats backlash would be. '94 was huge swing. 1990 was a comparatively small one for Democrats against a Republican POTUS. What I'm wondering is if it would be a Gingrich Revolution (or, *gulp* Cheney Revolution) four years early, or the comparatively small backlash of '90. Would depend on the economy I think.

This is actually pretty thought-provoking.

 

[Amadeus]

I think it'd also depend on how big a 1990 anti-Democrats backlash would be. '94 was huge swing. 1990 was a comparatively small one for Democrats against a Republican POTUS. What I'm wondering is if it would be a Gingrich Revolution (or, *gulp* Cheney Revolution) four years early, or the comparatively small backlash of '90. Would depend on the economy I think.

I'll reuse a post I wrote on another recent thread that focuses on Bush Sr:

As I've mentioned on this site before, the Gingrich Revolution happened thanks to very specific circumstances that never would've occurred had Bill Clinton not become President in 1993. The economy hadn't improved enough to benefit the Democrats politically, Clinton's administration was widely seen as erratic, unfocused, and unconcerned with what mattered most to voters (the economy), and Clinton's major legislative initiative was a massive failure.

Another thing worth noting is that in 1990 neither Gingrich nor Cheney will be leading the House GOP: it would be the more moderate Bob Michel. There really wasn't any Democratic backlash against Bush in 1990, so it's hard to see how there'd be a Republican backlash against Cuomo in 1990 unless he governs in a similarly incompetent way to Clinton in 1994 - which I find unlikely. Cuomo and Clinton were two different men with different personalities, philosophies, life experiences, and so on. Not to mention that Cuomo had a respectable track record of successfully governing as a Democrat with a Republican legislature in New York. The odds that his administration and his first midterms would play out as Clinton's did are quite slim.

 

[darklordoftech]

Cheney Revolution

Willie Horton's perceived role in HW's 1988 victory was what turned the Democrats into a party that was unwilling to say "no" to Cheney in 2002.

 

[Amadeus]

Willie Horton's perceived role in HW's 1988 victory was what turned the Democrats into a party that was unwilling to say "no" to Cheney in 2002.

I disagree. Willie Horton pushed the Democrats to start looking tough on crime in the 1990's, but this didn't impact their national security policies. In fact, most Senate Democrats voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1990, only two years after Horton.

 

[darklordoftech]

I disagree. Willie Horton pushed the Democrats to start looking tough on crime in the 1990's, but this didn't impact their national security policies. In fact, most Senate Democrats voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1990, only two years after Horton.

Hussein invading Kuwait didn't threaten the safety of anyone in America nor was it a national security threat, so the Democrats could vote against intervention without looking "soft on" anything.

 

[Amadeus]

Hussein invading Kuwait didn't threaten the safety of anyone in America nor was it a national security threat, so the Democrats could vote against intervention without looking "soft on" anything.

I still fail to see how Willie Horton lead to the Democrats supposedly caving to Cheney in 2002...

Anyway, had Bush Sr lost in 1988 it's extremely unlikely that Cheney ever becomes VP. Instead he remains a Republican Congressman from Wyoming, however he would certainly be on track to becoming the GOP House leader and possibly Speaker at some point. *Shudders*

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

On the discussion that broke out of any George W Bush political career if his father is not elected President in 1988, check out this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Quayle

George W Bush ran for Congress in 1978. Texas adds tons of Congressional districts every census and gets steadily more Republican up to 2016. George W Bush would have no problem with a federal Congressional career at least if he wanted to. Look at some of the Republican Congressmen that did get elected from Texas in the last three decades.