Best Aponent For Bush in 88?

Which of the following was most able to beat Bush in the 1988 presidencial election?

  • Mario Cuomo

    Votes: 13 33.3%
  • Gary Hart

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • Ted Kennedy

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • Michael Dukakis

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lloyd Bentson

    Votes: 6 15.4%
  • Bill Clinton

    Votes: 8 20.5%
  • Al Gore

    Votes: 5 12.8%
  • Dick Gephart

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Jesse Jackson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other (please elaberate)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    39
  • Poll closed .
Hi all,

As you all know, Michael Dukakis was victorious in the 1988 Primaries, though he eventually lost the General Election to Bush on comfortable margins.

Apparently though Dukakis was in front after the 2 conventions however. So, my question is, who would have been the best candidate to sustain that innicial lead and beat Bush, or at least give him a run for his money.

It'd be great if you could give your reasons as to why you think your favoured candidate would have been better able to beat Bush, double bonus if you can name a running mate for them!

So, lets discuss.

Note: I am aware some of the people in the pole didn't run in the 88 primaries, this is a list of candidates who I believe could have entered the primaries-though some of them are more likely nominees than others...
 
Last edited:
Of anyone who ran? Al Gore. His moderate record along with his Southern roots make him the ideal candidate to beat Bush. If Joe Biden had not goofed up or had serious brain aneurysms than I believe he would be the ideal candidate. Then again, he later claimed that his 1988 campaign was meant to lay the groundwork for 1992. Gary Hart would be a strong candidate if not for the philandering.

The best two candidates who didn't run were Bill Clinton and Mario Cuomo. Clinton was much like Gore, only more charismatic. Cuomo was very liberal, but could articulate why in a better way than anyone since Humphrey.
 
I'll approach this in terms of 'who had a good chance of winning the nomination and beating Bush', as those who could easily do the latter are obvious. That doesn't mean a lot if they can't secure the nomination, though.

Gore and Clinton were both almost certainly unnominatable in 1988; Gore was too far to the right at that stage, and if Clinton had run, in addition to ideological problems, the south would have been a three-way split between him, Gore and Jackson, leaving him very little of a bedrock.

In terms of actually having a very good chance of winning the nomination, it has to be Gary Hart sans Donna Rice. I'd also put Bill Bradley into the mix, but I'm not entirely sure he could seal up the nomination, even assuming best case scenario.
 
Last edited:
Cuomo, Gephardt, Dukakis, in that order. No one else is winning the nomination. All of them could have beaten Bush.
 

Deleted member 9338

I went with Hart as Clinton is a real unknown and Cuomo has too many skeltons in the closet.
 
I say Bentsen a moderate and long record in Congress. h Hopefully he can still give The your no Jack Kennedy line.
 
Cuomo with Gore to secure his right flank would be the ideal ticket. Although I'm not especially familiar with Bensten, I'd wonder if he was sufficiently assertive to set the terms of debate prior to Attwater, et. al doing it for him. IIRC Dukakis lead Bush for much of Summer 1988, so it more-or less follows that a clever, assertive Democratic nominee might have retained the initiative through November.
 
I always liked Paul Simon, myself.

Ah but does that necesarily mean he could beat Bush? I don't know much about Paul Simon, so perhaps he could havee.

It's interesting to note the amount of votes for Cuomo on here. He'd definitely appeal to me personally above all the others, though I voted for Hart as the guy who I consider most able to beat Bush.
 
Top