Better Michael Dukakis Running Mate

In 1988, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis selected Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate to help him campaign in the South and to win Blue Collar Voters as well. Dukakis lost the South by a landslide and Blue Collar Voters really didn't vote for him. Progressives such as Ralph Nader were upset by Dukakis's choice of Bentsen. On Robin Toner's New York Times Article, some alternates on Dukakis's shortlist were: Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt, Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton, Tennessee Senator Al Gore, Florida Senator Bob Graham, Ohio Senator John Glenn, and Reverend Jesse Jackson. I don't think Bentsen was such a bad running mate, especially how well he did in the debate against Dan Quayle. But for the sake of the thread, who would have been a better running mate for Michael Dukakis in 1988?
 
I don't think there could have been a "better" running mate. Sure, all of those folks you listed as alternates are fine folks, but I don't think they would "move the needle" enough to change the outcome of the election. Remember the old adage, people don't vote for the bottom of the ticket.
 
If playing The Campaign Trail has taught me anything: NOT Jesse Jackson. :p

Really, though, Bentson was a perfectly logical and solid choice, and probably the best available. An experienced senior statesman with a moderate reputation from a big, crucial state. He had everything you could hope for in a running mate. The Dukakis campaign's downfall was its own sheer self-defeating incompetence, not any flaw in who was on the ticket.
 

nbcman

Donor
Governor Dukakis didn't need a better running mate. Vice President (at the time) Bush did. At least there wouldn't be the idiocy of the Murphy Brown speech without VP Quayle
 
The Dukakis campaign's downfall was its own sheer self-defeating incompetence, not any flaw in who was on the ticket.
Could it also have been because of his response to Bernard Shaw's question about the death penalty in the debate? According to many political pundits of the time, Dukakis's poll numbers drastically dropped that night because of his response.
 
Last edited:
Could it also have been because of his response to Bernard Shaw's question about the death penalty in the debate?

You can put that in the "incompetence" file. Plus his complete inability to defend himself against the Bush campaign's criticism of his political record in Massachusetts, his failure to go on the offensive and attack Bush and Reagan's political weak spots (Iran-Contra, the national crime rate, the deficit, etc.), the tank photo op, and being way too honest for his own good about tax increases.

Nothing against the guy personally, but the 1988 Democratic presidential campaign could lend itself to a book, entitled: "How to Utterly Screw Up at Politics Despite Having Tons of Advantages."
 
Last edited:
You can put that in the "incompetence" file. Plus his complete inability to defend himself against the Bush campaign's criticism of his political record in Massachusetts, his failure to go on the offensive and attack Bush and Reagan's political weak spots (Iran-Contra, the national crime rate, the deficit, etc.), the tank photo op, and being way too honest for his own good about tax increases.

Nothing against the guy personally, but the 1988 Democratic presidential campaign could lend itself to a book, entitled: "How to Utterly Screw Up at Politics Despite Having Tons of Advantages."

Very true. You could also call the book "How to snatch defeat from the Jaws of Victory".
The choice of Bensten was probably the only thing Dukakis and his campaign got right. Jackson would have been a lousy pick.
And thanks to that pick we did get one of the greatest debate moments of all time!!
 
It was Bentsen who needed a better running mate.
220px-John_Glenn_Low_Res.jpg
 
The only problem with Bentsen is there wasn't much hope to win Texas. Bush was from Texas. The last time a VP was picked to take the Opposing Presidential Candidate's State was 1960 with Henry Cabot Lodge and that didn't work, so I don't imagine Bentsen was the best choice if you were looking to win Texas. That's sort of a losing fight.

Other than that, Bentsen probably was the best pick. Maybe John Glenn could've helped out in the Midwest. But PV wise it probably doesn't change much.
 
Dukakis was prickly.

He didn't think he should be criticized, and thus he wasn't really in a mental place where he could respond to it well.
 
The only problem with Bentsen is there wasn't much hope to win Texas. Bush was from Texas. The last time a VP was picked to take the Opposing Presidential Candidate's State was 1960 with Henry Cabot Lodge and that didn't work, so I don't imagine Bentsen was the best choice if you were looking to win Texas. That's sort of a losing fight.

Other than that, Bentsen probably was the best pick. Maybe John Glenn could've helped out in the Midwest. But PV wise it probably doesn't change much.
One of the major reasons why Dukakis picked Bentsen was because he hoped that by having Bentsen on the Democratic ticket he might be able to carry Texas, and I'm not sure if that is entirely unreasonable given the electoral clout of the state and that Dukakis 'expected' to be competitive there. The reality proved different of course.

That said Bentsen also helped further exemplify experience on the ticket, temporarily mollifying Moderate and Conservative Democrats who may have been uneasy on the Massachusetts Governor, but there is only so much a running-mate can do to benefit the ticket or stabilize it. Once those attacks on Dukakis' more Liberal record were rolled out by the Bush campaign, and Dukakis failed to make an effective response on those attacks, whatever real benefit Bentsen or any Southern Democrat would have had on the ticket largely vanished.
 
Top