Bill Clinton was considering running for President in 1988, but decided against it at the last minute, following the destruction of Gary Hart and Mario Cuomo's decision not to run. So, if he does decide to run, can he win A) the nomination and B) the Presidency?
Can Bill Clinton Win in 1988?
- Thread starter Westbrook 49
- Start date
I agree. I can however see him winning the nomination if Gore sits it out, as Dukakis was a pretty weak candidate.
It really isn't that difficult. Dukakis did at one point have a 17 point lead over Bush and Reagan's approval ratings did take a hit over Iran Contra. Bush won and won big only because Dukakis refused to defend himself over the Willie Horton attacks (it was Duke's Republican predecessor that started the furlough program that Horton got out on) the tank ad, and the fact that his answer to the question about the death penalty during one of the debates came off as cold, and if any Democrat was willing to fight as dirty as Atwater, it's Clinton, so I think he has a good chance at beating Bush.
Guess I'll just have to recycle an old post of mine:
***
On Dukakis' seventeen-point lead, which some people take as proof the Democrats had an advantage in 1988: George W. Bush lead Al Gore by seventeen points after the GOP convention in 2000. http://www.gallup.com/poll/2338/majo...conventio.aspx
That he actually lost the popular vote to Gore may be explained in one of three ways: (1) Far from being a genius, Karl Rove was an idiot, and Bush ran an incredibly bad campaign. (2) Al Gore's campaign, so criticized at the time, was absolutely brilliant. (3) Nobody should take huge leads after a party convention too seriously.
I don't think you'll be surprised to learn that I lean toward (3). Other examples besides 1988 and 2000: Jimmy Carter led Ford by 35(!) points after the Democratic convention in 1976. If you will say "Well, the fact that Carter almost lost shows that he was a poor campaigner, too" then consider this--Ronald Reagan led Carter by 28 points after the GOP convention in 1980. http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=1028,1944829 Yet he ended up winning by "only" ten points. This shows the absurdity of taking such leads seriously. Unless you believe that by a strange coincidence all those candidates with huge post-convention leads were terrible campaigners.
My own view is that while a better candidate than Dukakis could have made it closer, the election in 1988 was Bush's to lose, given peace and prosperity and the lack of any serious split in the GOP (Bush being acceptable to both moderates and conservatives). (One other thing that supports this belief: Dukakis had already lost his lead in the polls by the time of the GOP convention. This was long before the ride in the tank, the Willie Horton ad, the inept answer about whether he would still oppose capital punishment if someone raped and killed his wife, and all the other supposed defining moments of the campaign...)
(BTW, I looked up Reagan's job approval ratings after Iran-Contra. Yes, they took a hit in 1987; on one occasion in March 1987 they were actually negative, 43-46. But in every poll after that they were positive. His approvals were always at least five points higher than his disapprovals throughout 1988; in fact, in every poll but one they were at least eight points higher. By early July the positives always exceeded the negatives by double digits. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFI...entName=Reagan)
Guess I'll just have to recycle an old post of mine:
***
On Dukakis' seventeen-point lead, which some people take as proof the Democrats had an advantage in 1988: George W. Bush lead Al Gore by seventeen points after the GOP convention in 2000. http://www.gallup.com/poll/2338/majo...conventio.aspx
That he actually lost the popular vote to Gore may be explained in one of three ways: (1) Far from being a genius, Karl Rove was an idiot, and Bush ran an incredibly bad campaign. (2) Al Gore's campaign, so criticized at the time, was absolutely brilliant. (3) Nobody should take huge leads after a party convention too seriously.
I don't think you'll be surprised to learn that I lean toward (3). Other examples besides 1988 and 2000: Jimmy Carter led Ford by 35(!) points after the Democratic convention in 1976. If you will say "Well, the fact that Carter almost lost shows that he was a poor campaigner, too" then consider this--Ronald Reagan led Carter by 28 points after the GOP convention in 1980. http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=1028,1944829 Yet he ended up winning by "only" ten points. This shows the absurdity of taking such leads seriously. Unless you believe that by a strange coincidence all those candidates with huge post-convention leads were terrible campaigners.
My own view is that while a better candidate than Dukakis could have made it closer, the election in 1988 was Bush's to lose, given peace and prosperity and the lack of any serious split in the GOP (Bush being acceptable to both moderates and conservatives). (One other thing that supports this belief: Dukakis had already lost his lead in the polls by the time of the GOP convention. This was long before the ride in the tank, the Willie Horton ad, the inept answer about whether he would still oppose capital punishment if someone raped and killed his wife, and all the other supposed defining moments of the campaign...)
(BTW, I looked up Reagan's job approval ratings after Iran-Contra. Yes, they took a hit in 1987; on one occasion in March 1987 they were actually negative, 43-46. But in every poll after that they were positive. His approvals were always at least five points higher than his disapprovals throughout 1988; in fact, in every poll but one they were at least eight points higher. By early July the positives always exceeded the negatives by double digits. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFI...entName=Reagan)
Makes sense, I agree with you for the most part, but I still think the Democrats have a shot in '88. While there was peace and prosperity which does favor Bush, a strong Democratic candidate could win if they run a good enough campaign, although I think they would win a very close one for the fact that the economy was pretty good in '88 and there was relative stability abroad. Plus, the Democrats could win on voter fatigue as the Presidency usually switches parties after two terms.
Peace and prosperity alone doesn't determine Presidential elections and if it did, Gore would've (and in my opinion should've, I voted for him in the mock election my second grade class had at the time
) won decisively in 2000, but the campaigns the candidates ran and the candidates themselves had a role in the outcome of it. Bush's campaign wasn't as good as people at the time claimed it was, but it was still good and Gore's campaign was horrible in hindsight.