As we know, Michael Dukakis narrowly defeated then Vice President George Bush in the 1988 Presidential election. Internationally, President Dukakis is remembered for overseeing the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of the Cold War two years later, working with the International Community in late 1990 to diplomatically stop Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait, and for militarily intervening to stop the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Domestically, the Dukakis Administration is remembered for shifting the balance of the Supreme Court to the left, after it drifted rightward under President Reagan, for passing Americare, which reformed Healthcare and paved the way for the Single Payer Healthcare system we enjoy today, for the bipartisan Stimulus Package of 1991 to get the economy through the early 90's recession, and for the Welfare Reform Bill of 1994.

The Democrats only controlled the Senate for two years and lost Controlled the House for the first time in 40 years in 1994. Dukakis and Vice President Bentsen would narrowly defeat Senator Bob Dole and running mate Senator Pete Wilson in 1992, and despite a good economy and stability abroad, due to high crime rates, and the scandals of Democratic Presidential nominee, Former Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, Republican Senator John McCain and his Running mate, Governor John Engler of Michigan won the 1996 Presidential election, giving the Republicans control of the both the Presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1954.

So my question is, how do the 1990s and beyond pan out without Michael Dukakis as President from 1989-1997? How does George Bush deal with the international challenges that arose in the '90s? Does the economy still tank? Who wins in 1992 with Bush as President and likely seeking a Second Term?
 
The fall of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Blocs aftermath handling would’ve been the same IMHO. So would’ve Saddam's near invasion of Kuwait. Americare of course wouldn’t have happened, but the handling of the recession is difficult to say. From what I know, Bush was in favor of a stimulus, however, with his economic views I don’t know how the economy would’ve fared. That’s just me.
 
Moreover, what would the world be like without those 8 wonderful years under President McCain? It was 96-04 that made American in the 21st Century
 
Moreover, what would the world be like without those 8 wonderful years under President McCain? It was 96-04 that made American in the 21st Century

I feel like “wonderful” is an overstatement. Sure the economy was good and we maintained solid counterterrorism strategies (I shudder to think of what would’ve happened had the September plot actually been carried out) but the Second Gulf War gave us a bad bout of hubristic victory disease. McCain’s presidency put us on a path of sticking our noses in everyone else’s business for whatever reason we see fit, which has backfired in Syria, Libya and Sudan at minimum.
 
I feel like “wonderful” is an overstatement. Sure the economy was good and we maintained solid counterterrorism strategies (I shudder to think of what would’ve happened had the September plot actually been carried out) but the Second Gulf War gave us a bad bout of hubristic victory disease. McCain’s presidency put us on a path of sticking our noses in everyone else’s business for whatever reason we see fit, which has backfired in Syria, Libya and Sudan at minimum.
This. I feel McCain had a good first term (rode out a good economy, no war despite his poking into everyone's business), then it all went south in his second with the wars and the dotcom bust. President Harkin really had a mess on his hands when he took over in January 2005.
 
It would've been interesting to see the effects a Bush Presidency would've had on free trade. After Dukakis successfully deflected the accusations that he was weak on crime, Bush tried to re-structure the election on the grounds of "Republicans = economic prosperity." Before that, Dukakis didn't have that much of a stance on free trade, but he hopped on the protectionist bandwagon around September, and blasted Bush for trade deficits and all that stuff.

I've heard the argument more than once that the reason the Liberal-NDP Coalition won in the Canadian election of 1988 in late November was because of the anti-free trade second wind that Dukakis' election in early November gave them. For those who don't know, the incumbent Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney of the Progressive Conservative Party, ran on maintaining the now-defunct Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, while John Turner, the former Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party, made a comeback by promising to rip it to shreds, which he did with the help of Ed Broadbent, the leader of the left wing New Democratic Party.

On top of that Dole had to take a free trade stance in 1992, when Phil Gramm really gave him a run for his money in the primaries. Dole's proposal of a "North American Free Trade Deal" only added to his image as the 'out-of-touch old man' that Dukakis cultivated, while portraying himself as the responsible, enlightened newcomer.

I heard Phil Gramm and Jack Kemp considered running a third party ticket in 1992 based on pro-free trade and supply-side economic stances with the financial backing of some eccentric businessman, but they decided not to, for fear of splitting the vote. Anyone know if that's true?
 
. . . I heard Phil Gramm and Jack Kemp considered running a third party ticket in 1992 based on pro-free trade and supply-side economic stances with the financial backing of some eccentric businessman, but they decided not to, for fear of splitting the vote. . .
And eight years later in 2000, President McCain faced Democratic nominee Chris Dodd in a relatively close race. Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan were two minor party candidates, and one would naturally think that Nader would draw from the left and Buchanan from the right, but actually . . .




upload_2018-9-18_12-45-30.jpg




Two political scientists later looked at electronic snapshots of full ballots for the state of Florida. And they found that Nader and Buchanan voters tended toward the middle ideologically. It's like these third-party voters differed along another dimension, such as how "pissed off" they were to put it in plain English.

* the two political scientists were Michael C. Herron and Jeffrey B. Lewis
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-9-18_12-42-28.jpg
    upload_2018-9-18_12-42-28.jpg
    21.9 KB · Views: 109
Top