Paul V McNutt
Banned
I think against Reagan this would be viewed as a respectable finish. He would be the frontrunner for 1988. He would probably have won the nominaton, if he kept his pants zipped.
Gary Hart vs. Ronald Reagan in 1984
- Thread starter Glass Onion
- Start date
Oh I think he'd have a good chance at carrying that state since he represented Colorado in the Senate, thereby he'd be helped by the "hometown boy" factor.
Considering Reagan carried Colorado with (63%) of the vote, I don't think even having the Home Advantage will overturn that. Enough to make the margin narrow for sure, but it is more likely than not that Reagan still carries the state.
Yes but that was against Mondale as the Dem nominee.
With Hart as the nominee the dynamics in Colorado might have been different.
I agree that Hart carries his home state of Colorado.
Absent some pretty extenuating circumstances -- which I came up with on this thread, it's pretty unlikely that Hart (or really, anyone) can beat Reagan in '84.
FWIW, the "Gary Hot-Pants" stuff was ridiculously overblown, and I don't think a "bimbo eruption" is inevitable at all.
Absent some pretty extenuating circumstances -- which I came up with on this thread, it's pretty unlikely that Hart (or really, anyone) can beat Reagan in '84.
FWIW, the "Gary Hot-Pants" stuff was ridiculously overblown, and I don't think a "bimbo eruption" is inevitable at all.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
Hart was determined to have a women running mate. The POD I like to use is that Liz Holtzman wins the 1980 Senate election in New York. She probably would be his running mate. Therefore there are none of the special issues with Ferraro. Holtzman did not have a husband whose fiances came into question. ( She did not have a husband. Which might be an issue.) She therefore would not have made remark about being married to an Italian man.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
When I heard him speak during the 84 campaign, he said there were a few men on his list. He also said that Pat Schroader was in charge of his Vice Presidential selection process.
I don't think it warrants a separate thread at this time, but if the "monkey business" peccadillo was butterflied, could Hart have defeated Bush in 1988?
My suspicion is yes, considering that even Dukakis had a lead over Bush in the Summer of '88.
My suspicion is yes, considering that even Dukakis had a lead over Bush in the Summer of '88.
I think Hart would have won in '88 pretty handily. Take the Clinton '92 map and subtract out Montana (3 EV; Clinton won because of Ross Perot-skewed numbers) and the states Clinton/Gore won in the South (KY, TN, GA, LA, and AK -- that's 47 more EV), and you're left with 320 EVs. In terms of upside, Hart might have put Arizona into play, which is another 8 EVs, and possibly Virginia (13). Oh, and I haven't corrected for a couple of states that changed EV totals from 1988 to 1992 because of the census, but you get the point. We're talking about a solid Democratic victory.
I've said before that Bush '88 is almost ASB in our own TL, and here's what I mean by that. Unlikeable Greek munchkin Michael Dukakis didn't just have a lead; he had a 17-point lead coming out of the Democratic National Convention. Sure, some of that was a convention bounce that was bound to recede a bit -- but... what happened?
Well, the most important thing that I think happened is that during the Democratic Primaries, Dukakis' campaign manager, John Sasso -- and by the way, read this AH for someone who really gets Sasso 'leaked' the videotape mashup of Joe Biden and Neil Kinnock (which destroyed Biden's campaign and derailed his Presidential ambitions for two decades).
For reasons that I still can't fathom, Sasso was attacked by the entire Democratic establishment and forced to resign as Dukakis's campaign manager. You'd think they would be happy that it was Dukakis running the ads in March and not Bush running them in October, but that would require you to credit guys like Bob Shrum with long-term strategic vision. Anyway, I digress.
After putting out the "attack video," Sasso was replaced by Susan Estrich, who -- and I'm being as charitable as I can possibly be, here -- would have to gain 25 IQ points and stop drooling before rising to the status of "complete moron."
Led by Estrich, Dukakis boldly decided to:
1) not respond to Bush's attack ads, thus dropping 25 points in 2 months, even though Bush's attacks -- on the Pledge of Allegiance, on Boston Harbor, and on Willie Horton -- had simple, easily-explained rebuttals;
2) produce campaign commercials that Democratic focus groups couldn't tell they were pro- or anti-Bush ("The Packaging of George Bush");
3) spend an inordinate percentage of their fixed budget on 30-minute primetime blocks on national television in late October, by which time he was ten points down in the polls; and
4) pose for a photo op in the cupola of an M1A1 Abrams battle tank while wearing an oversized helmet, drawing unhelpful comparisons to Rocky the Flying Squirrel.
There are other mistakes, but essentially it took a perfect storm of stupidity for the Democrats not to capture the White House in 1988. Intriguingly, basically the same thing happened again 16 years later.
So yeah: take a significantly better candidate with a demonstrated history of running quality campaigns, surround him with a campaign staff that isn't Susan F*cking Estrich, and you've got an easy victory in '88.
I've said before that Bush '88 is almost ASB in our own TL, and here's what I mean by that. Unlikeable Greek munchkin Michael Dukakis didn't just have a lead; he had a 17-point lead coming out of the Democratic National Convention. Sure, some of that was a convention bounce that was bound to recede a bit -- but... what happened?
Well, the most important thing that I think happened is that during the Democratic Primaries, Dukakis' campaign manager, John Sasso -- and by the way, read this AH for someone who really gets Sasso 'leaked' the videotape mashup of Joe Biden and Neil Kinnock (which destroyed Biden's campaign and derailed his Presidential ambitions for two decades).
For reasons that I still can't fathom, Sasso was attacked by the entire Democratic establishment and forced to resign as Dukakis's campaign manager. You'd think they would be happy that it was Dukakis running the ads in March and not Bush running them in October, but that would require you to credit guys like Bob Shrum with long-term strategic vision. Anyway, I digress.
After putting out the "attack video," Sasso was replaced by Susan Estrich, who -- and I'm being as charitable as I can possibly be, here -- would have to gain 25 IQ points and stop drooling before rising to the status of "complete moron."
Led by Estrich, Dukakis boldly decided to:
1) not respond to Bush's attack ads, thus dropping 25 points in 2 months, even though Bush's attacks -- on the Pledge of Allegiance, on Boston Harbor, and on Willie Horton -- had simple, easily-explained rebuttals;
2) produce campaign commercials that Democratic focus groups couldn't tell they were pro- or anti-Bush ("The Packaging of George Bush");
3) spend an inordinate percentage of their fixed budget on 30-minute primetime blocks on national television in late October, by which time he was ten points down in the polls; and
4) pose for a photo op in the cupola of an M1A1 Abrams battle tank while wearing an oversized helmet, drawing unhelpful comparisons to Rocky the Flying Squirrel.
There are other mistakes, but essentially it took a perfect storm of stupidity for the Democrats not to capture the White House in 1988. Intriguingly, basically the same thing happened again 16 years later.
So yeah: take a significantly better candidate with a demonstrated history of running quality campaigns, surround him with a campaign staff that isn't Susan F*cking Estrich, and you've got an easy victory in '88.