If Dukakis won in 1988, who would the GOP nominate in 1992?

Dole would probably make another run at it after '88. Pete Wilson may not run for Governor and make a run at the Presidency from the Senate.
 
It would be Dole, Kemp, Pete Wilson (who as @creighton said probably stays in the Senate instead of running for Governor), Pete DuPont, and possibly South Carolina Governor Carroll Campbell and Former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean running for the nomination. I'd also add Dole's main opponents from 1996 OTL, Pat Buchanan and Phil Graham. Lamar Alexander could run as well. My guess is Dole or Wilson get nominated.
 

samcster94

Banned
It would be Dole, Kemp, Pete Wilson (who as @creighton said probably stays in the Senate instead of running for Governor), Pete DuPont, and possibly South Carolina Governor Carroll Campbell and Former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean running for the nomination. I'd also add Dole's main opponents from 1996 OTL, Pat Buchanan and Phil Graham. Lamar Alexander could run as well. My guess is Dole or Wilson get nominated.
So, basically the 1996 field with a few extra people and no Steve Forbes?
 
I'd say @dw93's field is pretty spot on, though it's probably a cycle or two too early for Graham. Buchanan's the gadfly and gets some mileage out of it but more on the lines of a right wing version of the John Anderson phenomenon than real traction. Kemp was a hard-to-handle (for his handlers) gaffe machine on the trail which scuppered him in '88 when he should've been the New Right's new hotness. I'm betting that unless Dole can absolutely steamroll the fundraising sector, he will take a serious blow somewhere early and it'll be
Muskie 2.0, all the inevitability arguments deflate and he's outflanked. My money would be on a fight between Carroll Campbell (easily the GOP's best candidate never to run 1988-on in terms of his skills, brains, and Lee Atwater-enabling relentlessness) and Pete Wilson, a Wilson who stays in the Senate to keep his eyes on the prize.
 
Pat Robertson might decide to run again for turds and giggles.

God save the United States...
 
Bush won by a pretty healthy margin, so it'd be important to establish why he loses. Does he lean too hard into rightwing rhetoric, thus alienating too many conservatives and independents? Or does he run a campaign that causes too many conservatives too stay home or vote third party, without winning enough crossover votes to compensate? Either scenario would have huge ramifications for 1992.
 
Bush won by a pretty healthy margin, so it'd be important to establish why he loses. Does he lean too hard into rightwing rhetoric, thus alienating too many conservatives and independents? Or does he run a campaign that causes too many conservatives too stay home or vote third party, without winning enough crossover votes to compensate? Either scenario would have huge ramifications for 1992.

Dukakis's loss was in large part due to his campaign manager Susan Estrich being an utter chowderhead. Her being replaced could give him a chance. This is a good post on how bad she was and why:

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.

If he keeps John Sasso he's got an alright chance.
 
So, Dan Quayle....

Dismiss it all you want, but the Republican establishment was working overtime to argue that he was not an idiot, and to play him up as a young Republican for a young generation of Conservatives. Frankly, candidates seem to be whoever embodies the zeitgeist of the era, and I would bet my money on Dan Quayle.
 
So, Dan Quayle....

Dismiss it all you want, but the Republican establishment was working overtime to argue that he was not an idiot, and to play him up as a young Republican for a young generation of Conservatives. Frankly, candidates seem to be whoever embodies the zeitgeist of the era, and I would bet my money on Dan Quayle.
Wouldn't he have the stink of Bush's loss on him though and possibly be blamed at least in part for the loss if it was any of his gaffes that contributed?
 
Wouldn't he have the stink of Bush's loss on him though and possibly be blamed at least in part for the loss if it was any of his gaffes that contributed?

Ideally, he'd not say the JFK thing and realize Bentsen would whack him on since it was in his stump speech. A bit less gaffe-y comparison could be OTL Edwards, who was considered on the top tier with Obama and Clinton throughout the early primary season and almost pulled off an Iowa victory.
 
Wouldn't he have the stink of Bush's loss on him though and possibly be blamed at least in part for the loss if it was any of his gaffes that contributed?

Quayle helped rebound Bush's numbers when he was chosen at the convention. To quote Futurama Nixon, 'nuff said.
 
I'd say @dw93's field is pretty spot on, though it's probably a cycle or two too early for Graham. Buchanan's the gadfly and gets some mileage out of it but more on the lines of a right wing version of the John Anderson phenomenon than real traction. Kemp was a hard-to-handle (for his handlers) gaffe machine on the trail which scuppered him in '88 when he should've been the New Right's new hotness. I'm betting that unless Dole can absolutely steamroll the fundraising sector, he will take a serious blow somewhere early and it'll be
Muskie 2.0, all the inevitability arguments deflate and he's outflanked. My money would be on a fight between Carroll Campbell (easily the GOP's best candidate never to run 1988-on in terms of his skills, brains, and Lee Atwater-enabling relentlessness) and Pete Wilson, a Wilson who stays in the Senate to keep his eyes on the prize.


I'm sorry- who was(is)Carroll Campbell?
 
Top