Michael Dukakis wins in 1988

I suspect that Dukakis also goes to war with Iraq over the invasion of Kuwait, unless his administration had given Saddam a clearer warning that whilst we understand a dispute about oil allegedly sucked across borders the West wll NOT tolerate full scale invasion.

I do not think that the nature of the US administration will change European events in 1989. I wonder whether there is any chance that there would be less of a move to the particular version of capitalism which did cause such a human catastrophe for Russia in the 1990s in OTL.

Oh and does this totally buterfly out Clinton....

What about Clinton as his VP candidate, as others have said that Bentsen on the ticket is a no-no...you get your southerner...or maybe Gore?
 
What about Clinton as his VP candidate, as others have said that Bentsen on the ticket is a no-no...you get your southerner...or maybe Gore?

Highly unlikely, GOV Clinton while seen as a "good" Democrat holding a southern state was recognized as a very real train wreck in waiting in the late 1980's... All the stuff (questionable finanical dealings and relationships, the conflicts of interests between the Rose Law Firm and the state government, the affairs...) while not a big deal for a small governor would have been a big issue for the campaign especially as the number 2... in the 1980s. Also the Clintons were tolerated not liked by the Democrat Party leadership back then.

Remember, if the big boys on the Democrat side haven't sat out the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton would have been a colorful long serving Governor, maybe a Senator, possiblity the Charlie Wilson of govenors. ** The party leadership (and media) only accepts him, once it has no choice in the spring of 92, go read the stuff said about until t Super Tuesday 92.

Now Gore was a real possibility, back then he was right of center Democrat, a charter member of the DLC, strong on defense (a big supporter of both more missiles and missle defense), and tax cutting/reform. And bonus he wouldn't have made Dukkakis look smaller when compared to his VP, which Senator Benson definitely did.
 
Dukakis could win, by focusing on the Economy and Farm Aid, along with attacking Bush for the Contras. That would have been a much more effective campaign. With this campaign he would also have to change his positions on the Death Penalty 2 years earlier, and also perform well in the Debates, and never take a spin drive in that Tank:D.

This is my map for Dukakis' best case scenario(winning lol), by doing this:
genusmap.php


Oh yeah Red is for the Democrats and Blue is for the Republicans.
 
Something would have needed to happen to Reagan (ie Medical,). People just didnt care about Iran/Contra and the 1/3 who did were never voting for Bush or Reagan anyway. Bush was the first incumbent VP to get elected since 1832. Bush was running on the expectation of a third Reagan term and in retrospect he did not deliver and was bounced out 4 years later. In other words he was riding Reagan coattails. Reagan campaigned hard for Bush the last 6 months and after the Republican convention it basically evaporated Dukakis.
 
Last edited:
The thing I'd seen, in the immediate aftermath of the '88 election, was an article by Tom Wicker of the NY Times, in which he posited that, had Dukakis run with Senator John Glenn of Ohio, (the former astronaut), he would have been strong enough in the mid-western industrial belt to get the Electoral College.
One other thing that seemed a strong point for Glenn, was that Jesse Jackson, who came in second in the Democratic primaries that year, had indicated the Glenn would have been his own preference for a veep if he'd gotten the nomination himself.
The latter might have indicated that Jackson would have worked a little harder for the ticket (assuming he hadn't given it his best).
Another couple of things on this: on election night, both Pennsylvania and Illinois, together, in those days, about 50 Electoral votes, were "flashing" in the NBC-TV news coverage. That was an indicator they were both too close to call.
Close, as well, were Maryland, (a state that, on balance, does seem "made" for a Dukakis/Bentsen ticket!), New Mexico, California and Vermont.

I recall at one time, adding all those up, were Dukakis have asked for recounts. It was over 200 Electoral votes, but one problem was that Bentsen is alleged by some, to have made his concession speech too soon.

Western Michigan, Missouri and Ohio still had voters in line, as did California and New Mexico, at the point Bentsen conceded.

It isn't clear, though, that the result in Ohio would have been different, and the margins in Michigan and New Mexico were also going to be very close had people not "given up" and gotten out of line to vote on Bentsen's concession (assuming they did).

One state that turned out to be interesting, was Texas, where Bentsen was running for Senator and Vice-President simultaneously. This awkward situation, could have led to some possible confusion in counting the ballots, but I could never put anything specific together.

In addition, the Florida Senate race between Connie Mack and Buddy McKay got very close--a possible harbinger of the cliffhanger 2000 Presidential election in Florida.

At the time, it didn't seem significant or hopeful that Vermont and another state, Montana, had gotten surprisingly close. It turned out, though, that Montana was carried by Clinton in 1992, apparently by a margin large enough to be able to factor out the Perot party (one of a handful of such states that time).

And, we've seen how Vermont had actually changed parties.

Anyway, where I'm trying to go here, is the idea:
1. That Bentsen DOESN'T concede, but rather takes a stance more similar to that of Edwards for Kerry in 2004--that "we'll wait another day, at least". Then, as those western Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, Texas, and California voters finish out their voting, their states go for the Democrats.
2. That Dukakis, decides to ask for some recounts in the close states of Maryland and Vermont, as the result of seeing the close results.

I recall adding up the Electoral votes. Could we have had an outcome similar to what was suggested in 2004--an Electoral only victory for the Democrat, Dukakis?

Ohio did seem a bit unlikely, even so, the margin was so large. And, at the time, I didn't have it on the list of "possibles" for Dukakis. But Michigan might have gone the other way, though it wasn't as closel as Illinois and Penn, both of which were close. Meanwhile, Missouri, too, may have gone the other way. It was close. Then, too, Texas seemed "vague" and possibly somehow recountable. I kept wondering, what that Florida Senate race, might have suggested about the Presidential ballots. But I dared not suggest it at the time.

The other possible scenario, would be that Dukakis did run with Glenn instead of Bentsen. In that case, perhaps Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvania would have been walkovers, with Illinois also in the Democratic column. But what of Maryland? I think Dukakis might actually have done better in Vermont and New Hampshire in that case.

But what of California and New Mexico? Would they have been as close?

So--it's hard to tell. The "what ifs" sometimes seem to be more about the issues as they were raised. It was an election in which the GOP got the middle class. They weren't persuaded that Dukakis was going to look after them, somehow.
If Dukakis had run with Glenn, he might still have had to do better on "law and order" issues, since Ohio and PA are "gun" states to some extent, probably more so then, even, than now.
By the same token, though, if he had come across as more "law and order" than he was able to do in the OTL, how much better might he have done with those middle class voters--and in the border or southern states?

GHW Bush still "harkened" back to Connecticut (his birthplace) and to his family's traditional ties to Kennebunkport in Maine, to pull him through those two in '88. But, he also "claimed" Texas--which could have become a bit more of a reach for him, with Bentsen not conceding early.

Actually, I think the best prospect for the Dems that year, was a different Presidential candidate. Paul Simon was one, with possibly a westerner. But, then again, the Dems were looking east and south, their traditional pattern, and it would be too far off base to think they'd have gone very far west.

There are some odds and ends about the South. For example, Tennessee was close in the 1984 election. I was surprised at how close it was. I think maybe that old "solid south" almost made it into 1984 in TN, except TN didn't usually go into the Democrat column in those days.
The other thing, would have been if the Dems had done more with Iran/Contra and run Nunn of Georgia for Veep with Dukakis. That might have had some effect, too.
 
It's not that hard, really. A lot of the states where Bush won were fairly narrow victories - could be swingable if Dukakis had had a better presidential campaign. Here's a possibility:

Dukakis wins.PNG
 
I think if Dukakis were elected, there would be little he could actually do to stem the oncoming Reagan recession. There would probably still be a Gulf War, but would it be wrong to assume it wouldn't be quite as much of a jingo-fest? I could also see it bumbled a bit, lasting a little longer. I have nothing to support any of that, however.

Come 92, GOP challenges with Dole or Kemp (probably Dole) and wins it back. Dukakis is the new Carter. After that point, I don't know, up in the air. What would Dole's economic vision have been? Reaganomics redux? If so, would we see the same 90s growth? Would we be coming out of 8 years of Clinton now?
 
I nearly know there wouldn't have been the Gulf War. There was this whole hidden relationship between big oil (Bush) and the Arab states that were oil producers, and especially all the stuff (not known at the time as now) about the Bush ties to Saddam Hussein.
All of that, wouldn't have been present with Dukakis. The relationship with Israel, was going to be rocky, but not as much, over time, as it was with Bush. Bush only counterattacked Saddam over Kuwait after Saddam began threatening Saudi Arabia. He was completely blowing off his threats against Israel, at least most of the time. He had refused to use sanctions against Saddam several times, and gave him no indication he'd sanction him. Then he went to the other extreme, which I don't think Dukakis would have. He'd have used sanctions, not being tied in with Saddam.
But as for economics, it's hard to pin that one down, there are so many variables. Bush might have jacked up oil prices, as his son has done lately, to make Dukakis unpopular (as he evidently, on reflection, did against Carter in 1980).
There were irregularities all around, I guess. It wasn't going to be any landslide for Dukakis, anyway. It was going to be, at best, a JFK-style squeaker, or even a Kerry-style Electoral-only.
Florida certainly wasn't "there" yet, I don't think. It was getting there, but not yet. But I do think California was there. And I think that Bush was much more vulnerable in Connecticut and Maine than he'd been in, for example, 1980, as Reagan's veep. It was not as clear whether he was a Texan, or from CT, or had Maine ties then. But by '88, if he was claiming Texas strongly enough to contest Bentsen for it, that meant Dukakis had a real shot at CT and ME.
Yet that didn't pan out for Dukakis. It was just a whole issues thing. Street crime had grown worse, yet, somehow, people didn't connect it as much to Iran-Contra-style CIA drug-pusher antics, etc., as they did just to bad types in the streets.

And, somehow, too, there was a tough guy appeal to people who liked, you know, Clint Eastwood-style movies. "Read my lips--no new taxes" was actually tried by Bush in '92; ALMOST worked by then, but neither that nor CT and ME worked for Bush then.
There was a reaction to "liberal lawyers" who got people off for street crimes, etc., and Bush was able to paint Dukakis in that general category.

Dukakis was far tougher on crime than he was able to successfully project himself, as being.
So, in the scenario of a Dukakis win at that point in time, it required him being successful in combating Bush on these issues areas.

I also felt economics was really there for the Democrats.
They'd already won control of the Congress two years before.
Partly, that was a law and order thing--getting after drug pushers who worked for the CIA in Central America, etc., ala Iran/Contra.
Somehow, there just wasn't the effective follow-up by the Dems.

But I really think, part of it, too, was a balloting thing, a vote-counting thing. I mean, I think it really did get closer than that, in the Electoral College. It was just that, it wasn't going to turn it around to do recounts.

There was a category of people who had related a little to Reagan, who were turned off by Bush. There was a difference in their backgrounds.

Earlier in this thread, someone said Reagan had campaigned for Bush. Do you know, I actually have read that Reagan may have voted for Clinton by '92?
There was a whole thing about it, about Hinckley and the Bushs. I don't know that I believe it, but it reflected the potential for hostility between the two, that Reagan might have thought about it.
 
No Gulf War if Dukakis wins, just sanctions. In OTL there was massive Democratic opposition to the war, particularly among the most liberal Dems like Dukakis.

Assuming the Kuwait invasion still happens (which depends on it not being contingent on Saddam thinking he had the go-ahead from April Gillespie), then altho Dukakis does send troops to defend Saudi, either Kuwait remains Iraq's 19th province, or Saddam eventually withdraws his forces from most but not all of Kuwait, in a deal similar to what was suggested by Mario Cuomo in OTL.

No Gulf War means Saddam gets nukes in early 1990s, possibly even before the 1992 election, unless either Israel or US prevent it with airstrikes.
 
Last edited:
Part of the thing with Saddam, though, is that it's partly illusory as to how much of what he did, was done without the behest of the US.
It's hard to step back and look at the bigger picture.
He tried to be an independent dictator, but really was not, totally.
That's got to have impacted his interest in his own nukes, bioweapons and the like.
Most of his bio, was US-made. He tried to play the USSR against us, but wasn't going to go too far, because USSR was also double-dealing him, to get at better sources of oil.

A different approach vis a vis sanctions, and a different approach to a multi-national control effort toward Saddam (versus Bush's unilateral-oriented one, built on Big Oil's original sponsorship relationship, in which Saddam replaced the Shah of Iran in some ways) would have created a whole different dynamic in the mideast among the Arab nations, one in which Iraq would have functioned much more as one of a group of states, instead of as a rogue state, partly encouraged in its independent role by the US, at times.

What was much more likely to have happened to Dukakis's foreign policy, was some kind of Big Oil intrigue against him. It could very well have included Saddam. Big Oil has had ties to the Ba'ath Party since WW2, even at times when it was hooked up with the Axis. Bush's actions against Saddam were much more along the line of grand-standing than was really required. That also explains why it was so effective in the first Gulf war--and why there was such a difference in the effectiveness of W's policy in Second Gulf War. W had been on the outside, when 2003 started, playing with cards that had been pulled in from the outside. Sr. Bush had been playing insider deck, with no interruption and with ties to Saddam that went way back, on top of that.
First Gulf War disrupted and destroyed those ties.
Second Gulf War started without those insider cards, with externally-gathered, and therefore more unreliable, intelligence for the eight years of Clinton. That is, using non-governmentally-based intelligence. Bush had already drawn up some plan to attack and depose Saddam, before he took office. It was a vague goal, and over-confident one forgetting that break in the ties with Jordan and Iraq caused by the First Gulf War--and also ignoring the risk that outside source intelligence would be more inaccurate. He had only a few months of government-based intelligence, before he went in.
Ironically, his father's successful and fast war the first time, had helped to sway skeptics. This gave W his foot in the door at the start. But then, he shifted goals, etc. I won't repeat all that--probably for another thread. But just to illustrate how the dynamic would have been quite different.
So would Saddam have procured nukes as some suggest here?
Or was this something having to do with a larger-than-life role for himself that he was actually encouraged at times, to hold, by his Big Oil handlers?
If he hadn't had that encouragement for a time, might he have begun to behave as a leader of one of a number of Arab nations, not the "emperor" of "Babylon II"?
 
BTW, these maps are certainly getting it close
If you leave Connecticut, South Dakota and Colorado red, but do have Vermont, Montana and the others shown, as blue--
it's 269 Electoral votes, an Electoral College tie.

At the time, I couldn't get myself to believe that Vermont was close enough or recountable, etc., because all those years previously, it had been a GOP state, tried and true. It seemed as if the close numbers, were just a coincidence of some kind. I think now, though, that it was, in fact, a more likely blue state than CT, SD or CO.
I've seen a lot of tie scenarios in more recent elections. Ironic that I didn't realize it was that close to a tie that time. That's just hitting me as I post this.
I'd have looked much more closely at the idea of recounts that time, had I realized Vermont had turned blue "permanently".
I never could get CT down close enough, it was frustrating. I thought it was all I had to go with. CT, being neighbor to MA, but a Bush home state. I remember noticing that VT was actually close than CT. But again, used to thinking of VT as a GOP state, a GOP bastion, even.

That's interesting. Definitely interesting. There's something about the way these elections in the years of the Bushs, Clinton and Gore and Kerry, were all sort of "tie" elections in some way.
We were 18,000 votes from a tie in 2004. Had Kerry carried NM, NV and IA, all three of which would have turned on 18,000 votes, it would have been 269-269.

1992 and 1996 were murky, three-way races that might have been more like ties in the Electoral College, too, in reality.

2000 was like a tie in Florida. Media recounts conducted after the election was certified, showed each candidate, Bush and Gore, each winning by two of the four methods used to interpret the questioned ballots. Dems claimed the Court stopped the recounts to keep all the votes from being counted; GOP claimed the Dems were trying to cherry-pick and create confusion that would allow some illegal immigrant votes to count, etc.

In the one now ongoing, polls have shown the 2004 tie scenario has only increased in likelihood, up until very recently.
But now Obama has surpassed and may be stronger than that. If he carries Ohio and keeps PA, and goes on to win CO, NV and some others, such as VA, he'll definitely be past a tie.
But some scenarios even now talk of NH, PA and CO being upsets or too close to call.
Several Electoral tie scenarios are still presented, though they seem increasingly (?) unlikely.
Is there some "message" in all these ties, as it were? Is it demographics? Or economics? Or what?
For that matter, flash all the way back to 1980. Remember how many close border and southern states there were? And that Carter may have carried MA? And the John Anderson third party that time? What if someone had gone in and done recounts that time? Would there have been a tie in the Electoral College?
 
Well, my pre-election post just immediately above, proved "accurate" in the sense of Obama being "past a tie", but my concern Obama might just get to a tie was unfounded.

In this case, for what it's worth, a tie would probably have put Obama in the White House anyway, since the Dems control the House of 'Reps and they choose the Pres in a tie. In the poll numbers often suggested in the pre-Wall Street crash/just post-Palin pick weeks, it did often look like a tie in the Electoral College.

The Democrats did get the middle-class this time--enough of it, to make a difference. It was that middle-class support, that probably turned it into something of a landslide instead of a squeaker for Obama. That, and an increased African-American and youth turnout. And--possibly--some concerned citizens, just ordinary citizens, getting involved in states around the country and getting some of the voting equipment corrected to more accurately reflect the votes cast, and to be protected from potential fraud.

Sequoia Voting Machines was partly owned by Bush, Sr. a few years ago. Those were employed widely in several states in 1988, but I don't have data as to whether Bush was part owner in '88. Interesting thought.That, too, could have influenced Dukakis's chances, if so.

Dukakis, whose Greek ethnic group can sometimes develop Sickle Cell Anemia in common with African-ancestry groups, was, by one blood definition, a black man. He was a kind of "forerunner" of Obama, just as Jesse Jackson, was in a different way. I remember thinking at the time, how complex the definition of race could be, in light of things like that.

By the same token, Geraldine Ferraro was a forerunner for Sarah Palin.
 
I hope it is clear enough, in the post above, but in case it isn't:

the voting equipment thing, if that's all that had changed, wouldn't have produced any landslide for the Democrat. But it might have turned a close state or two the other way. It would, at best, have been a squeaker, not a landslide, if the voter machine investigating groups were all that had changed things.

Similarly, shifting demographics. Historically, demographics are only marginal in their effects. They can only produce a "squeaker", not a landslide, and that may very well always be true.

There had been a Wall Street crisis of sorts, in 1987, prior to the Dukakis campaign. But it proved short in duration on the Big Board, though it's unclear the longer term effect it was having on the larger economy by '88.

It was, of course, the more-intimidating current Wall Street crisis that has triggered the landslide this time.

So there were some harbinger-like phenomena in the 1988 election, to what happened 20 years later in 1988.

The close Florida Senate race, down to the wire, between Buddy McKay and Connie Mack, presaged the close 2000 Presidential election there in FL.

And the 1987 Wall Street crash, and the sickle cell anemia "blood connection' between Greeks and Africans, presaged the 2008 campaign.

A number of other dynamics, of course, were quite different. The South had just started to be GOP, and the Southwest states were not trending blue--except, possibly, NM. And the GOP had longed courted the West, so CA had gone for Nixon and then Reagan. It was certainly going to be a squeaker, still, for the Dems (Carter hadn't carried it.)

Still, Carter had carried Georgia (albeit as a native son) in 1980; and TN had been close even in the Reagan landslide of '84. Perhaps Dukakis could make the vagueness of Bush's "home state" enough of an issue to have done better? Using Bentsen from TX, he was saying, on some level, "what is this fellow's home state?"
Even so, another choice for Veep would have also been a possibility
--Gephardt of MO, say.

Or Glenn as noted earlier ala Tom Wicker.

Gary Hart of CO was already scandalized, so off limits. And, though I mentioned this earlier, I suppose Nunn of GA might have been a poor choice, in a way, seeming to be disrespectful, on some level, of former Pres. Carter, also of GA.

Or, maybe Paul Simon as a Veep (instead of a Pres candidate).
 
I hope it is clear enough, in the post above, but in case it isn't:

the voting equipment thing, if that's all that had changed, wouldn't have produced any landslide for the Democrat. But it might have turned a close state or two the other way. It would, at best, have been a squeaker, not a landslide, if the voter machine investigating groups were all that had changed things.

Similarly, shifting demographics. Historically, demographics are only marginal in their effects. They can only produce a "squeaker", not a landslide, and that may very well always be true.

There had been a Wall Street crisis of sorts, in 1987, prior to the Dukakis campaign. But it proved short in duration on the Big Board, though it's unclear the longer term effect it was having on the larger economy by '88.

It was, of course, the more-intimidating current Wall Street crisis that has triggered the landslide this time.

So there were some harbinger-like phenomena in the 1988 election, to what happened 20 years later in 1988.

The close Florida Senate race, down to the wire, between Buddy McKay and Connie Mack, presaged the close 2000 Presidential election there in FL.

And the 1987 Wall Street crash, and the sickle cell anemia "blood connection' between Greeks and Africans, presaged the 2008 campaign.

A number of other dynamics, of course, were quite different. The South had just started to be GOP, and the Southwest states were not trending blue--except, possibly, NM. And the GOP had longed courted the West, so CA had gone for Nixon and then Reagan. It was certainly going to be a squeaker, still, for the Dems (Carter hadn't carried it.)

Still, Carter had carried Georgia (albeit as a native son) in 1980; and TN had been close even in the Reagan landslide of '84. Perhaps Dukakis could make the vagueness of Bush's "home state" enough of an issue to have done better? Using Bentsen from TX, he was saying, on some level, "what is this fellow's home state?"
Even so, another choice for Veep would have also been a possibility
--Gephardt of MO, say.

Or Glenn as noted earlier ala Tom Wicker.

Gary Hart of CO was already scandalized, so off limits. And, though I mentioned this earlier, I suppose Nunn of GA might have been a poor choice, in a way, seeming to be disrespectful, on some level, of former Pres. Carter, also of GA.

Or, maybe Paul Simon as a Veep (instead of a Pres candidate).
 
John F. Kennedy was a friend of ... somebody, alright! It may be a matter of Warren Committee credibility, as to who that might ACTUALLY have been.

Anyway, with Glenn as a Veep, Ohio would have still been close, as southern Ohio is evidently like a Southern state, Dixie flags 'n' all. Good ol' Lloyd probably helped there, just as he has a credibility problem as to who his friends really were.;)
 
Top