I'm brainstorming a possible future timeline, and I'm wondering what the general consensus is with regards to a possible Michael Dukakis presidency. I've seen a lot of alternate scenarios where Dukakis manages to win in 1988, but I'm really not sure whether he'd win re-election, so I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts.
President Dukakis: Is he re-elected in '92?
- Thread starter True Grit
- Start date
It depends. If Dukakis responds to the recession better than Bush did, that increases his chances. Bush was like a dear caught in the headlights when confronted with domestic and economic issues. I don't see why the Cold War wouldn't end as it did OTL, so that helps, granted US/Russian relations post 1991 TTL maybe different than in OTL. As for Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, who's to say it would still happen? It happened largely because the Bush administration didn't take Saddam seriously, maybe Dukakis takes it more seriously and makes clear to Saddam that if he invades there would be consequences. I personally think it would be an uphill battle, but 1992 TTL wouldn't be a repeat of 1980 OTL either, it would be a rather close election. If Dukakis plays his cards right and the GOP doesn't put up an exceptional candidate, Dukakis gets a second term. The Democrats were due for a two term Presidency at some point, because up until Clinton's re election of OTL, the Democrats hadn't had a President elected to more than one term since FDR. If they didn't get it in the 1990s, it would come in the 2000s.
The invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf War is one of those things that can easily be butterflied away. Or it can go pretty much as IOTL. Or you could get something like Iraq holding Kuwait but hit with sanctions and an air campaign, that is unresolved by November 1992. Or it could be resolved just as the similar campaign against Serbia was. In other words, that is a wildcard.
The other wild-card is Ross Perot. He seemed mainly motivated by personal animosity towards Bush. Maybe he doesn't run. Maybe he runs in the Republican primaries.
The way these things have been working, the likeliest Republican nominee is Bob Dole, who will be a better candidate in 1996, if only because he is four years younger at this point. His likeliest running mate is actually Jack Kemp. The Pat Buchanan runs might be butterflied away. Another possibility is a challenge in the primaries to Dukakis himself, from Jerry Brown.
The biggest problem that Dukakis had in 1988 is that he just never appeared "presidential" (his second biggest problem was losing his top campaign guru early in the process), and I don't know if this continues to hurt him like it did with Carter, or the public just sort of gets used to him once he is in the White House.
The other wild-card is Ross Perot. He seemed mainly motivated by personal animosity towards Bush. Maybe he doesn't run. Maybe he runs in the Republican primaries.
The way these things have been working, the likeliest Republican nominee is Bob Dole, who will be a better candidate in 1996, if only because he is four years younger at this point. His likeliest running mate is actually Jack Kemp. The Pat Buchanan runs might be butterflied away. Another possibility is a challenge in the primaries to Dukakis himself, from Jerry Brown.
The biggest problem that Dukakis had in 1988 is that he just never appeared "presidential" (his second biggest problem was losing his top campaign guru early in the process), and I don't know if this continues to hurt him like it did with Carter, or the public just sort of gets used to him once he is in the White House.
George Bush and Jeb Bush aren't sons of an ex-president. They don't have as easy a path to get the nominations for Governor of Florida and Texas, and would probably have to establish themselves in some lower office first. The likeliest scenario is that neither become national figures.
Bill Clinton either stays as Governor of Arkansas for awhile, or he winds up in the Dukakis cabinet, though I can't imagine why Dukakis would do this or in what capacity he would appoint someone like Bill Clinton (HUD?). He may wind up in the Senate. He might run for President in 1996, but he is unable to get the particular circumstances of weak primary competition plus bad economy plus Perot. If he doesn't make it to the White House, no one has heard of his wife.
John Kerry was Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor. He probably winds up with a job in the administration, then as head of some non-profit.
Barack Obama of course still gets elected President in 2008.
Bill Clinton either stays as Governor of Arkansas for awhile, or he winds up in the Dukakis cabinet, though I can't imagine why Dukakis would do this or in what capacity he would appoint someone like Bill Clinton (HUD?). He may wind up in the Senate. He might run for President in 1996, but he is unable to get the particular circumstances of weak primary competition plus bad economy plus Perot. If he doesn't make it to the White House, no one has heard of his wife.
John Kerry was Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor. He probably winds up with a job in the administration, then as head of some non-profit.
Barack Obama of course still gets elected President in 2008.
Stolengood
Banned
He's secretly Paul V. McNutt.
I'd be interested in seeing a 1992 in which Dukakis had to try and fend off Perot AND a potential Republican challenger... yikes.
Brosip Broz Tito
Banned
Isn't this sort of a running gag now? Massacre butterflies to elect Obama in any universe no matter what.
Good thing Paul isn't her, or he'd make a serious list including that.
Yeah. Too much changes for us to predict with absolute certainty.
From a Democratic dogmatic perspective: Bush failed to alleviate the problems of the recession due to his adherence to Republican economic policy, among other failings. Said Republican economic policies resulted in the recession to begin with. Unlike Bush, Dukakis will also not garner party fatigue. Therefore, even if the recession occurs, Dukakis will handle it better, resulting in a strong likelihood of reelection compared to Bush.
From a Republican dogmatic perspective: Dukakis would have handled the recession worse than Bush, invoking policies and positions that would create uncertainty in the market, with the potential of increased taxes and government spending that would hinder private sector growth, therefore deepening and prolonging the recession. Therefore, people will look to a return to the Reagan era, resulting in a strong showing for the Republican party. In tandem with the same public mood that lead to the Republican Revolution of 1994, we could see a solidly Conservative American political era in the 1990s with all branches controlled by the Republican party.
From a Republican dogmatic perspective: Dukakis would have handled the recession worse than Bush, invoking policies and positions that would create uncertainty in the market, with the potential of increased taxes and government spending that would hinder private sector growth, therefore deepening and prolonging the recession. Therefore, people will look to a return to the Reagan era, resulting in a strong showing for the Republican party. In tandem with the same public mood that lead to the Republican Revolution of 1994, we could see a solidly Conservative American political era in the 1990s with all branches controlled by the Republican party.
But Saddam really was itching to do something since Kuwait was drilling what he believed to be his oil fields. It really is uncertain whether Saddam would have invaded, but I don't think it's unlikely at all that he would have even without Glaspie's blunder. If Saddam does invade though, Dukakis definitely doesn't intervene like Bush though.
Probably not, but I don't see Dukakis or the international community sitting on their hands either.
Also, Dukakis could very well have signed the Precention of Genocide Act, which would have put sanctions on Iraq, but Reagan, I believe, vetoed it because the US was at the time allies with Iraq. If Dukakis resurrects and passes it, the Iraq War never happens.
.