Was 1988 Really A Republican Year, or Was it the Democrats' Election to Lose?

[Amadeus]

A little over five years ago I started a thread which discussed what might have happened had New York Governor Mario Cuomo run in the 1988 presidential election: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ahc-cuomo-vs-bush-in-1988.456647/

Instead of reviving that thread, I am starting a new thread in order to take a different perspective on the issue. I found Cuomo interesting because like Dukakis he was a liberal governor of an urban Northeastern state, but unlike Dukakis he was a skilled orator who emerged as an eloquent and forceful advocate for his beliefs. So it seemed like Cuomo would have been a stronger candidate than Dukakis. But some commentors, such as the late great David T, argued that 1988 was a Republican year due to the good economy and stable foreign policy situation. Therefore, Bush would have beaten any Democrat even if they had the charisma of an FDR or a JFK. Allan Lichtman predicted that Bush would win the election because under his 13 Keys Model, the GOP had an overwhelming majority of keys which secured that party's victory in the election.

I still don't think I accept the argument that the GOP was all but guaranteed to win in 1988. Dukakis was leading Bush by double digits after the Democratic convention, and there were some issues like the Savings & Loan Crisis or the Iran-Contra Scandal where the GOP was at a disadvantage. Bush himself was not a charismatic candidate, which is why I think it would have been interesting to see him go up against a talented orator like Cuomo. Some argue that the 1988 election was actually the Democrats' election to lose, and that they only blew it because of Dukakis' mistakes.

Speaking for myself, I certainly think that 1988 could have been a closer race had the Democrats nominated a different candidate, and that candidate could have won had they capitalized on issues like Iran-Contra or the underlying weaknesses in the Reagan economy. (It also would not have hurt to avoid riding around in a tank, or to give a better response to a debate question about your spouse being "raped and murdered." I think Dukakis should have objected to that question and asked the moderator to apologize for humiliating his wife on national TV).

Do you think 1988 was a Republican year where the GOP would have won in a walk due to Reagan's popularity? Or was it the Democrats who had the upper hand in an election that they only lost because of their nominee's missteps?

 

[Dancing Fool]

there were some issues like the Savings & Loan Crisis or the Iran-Contra Scandal where the GOP was at a disadvantage

This is Governor Mario Cuomo at the 1984 Democratic National Convention, and this brief clip shows him talking about the 1982 recession [which really was the worse since the 1930s depression] and about yearly federal deficits during Reagan’s 1st term.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

In the 1988 election in our timeline, the one that actually happened, the Democrats not only wound up controlling Congress, but increased their majorities. A party winning a presidential election but losing ground in Congress happens very rarely (close to never in regards to the House, the Senate is different because which particular states are holding races has a big impact).

The Republicans were defending the White House in the third election after first winning it, in 1980. Parties in that situation always lose support at the presidential level (the one possible exception involves a strong third party candidacy, and will usually lose control of the White House. In fact, 1988 is the only election after the 22nd amendment, limiting presidential terms, took effect where the same political party gained control of the White House three times in a row.

So yeah, for whatever reason, the Dukakis campaign blew it.

 

[Amadeus]

This is Governor Mario Cuomo at the 1984 Democratic National Convention, and this brief clip shows him talking about the 1982 recession [which really was the worse since the 1930s depression] and about yearly federal deficits during Reagan’s 1st term.

The thing is by 1988, most Americans felt the economy was good so the Democrats would need a really charismatic candidate like Cuomo or a latter day JFK to convince them that there were still problems that needed to be fixed by a Democratic President.

In the 1988 election in our timeline, the one that actually happened, the Democrats not only wound up controlling Congress, but increased their majorities. A party winning a presidential election but losing ground in Congress happens very rarely (close to never in regards to the House, the Senate is different because which particular states are holding races has a big impact).

The Republicans were defending the White House in the third election after first winning it, in 1980. Parties in that situation always lose support at the presidential level (the one possible exception involves a strong third party candidacy, and will usually lose control of the White House. In fact, 1988 is the only election after the 22nd amendment, limiting presidential terms, took effect where the same political party gained control of the White House three times in a row.

So yeah, for whatever reason, the Dukakis campaign blew it.

These are really good points. When people talk about the "Reagan Revolution," they often ignore the fact that the Democrats controlled the House for Reagan's entire Presidency, they retook control of the Senate in 1986, and they increased their majorities in both houses in 1988. Although Reagan was personally popular, public approval for his policies was much lower according to opinion polls. A nationwide swing of 4% in 1988 would have allowed a Democrat to squeak by with 49.7% the popular vote and 280 votes in the electoral college. Considering that Dukakis was leading Bush by 17% at the start of the general election, it is plausible for a Democrat to have won in 1988.

I also want to respond to Allan Lichtman's analysis of the election by saying, as I have said before, that his refusal to consider Iran-Contra a "major scandal" is nonsensical. With regards to his 13 Keys model overall, I think his midterm key is flawed because it only takes into account changes in the House of Representatives, and not the Senate which the Democrats regained in 1986. Moreover, his "no primary contest" key has too high a threshold for what is considered to be a scenario where there is no significant primary contest. Lichtman argues that if the nominee gets at least 2/3 of the votes on the first ballot at their party's convention, this satisfies the key. But in 1988, Bush was seriously concerned that he might lose the 1988 nomination to Dole after he came in third in the Iowa caucus and he nearly lost the New Hampshire primary. He only won New Hampshire because Lee Atwater devised a smear campaign which portrayed "Senator Straddle" Dole as a flip-flopping tax and spender. Bush even got less than 68% of the vote in the primaries overall, which is low compared to Nixon in 1960 and Gore in 2000 when both candidates won their party's primaries by over 86% and 75% respectively because their challengers (Nelson Rockefeller and Bill Bradley) never had a serious chance of winning the nomination. I would lower the threshold for this key so that it could be more flexibly applied on a case by case basis. My standard for evaluating what a "serious primary contest" is would ask whether the race for the incumbent party's nomination was significantly competitive during the primary elections. It certainly was in 1988.

In 1983, the GOP had 219 seats in Congress compared to 222 in 1987 so if you change the 13 Keys model to include both Houses of Congress then the GOP barely has that key in their favor. But going against them you have a major scandal, an uncharismatic incumbent candidate, a term-limited President, and a bitter primary race where the incumbent candidate just barely survived being beaten by his challenger in the early contests. I would honestly consider Iran-Contra to be both a major scandal and a major foreign policy failure, which fulfills a fifth key. Had the Democrats nominated a charismatic candidate, they would flip a sixth key and hand them the election.

I think Lichtman's 13 Keys Model is useful but it also has problems and as this post demonstrates I disagree with some of his conclusions.

 

[dw93]

Dukakis at one point during the campaign was leading in the polls by double digits. If a Republican victory was a forgone conclusion in 1988, Bush would've been polling similarly to Reagan in 1984 or Clinton in 1996, not down by double digits in the Summer. I think things shifted heavily to Bush after the conventions more so because Dukakis shot himself in the foot at every turn and in general ran a bad campaign, than anything Bush or the Republicans did. A stronger Democratic nominee most certainly would've produced a narrow win or at the very least suffered a less humiliating loss.

 

[Amadeus]

Dukakis at one point during the campaign was leading in the polls by double digits. If a Republican victory was a forgone conclusion in 1988, Bush would've been polling similarly to Reagan in 1984 or Clinton in 1996, not down by double digits in the Summer. I think things shifted heavily to Bush after the conventions more so because Dukakis shot himself in the foot at every turn and in general ran a bad campaign, than anything Bush or the Republicans did. A stronger Democratic nominee most certainly would've produced a narrow win or at the very least suffered a less humiliating loss.

After the Democratic Convention, Dukakis went on a vacation rather than capitalize on his 17 point post-convention lead. During the general election campaign he spent half of his time in Massachusetts rather than campaign for President full time. He also had a poor campaign organization which sent people from Massachusetts and Vermont to run the campaigns in far away states like Ohio, rather than having local people run the campaigns in their own states.

Dukakis would always have had issues running as a Boston liberal in a national election, but surely he could at least have responded to Bush's attacks. Dukakis made a deliberate decision to mostly ignore Bush's attacks, and he only switched gears late in the campaign when it was too late because the attacks had stuck. Dukakis should have responded to Bush's attacks from the very beginning, and paired his responses with attacks of his own on Bush's record. In particular, Dukakis should have hammered Bush on his evasive answers to questions about his involvement in Iran-Contra or why (as Vice-President) he had denied calling Reaganomics "voodoo economics." Dukakis also should have done more to contrast his humble background with Bush's pampered Connecticut upbringing as the son of a millionaire stock broker, especially when Bush made attacks on Dukakis' education at Harvard Law School. (E.g., Dukakis could have responded by saying "I am grateful to my immigrant parents for working hard in a new land so that one day their son could have the privilege of attending Harvard Law School. But I am disappointed that a son of privilege like George Bush would enjoy the luxury of being a legacy graduate of Yale, a luxury that was handed down to him on a silver spoon, while looking down with contempt on sons of the working-class like me who dare to take advantage of the limitless opportunities that this greatest of nations has to offer the children of immigrants seeking a new life in a new land."