The best way to have Dukakis win is to turn the 1987 crash into a recession, rather than the market correction it proved to be IOTL. The best way to do that is to have the news reveal Alan Greenspan's connections to Lincoln Savings earlier (IOTL, they did it at a time when people trusted Greenspan). This would cause a minor recession which would probably be enough to result in Dukakis winning.
 
The best way to have Dukakis win is to turn the 1987 crash into a recession, rather than the market correction it proved to be IOTL. The best way to do that is to have the news reveal Alan Greenspan's connections to Lincoln Savings earlier (IOTL, they did it at a time when people trusted Greenspan). This would cause a minor recession which would probably be enough to result in Dukakis winning.

Yes, I mentioned that earlier. Is there any way for Dukakis to run a better campaign and win without changes to the fundamentals, or are those changes required?
 
Michael Dukakis (1989-1993)
Bob Dole (1993-1997)
Bill Clinton (1997-2005)
Al Gore (2005-2009)
John McCain (2009-2017)
Barack Obama (2017-present)
Is the new trend to elect Obama in the 2016 election, no matter what the POD is? In 2088's version of AH.com, we'll have lists ending with Barack Obama (2089-)!
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yes. Iraq wouldn't have the resources to invade Kuwait with the sanctions in effect.

I followed this link and it was very interesting. I assumed when I posted the first time this was a generic measure rather than recommended sanctions legislation with bipartisan support against Iraq prior to the Gulf War.

It could well have served to warn Saddam that the US was adopting a containment policy against him, making an operation against Kuwait too risky. On the other hand, the physical capability to seize Kuwait and financial incentive would still be there.
 
If there were sanctions Saddam's financial situation would be worse, it might encourage him to invade Kuwait to get the oil and its money.
 
Top