WI: Dukakis runs again in '92

[Shadow1080]

What if Michael Dukakis decided to run again in 1992? The situation for Bush 41 was already different than it was in '88. He already lost support among conservatives. Dukakis who in OTL retired from politics instead sees the opportunity and decides to take a one final shot in this election, by running again for president. What would happen? Would Dukakis win the primary against Brown or Clinton? And let's say if he does win the primary, does he have a shot against his old foe Bush this time and who would Dukakis' VP be and how the electoral map look like? Who would in this election: The return of the controversial, anti death penalty, Greek tank man, the no taxes Texan betrayer, or the unknown Texas billionare?

 

[David T]

He is not going to get nominated, period. It's not just that he lost in 1988--the more important thing is that he lost an election Democrats thought was winnable. (Republicans were willing to renominate Dewey in 1948 because they figured nobody could have defeated FDR in wartime; likewise in 1956 the Democrats figured that it should not be held against Stevenson that he had lost in 1952 because the Korean War and the unpopularity of the Truman administration, as well as Ike's popularity, had made victory impossible for any Democratic presidentail candidate that year.)

 

[Amadeus]

What if Michael Dukakis decided to run again in 1992? The situation for Bush 41 was already different than it was in '88. He already lost support among conservatives. Dukakis who in OTL retired from politics instead sees the opportunity and decides to take a one final shot in this election, by running again for president. What would happen? Would Dukakis win the primary against Brown or Clinton? And let's say if he does win the primary, does he have a shot against his old foe Bush this time and who would Dukakis' VP be and how the electoral map look like? Who would in this election: The return of the controversial, anti death penalty, Greek tank man, the no taxes Texan betrayer, or the unknown Texas billionare?

The answer is neither of them would win, because Dukakis would lose the 1992 Democratic nomination to Clinton - who IMO still wins the election.

 

[TennesseeDave]

George Bush would have beaten Michael Dukakis in 1992 like he did in 1988

 

[dw93]

He is not going to get nominated, period. It's not just that he lost in 1988--the more important thing is that he lost an election Democrats thought was winnable. (Republicans were willing to renominate Dewey in 1948 because they figured nobody could have defeated FDR in wartime; likewise in 1956 the Democrats figured that it should not be held against Stevenson that he had lost in 1952 because the Korean War and the unpopularity of the Truman administration, as well as Ike's popularity, had made victory impossible for any Democratic presidentail candidate that year.)

This. I think even Mondale has a higher chance at re nomination than Dukakis for this very reason.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

The guy who peered out of a goddamn tank and shit the bed in his response about the death penalty? Not to mention failing to delegate while campaigning for President and all but ignoring his campaign? What collective brain fart would make the Dems want to let that assnozzle anywhere near the nomination in 1992?