WI Lee Atwater doesn't get a brain tumor, manages Bush '92 campaign?

In 1990, Lee Atwater developed a brain tumor which would eventually prove fatal for him.

Atwater was renowned as a master campaign manager, and his record backs it up - in the 1988 election, Bush was faced with a 17-point deficit following the conventions. At least partially due to Atwater's mastery, that 17-point deficit was turned into a 400+ EV, 10% PV landslide victory.

It's often said that Bush faced insurmountable odds heading into the 1992 election, yet much of the same could be said of the 1988 election. Can Bush win in '92 if Atwater is managing his re-election campaign?
 
"It's often said that Bush faced insurmountable odds heading into the 1992 election, yet much of the same could be said of the 1988 election."

Only if you ignore that in November 1988 unemployment was 5.3 percent and that in November 1992 it was 7.4 percent... https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt

Another often-ignored fact: Dukakis' lead in the polls over Bush had *already disappeared* by the time of the GOP convention--well before the Willie Horton ads, the ride in the tank, or Dukakis' wooden answer to Bernard Shaw's question about the rape and murder of Kitty Dukakis. http://www.pollster.com/blogs/081708_1988Polls2.jpg

The fact is that the underlying conditions in 1988--peace, prosperity, and a Reagan whose job performance numbers had recovered from their 1987 slump--were favorable for Bush. Bush did not need some campaign "genius"--Atwater or any other-- to win. Just running a reasonably competent campaign was enough. 1992 was quite another story.
 
Last edited:
You could make an argument that Atwater would have made a difference in 1992 regardless of what he did in 1988.

Bush did not think he could lose. He never took his opponents seriously.

Atwater was reportedly aware in his dying days that Bush could be defeated and that Governor Clinton was worth taking seriously as an opponent.

A living Atwater might convince Bush to begin his campaign earlier.

I'm not saying Bush would win with Atwater. The conditions were not in favor of his reelection.

But Bush's basic attitude towards the election hurt him at least on the margins. At least there would be one more voice sounding the alarm in the Bush campaign that reelection can't be taken for granted.
 
Last edited:
Might an Atwater-backed campaign be able to change the results of the Democratic primary? If an attack ad about Flowers - or, heck, the threat of one - gets out, that might be enough to give the nomination to Tsongas or someone like that.
Atwater would almost certainly be able to head Buchanan off at the pass, which I suspect would help.
 
I'm not sure he would be able to head off Buchanan. Bush did the right thing in 1990-but a backlash from conservatives who always distrusted him was inevitable.

Atwater can't have much influence on how Bush governs or what his policy priorities are. That's not how Bush saw Atwater.

Atwater might try to influence the outcome in the Democratic primary-if only because he saw Bill Clinton as a threat to Bush early on-before anyone in the Republican camp was worried about the Governor of Arkansas.

Not sure how he would do that or if his attacks would have any more impact than similar ones from the Tsongas and Kerrey camps did. I'm not sure that one more voice calling Clinton a womanizing draft dodger would make that much of a difference.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Only if you ignore that in November 1988 unemployment was 5.3 percent and that in November 1992 it was 7.4 percent... https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt

Another often-ignored fact: Dukakis' lead in the polls over Bush had *already disappeared* by the time of the GOP convention--well before the Willie Horton ads, the ride in the tank, or Dukakis' wooden answer to Bernard Shaw's question about the rape and murder of Kitty Dukakis. http://www.pollster.com/blogs/081708_1988Polls2.jpg

The fact is that the underlying conditions in 1988--peace, prosperity, and a Reagan whose job performance numbers had recovered from their 1987 slump--were favorable for Bush. Bush did not need some campaign "genius"--Atwater or any other-- to win. Just running a reasonably competent campaign was enough. 1992 was quite another story.

OK David- convincing story on '88, but what about the main thrust of the OP. Can Lee Atwater (or simply a tactically high-performing campaign) win Bush the EVs he would need in 1992?
 
Top