ThePest179
Banned
Allegedly, Reagan wanted to pick Rumsfeld as his VP but decided on Bush Sr. instead. What if Reagan had chosen Rummy instead? How would it affect the 1988 election?
Generically, 1988 wasn't a bad year for the Democrats; the incumbent Reagan's approval ratings were hovering around 50 for most of the year, and Dukakis enjoyed a (brief) 17-point lead over Bush in late July before he decided to employ the time-honored strategy of "doing nothing for two months" while Bush went on the attack. Replace Dukakis with a stronger candidate -- or even just prevent him from firing John Sasso -- and 1988 becomes very winnable for the Democrats.
Bush wasn't regarded as a particularly strong candidate, but in hindsight, he'd assembled a ruthlessly strong campaign team, led by Lee Atwater. Rumsfeld is going to be an objectively worse candidate and probably worse tactically as well, so I think this swings the election to the Democrats. Yes, even if Michael Dukakis is the nominee.
I still have to say that given peace, prosperity, and a president whose job approval ratings consistently exceeded his disapproval ratings by double digits throughout the year, the 1988 election was the GOP's to lose.
The 17-point Dukakis lead wasn't meant to be a complete argument, and your point is well taken about post-convention polls. The larger point is that Dukakis led Bush for much of 1988 before employing the bizarre "take two months off while your opponent attacks you daily" strategy; see, for example, this poll showing Dukakis leading Bush by 10 points in early May (before either convention). I can't readily find a longitudinal graph, but I think it shows a widening Dukakis lead, then a bump after the convention, and then the descending arrow that just never reversed.