WI: Rumsfeld as Reagan's VP?

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?
 
I doubt it would affect the result that much - Reagan (apparently) only picked George H.W. Bush as Rumsfeld's phone number wasn't on hand. I think 1988 would also go similar depending on his VP pick (Cheney would at the very least feature in his Cabinet IMHO.) Perhaps he could do better than Bush in the Great Lakes region at the expense of some states in New England. Something like this I would predict -

genusmap.php


Rumsfeld (R) - 402
Democrat (D) - 136
 
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.
 
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.

(1) Approval ratings "hovering around 50" aren't bad when your *disapproval* ratings are in the thirties as Reagan's were in 1988 (except for the March 10 poll where his ratings were "only" 51-41.) In 2004 George W. Bush's approval-to-disapproval margins were much worse--in some polls in May and July, they were actually negative! http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=43&sort=time&direct=DESC&Submit=DISPLAY Yet Bush won. And for much of 2012 Obama had net unfavorable percentages--yet he too won. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=43&sort=time&direct=DESC&Submit=DISPLAY

(2) As for Dukakis' seventeen point post-convention lead, as I have pointed out before, George W. Bush lead Al Gore by seventeen points after the GOP convention in 2000. http://www.gallup.com/poll/2338/maj...-election-primary-season-party-conventio.aspx

That he actually lost the popular vote to Gore may be explained in one of three ways: (a) Far from being a genius, Karl Rove was an idiot, and Bush ran an incredibly bad campaign. (b) Al Gore's campaign, so criticized at the time, was absolutely brilliant. (c) Nobody should take huge leads after a party convention too seriously.

I don't think you'll be surprised to learn that I lean toward (c). Other examples besides 1988 and 2000: Jimmy Carter led Ford by 35(!) points after the Democratic convention in 1976. If you will say "Well, the fact that Carter almost lost shows that he was a poor campaigner, too" then consider this--Ronald Reagan led Carter by 28 points after the GOP convention in 1980. http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=1028,1944829 Yet he ended up winning by "only" ten points. This shows the absurdity of taking such leads seriously. Unless you believe that by a strange coincidence all those candidates with huge post-convention leads were terrible campaigners.
wink.gif


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.
 
I could see Rummy winning the Presidency in '88. The Democrats would have a higher chance than OTL, but Rummy would probably still have the advantage. If he does win however, Rummy is a one termer just like HW Bush was OTL, as the recession of '90-91 still happens and I doubt Rummy (based on his time as Sec. of Def.), would handle foreign policy as good as Bush did OTL. I would argue he'd royally screw it up.
 
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.

That being said, I don't think I disagree with your top-line analysis; my point is only that, IMO, 1988 is not like 1984 in terms of having a near-immutable outcome. The OP's question included: (1) replacing GHWB with an objectively weaker candidate; (2) eliminating a very strong OTL campaign manager in Lee Atwater; and (3) potentially replacing a weak candidate (Dukakis) and a complete moron of a campaign manager (Estrich). In my view, that could be enough to swing the election to the Democrats.
 
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.

FWIW, Carter had a double-digit lead over Ford by early May 1976.

"Startling Surge for Carter

If the presidential election were held now, Jimmy Carter would defeat Gerald Ford by 48% to 38% of the vote. Just seven weeks ago, after the Florida primary, Ford would have beaten Carter, 46% to 38%. This extraordinary shift in voter sentiment was a stunning measure of how far the Georgian had come by last week, just after his Pennsylvania victory..."
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9605/10/index.shtml

Of course, Carter did ultimately win, but the fact that it ended up being so close tends to show that big leads by the opposition party's likely candidate-to-be *even before the convention* should not be taken too seriously.
 
Top