WI: Stronger Dukakis Campaign, 1988

The campaign of Michael Dukakis was plagued by a number of problems. When campaign manager John Sasso was linked to a videotape attacking Biden plagiarism issue, he was forced to resign. Sasso had created Dukakis' campaign strategy and organization that had won him the nomination. And the resignation of Sasso is generally seen as the turning point of the Dukakis campaign. In the wake of his resignation, the Dukakis campaign deteriorated into shifting messages and changing strategies. Dukakis made a series of blunders, ranging from the Tank photo to Dukakis responding the rape question in the debates with a disconnected New England demeanor that alienated voters. Perhaps worst of all, the Dukakis campaign failed to address and counter-attack the attacks crafted by Lee Atwater. The most prominent of these was perhaps the Willie Horton and furlough issue. The Dukakis campaign did eventually strike back, as the furlough program was started by Dukakis' Republican predecessor, and the Reagan administration had overseen the largest national furlough program in history. However, these counter-attacks had taken place too long after the initial Bush campaign attacks.

Dukakis had come into the election with an early massive lead over the Bush campaign. By the late 1980s, the Reagan administration had a mixed legacy and public opinion. A Democrat had a chance of winning the 1988 election. As that election drew closer, Dukakis was trailing Bush by double digits. The Dukakis campaign changed gears, and did what it should have much earlier in the campaign. By that point, it was too late. Dukakis was viewed as a dispassionate and weak Massachusetts Liberal, and Atwater made sure those became linked and Liberal was a four letter word. Bush won in a landslide.

What if the Dukakis campaign had been stronger? What if John Sasso was kept on, the campaign message and strategy remained consistent, the Dukakis campaign went on the offensive over Republican attacks and counter-attacked immediately, and Dukakis had avoided missteps like the Tank photo and addressing the Kitty Dukakis rape question?
 
I think he would've beaten Bush if he had run a better campaign. Reagan's legacy and approval rating were a bit mixed in '87 and '88 due to Iran Contra, and even with popular two term Presidents (Ike in '60, Clinton in 2000) the party in control has a hell of a time holding onto the White House, just due to voter fatigue, that's not to say it's impossible for the party in power to hold onto the White House for three terms.

With that said though, as a Democrat, I'm glad the Duke lost in '88. Whoever won that would've had to deal with the '90-'91 recession and the Reagan deficits, plus I doubt Dukakis would've handled the end of the Cold War or if it happened with a Dukakis administration, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait as well as Bush 41 did, and because of this there's a good chance the 1992 election would've been a repeat of the 1980 election and Dukakis would've been a one term wonder remembered just like Carter is.
 
If you look at the results of the 1988 they are actually very strange. It was the last time the Republicans won states which are now regarded as safe Democratic states, such as Illinois (2.08%), Pennsylvania (2.32%), Maryland (2.91%), Vermont (3.52%), California (3.57%), New Mexico (4.96%) Connecticut (5.10%), Colorado (7.78%), Michigan (7.90%).
Dukakis lost some states by the same sort of margins which are now regarded as safe Republican states, Missouri (3.98%), Montana (5.87%), South Dakota (6.34%), Louisiana (10.21%).
In the big swing states of Ohio, Bush won by 10.85% and Florida by 22.36%. He also carried Delaware by 12.40% and New Jersey 13.64% which no Republican is likely ever to do again.
 

Thande

Donor
If you look at the results of the 1988 they are actually very strange. It was the last time the Republicans won states which are now regarded as safe Democratic states, such as Illinois (2.08%), Pennsylvania (2.32%), Maryland (2.91%), Vermont (3.52%), California (3.57%), New Mexico (4.96%) Connecticut (5.10%), Colorado (7.78%), Michigan (7.90%).
Dukakis lost some states by the same sort of margins which are now regarded as safe Republican states, Missouri (3.98%), Montana (5.87%), South Dakota (6.34%), Louisiana (10.21%).
In the big swing states of Ohio, Bush won by 10.85% and Florida by 22.36%. He also carried Delaware by 12.40% and New Jersey 13.64% which no Republican is likely ever to do again.
Yes, indeed. It's very visible on the map below; in fact the only Democratic states won by big margins were Iowa and Rhode Island.

US-1988.png
 
If you look at the results of the 1988 they are actually very strange.

State voting patterns change over time? Gadzooks! Next thing you'll be telling me that the Democrats once dominated the South and the Republicans the North!

Anyway, Sasso-as-miracle worker is massively overdone. Sure, he was sharp, but he wasn't the genius people seek in trying to find a simple, silver bullet explanation of why Dukakis lost. I agree with David T that the Democrats would have to present a very good campaign and the Republicans a very poor one for it to be a Democratic year. There wasn't an obvious impetus towards change as in '92, 2008 etc and the electoral college was still favouring the GOP.
 
Last edited:
Top