AHC/WI: Dukasis Wins In 88

Kung Fucious · Mar 3, 2016

What it says on the tin.

I've been messing around with the Campaign Trail game, and running through various ways for Dukakis to defeat H.W. Bush in the '88 election. Now, historically Dukakis ran a rolling catastrophe of a campaign, and never managed to either defend himself from Bush's attacks, or turn the momentum around and take the fight to Bush. Basically, what could Dukakis have done differently, and how would he have handled the Presidency?

Just for fun, in the game I've managed to have the most success by choosing either John Glenn or Al Gore as Dukakis' running mate, and running a campaign that's a mix of centrist pragmatism and attacks on Bush's record.

dw93 · Mar 3, 2016

Someone asked this not too long ago. Here's the link to the thread:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=382092

Here's my answer from that thread:

"Well for starters, the Berlin wall still would've fallen in 1989, although I see Dukakis gloating about it when it happens, so that strains relations between us and Gorbachev, and if relations get bad enough, The Soviet Union may linger on a little longer (though I don't see it surviving past the 1990s), if the Soviet Union still does collapse, it's too hard for me to say how Dukakis would respond or what he would do.

As for the Gulf War, that may or may not happen. On the one hand, Dukakis might be firm with Saddam from the start and make it clear to him that any invasion of Kuwait would have consequences instead of giving him mixed signals the was the Bush administration did OTL. I could also see things going OTL, and I could also see the invasion of Kuwait happening without a U.S. response, making the Duke look weak, or a botched war happening.

As for '92, the economy was going to go into recession regardless of who won in 1988, so if the economy goes as OTL, and Dukakis responds as bad or worse as Bush did OTL, he has an uphill battle for re election and 1992 ends up being another 1980. On the other hand, he may (and probably would) respond better to it, and if he successfully convinces people that the economy is getting better, so long as there are no foreign policy blunders, I can see him narrowly pulling it off on election day."

Andrew T · Mar 3, 2016

If Dukakis keeps John Sasso on as campaign manager instead of turning things over to the completely inexperienced (and incompetent) Susan Estrich, I think the underlying electoral conditions slightly favor Dukakis in '88.

Zheng He · Mar 3, 2016

Sorry, couldn't resist:

Pericles · Mar 3, 2016

I don't think Dukakis would do as well as HW as POTUS. I could easily see Saddam still invading Kuwait and them miscommunicating to him about it. Then I'd doubt he'd liberate it given most Democrats still had Vietnam syndrome. So Saddam is a pariah with 25% of the world's oil and then could be tempted to expand further. Dukakis passes a Keynesian program to deal with the recession but is tarred as too liberal. Dole or some other Republican wins as Dukakis becomes more unpopular, failing to connect with the public.

dw93 · Mar 3, 2016

Pericles said:
I don't think Dukakis would do as well as HW as POTUS. I could easily see Saddam still invading Kuwait and them miscommunicating to him about it. Then I'd doubt he'd liberate it given most Democrats still had Vietnam syndrome. So Saddam is a pariah with 25% of the world's oil and then could be tempted to expand further. Dukakis passes a Keynesian program to deal with the recession but is tarred as too liberal. Dole or some other Republican wins as Dukakis becomes more unpopular, failing to connect with the public.

I don't think the miscommunication with Saddam happens as Dukakis would have different people in his cabinet than Bush did. With that said, while I lean toward Dukakis losing in 1992, he has a higher chance of pulling off re election than Bush did OTL, as I don't think Duke would be tone deaf with the economic hardships Americans were facing in the early 1990s like Bush was. If Dole or someone else in the GOP runs a less than solid campaign against Dukakis in 1992, Duke could narrowly pull it off.

Paul V McNutt · Mar 3, 2016

Justices Whtie, Brennen, Marshall and Blackmun retire. He appoints Lawrence Tribe, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Harry Edwards and Stephen Breyer.

dw93 · Mar 3, 2016

Paul V McNutt said:
Justices Whtie, Brennen, Marshall and Blackmun retire. He appoints Lawrence Tribe, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Harry Edwards and Stephen Breyer.

I would agree. All of the justices that retired under Bush Sr. would do so as they did OTL, and the two that retired under Clinton would retire earlier than OTL.

Whanztastic · Mar 3, 2016

dw93 said:
I would agree. All of the justices that retired under Bush Sr. would do so as they did OTL, and the two that retired under Clinton would retire earlier than OTL.

So no Planned Parenthood decisions see know, and far less avenues for the argument in the future.

dw93 · Mar 3, 2016

Whanztastic said:
So no Planned Parenthood decisions see know, and far less avenues for the argument in the future.

Yea. Essentially, you'd have a small liberal majority or a strong liberal minority on the court in a Dukakis wins in '88 scenario (this is dependent on how John Paul Stevens rules ITTL).

Andrew T · Mar 4, 2016

Paul V McNutt said:
Justices Whtie, Brennen, Marshall and Blackmun retire. He appoints Lawrence Tribe, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Harry Edwards and Stephen Breyer.

Tribe and Ginsberg are no-brainers. Amalya Kearse is on the short list, too, as an African-American woman to replace Thurgood Marshall. And don't forget about Ronald Dworkin.

SiddFinch1 · Mar 4, 2016

Avoid the tank photo

Handle the question about the death penalty better from Bernard Shaw

From what I recall he was asked if he would favor the death penalty for a man who raped his wife and he gave a cold technical answer of no.

Instead say something like- I would want to crush his skull in with my bare hands but hope that someone would stop me from doing it.