1988: Bush/Quayle vs. Clinton/Gore
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 03:52:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  1988: Bush/Quayle vs. Clinton/Gore
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 1988: Bush/Quayle vs. Clinton/Gore  (Read 1392 times)
retromike22
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,428
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 13, 2009, 06:56:37 PM »

Basically 1992, except it takes place 4 years earlier.  And Perot isn't running.

Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2009, 08:40:58 AM »

Agree. 1988 really wasn't obviously Republican year, since Bush trailer Dukakis by double-digts until summer. Other candidate, like Clinton, could hold this lead.
Logged
rebeltarian
rebel_libertarian
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 286


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2009, 07:34:21 PM »


Nah, in 1988 America was riding high on the Reagan revolution.  Dukakis lead early in the polls only by virtue of the golly-wow factor.  Clinton was in his early fourties and Gore would have been only 39, which means Clinton never would have even selected Gore as his running mate.  He would have gone with a more established veteran from the Northeast or Midwest, of which, alas, there were really no solid candidates.   

But, for sake of your arguement, a Clinton-Gore '88 ticket would have done more or less the same as Dukakis/Bentson.  They would have picked up some blue-collar Democrats in the heartland, but independents and senior citizens would have gone for Bush.  Some social liberal/progressive/anti-southern voters in states like Vermont and Washington would have even stayed home or voted for Bush.  The Bush campaign would have hammered Clinton/Gore for their youth and inexperience in foreign policy, touted the steady economy, Reaganomics and the generally positive mood of the nation.  Republicans still win this in a landslide.  Clinton was wise to back out and wait for '92.
Logged
President Mitt
Giovanni
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2009, 08:31:42 PM »

Narrower victory for Bush.



Clinton- 197
Bush- 341
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2009, 08:36:17 PM »

A 298-240 win for Bush:
Logged
rebeltarian
rebel_libertarian
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 286


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2009, 10:08:43 PM »

I've still got a 373-165 landslide for Bush/Quayle.  Clinton and Gore carry Arkansas and Tennessee, swing Missouri, hold Maryland (no Willie Horton disaster here, lol!) and Pennsylvania, and cut it close in Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota and New Mexico.  Bush holds moderate intellectuals in Vermont, Delaware, Illinois, California and Washington state and wins moderates and seniors on age-factor and foreign policy experience to easily carry New Jersey, Michigan and Ohio.

Logged
RS.Ngai
Rookie
**
Posts: 24
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: 7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2009, 09:06:46 PM »

Probably much closer than Bush/Dukakis, but I still think Bush would pull through - just.



Whatever it is...the 1980s were a conservative, pro-capitalist, pro-consumerist decade, so I guess it's the Republican's decade.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.235 seconds with 13 queries.