could Dukakis have won in 1992

[LightningBearer]

could Michael Dukakis have won the Democratic nomination in 92 (if he hadn't ran in 1988) and won the election? and what would have been his best options to do so?

[hcallega]

no, simply because it would have brought back too many bad memories. However I would have preferred him to Clinton.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

no, simply because it would have brought back too many bad memories. However I would have preferred him to Clinton.

It stated he did not run in 1988

[anvi]

I just don't remember Dukakis as being a very good candidate.  There are lots of politcians who would have made perfectly compitent presidents, but who were not good candidates, and Dukakis was one of them.  A cerebral, uncharismatic New England liberal who didn't look so good in either a tank or a debate was not going to beat Bush in '92, especially if Perot had been in the mix like in real life; Perot might have ended up winning a few states in that scenario.  Clinton was a charismatic southern governor who could  compete there and in the West. 

[Mechaman]

Michael Dukakis was the worst thing to happen to Michael Dukakis campaign in '88. Even without the Reagan legacy to compete against I imagine he could still somehow blow any lead he would have from the beginning.

[Mart]

Reading this, I remember watching a youtube video from a Letterman show in 1992 (when he was still on NBC) about this subject.  They were running potential slogans that Clinton could use for his campaign.  And I think I found a shot (and a slogan) that summed up the country's feelings toward Dukakis that election season:





Here's a link to the video, in case anyone was interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR3f9jgme-4

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Well, if he couldn't win in 1988, he probably wouldn't have in 1992.  I would have preferred Dick Gephardt as the Democratic nominee in 1988, he would of had a much more fair shot to winning in 1988 than Michael Dukakis.

And I would have preferred either Ted Kennedy or Bob Kerrey to Bill Clinton in 1992.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No. Let us remember that he was already unpopular in his own state in 1988. By the time that he left office in 1990, Bay Staters disapproved of him so much that the Democratic party lost the governorship.

[Mechaman]

Here's my further commentary on why Michael Dukakis would've failed:

The guy had friggin Lloyd Bentsen on his ticket with him, perhaps one of the most beloved moderate heroes of all friggin time, and he still managed to blow a nice lead in the summer to an electoral landslide defeat. I mean even with Lloyd Bentsen whooping Dan Quayle's ass all over the Civic Auditorium worse than the LA police on Rodney King. Even if this very powerful advantage Dukakis still blew it, I mean what was the Democratic electorate thinking when they voted for this guy in the primaries? I mean even with Gary Hart not keeping it in his pants they surely could've found somebody else who had at least a tid bit more entertaining and charismatic than Michael Dukakis. I seriously consider the guy a worse candidate than Walter Mondale (actually Mondale had some very good commercials like "Educate your Children", in 1984 anybody who ran against Reagan would've been a sacrificial lamb) and maybe even George McGovern (let's be fair, most of the reason poor George failed as a candidate was because of his perceived "radical" political positions and the fact he was facing Tricky Dick as president). Unlike those two guys Dukakis had every opportunity in the world to win and he still blew it.

[bhouston79]

Dukakis eeks out a win in the House of Representatives only because the economy is in the dumps and people are just not willing to return Bush for another term.  Perot picks up more votes out West, where he wins a handful of states.  Here are the results on election night:

Electoral Vote
Dukakis  264
Bush      249
Perot       25

Popular Vote
Dukakis  38.7%
Bush       37.5%
Perot      22.2%

[Bo]

Yes, since the economy was in pretty poor shape. However, he would have to run a nearly flawless campaign and never lose focus on the economy. Also picking a charismatic VP would help.

[Bo]

Yes, since the economy was in pretty poor shape. However, he would have to run a nearly flawless campaign and never lose focus on the economy. Also picking a charismatic VP would help.