1988- What should Dukakis have done differently?

[sg0508]

In the end, the 1988 race turned out closer than many thought it would be.  Bush had four huge advantages going in:

1) Reagan's popularity

2) The economy from the 80s was still good.  The fizzle out didn't come until 1990.

3) The Berlin Wall coming down and Bush's foreign policy experience

4) An electoral college that appeared to be unpenetrable for democrats

Still, after falling behind big following the DNC, Bush pulled far ahead with the debates, until a late Dukakis rally made the final margin in the popular vote respectable.  The electoral college was closer than the actual results tallied, with Dukakis coming very, very close in CA ("final gift from Reagan"), MD, PA, VT, IL and a few others.  Partially due to drought conditions, the Plains states were also tighter than normal.

In the end, Bush's performance in the white collar suburbs swamped Dukakis and proved to be the difference.   What if anything could Dukakis have done differently?  Obviously, his lack of charisma didn't help his cause, but Bush didn't exactly run a great campaign too.  Some have said over time that Bush's answer was always to follow Reagan's footsteps.

[freepcrusher]

Interestingly enough, Dukakis had almost as big of a "base" as Obama. He only won 49 less counties (826) than Obama's 875.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Interestingly enough, Dukakis had almost as big of a "base" as Obama. He only won 49 less counties (826) than Obama's 875.

Honestly... who cares about the number of counties won ?

[tpfkaw]

3) The Berlin Wall coming down and Bush's foreign policy experience

lolwut

[feeblepizza]

I think that the debate question where they asked if he would support the death penalty if someone raped and murdered his wife really hurt him. Instead of asking why someone would ask such a horrific question, he just droned on about how he opposed the death penalty.

[Dancing with Myself]

I think that the debate question where they asked if he would support the death penalty if someone raped and murdered his wife really hurt him. Instead of asking why someone would ask such a horrific question, he just droned on about how he opposed the death penalty.

He actually flip flopped on the death penality while answering that question. He said that he opposed the death penality, but was still very tough on crime.

Plus, Bush used negative advertising the whole campaign, while Dukakis tried to ignore it but failed. Then when he responded he came across as a whiner

[feeblepizza]

I think that the debate question where they asked if he would support the death penalty if someone raped and murdered his wife really hurt him. Instead of asking why someone would ask such a horrific question, he just droned on about how he opposed the death penalty.

He actually flip flopped on the death penality while answering that question. He said that he opposed the death penality, but was still very tough on crime.

You don't have to support the death penalty to be tough on crime.

[HST1948]

From what I have read about the 1988 (which is relatively limited) campaign Dukakis was more focused on what was going on in the State of Massachusetts and being a Governor than on running his campaign.  This may have contributed to Dukakis's (relatively) large loss.  In addition his campaign never seemed to "hit the right note" with their commercials.  The best example of this would be the "Tank Commercial".     

Just on a side note, just because you don't support the death penal doesn't necessarily mean you are not tough on crime. 

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I remember when Dukakis said, "Friends, this is garbage. This is political garbage."

He should have said stuff like that more often. That would have been so cool!

[WillK]

In the end, the 1988 race turned out closer than many thought it would be.  Bush had four huge advantages going in:

1) Reagan's popularity

Reagan wasnt that popular in 1988.     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You should look up when the Wall came down. 

Bush's main advantage was that he was facing Dukakis, who had little charisma, was seen at too liberal and had no foreign policy experience.

[Dancing with Myself]

In the end, the 1988 race turned out closer than many thought it would be.  Bush had four huge advantages going in:

1) Reagan's popularity

Reagan wasnt that popular in 1988.     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You should look up when the Wall came down. 

Bush's main advantage was that he was facing Dukakis, who had little charisma, was seen at too liberal and had no foreign policy experience.

I don't know what you are smoking but I want's some of it. Reagan's approval ratings were in the 60's during the 1988 campaign

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Reagan's approval ratings were in the 60's during the 1988 campaign

No. He was in the high 40s/low 50s for most of '88. He did get more popular as the year progressed, which no doubt helped Bush.

[Dancing with Myself]

Reagan's approval ratings were in the 60's during the 1988 campaign

No. He was in the high 40s/low 50s for most of '88. He did get more popular as the year progressed, which no doubt helped Bush.

'
If you want to argue I will, but Reagan had a 61% approval rating in October 1988

[WillK]

I don't know what you are smoking but I want's some of it. Reagan's approval ratings were in the 60's during the 1988 campaign

His ratings did hit 60 briefly at the end but they were not in the 60s throughout the campaign.

The person who started this thread stated that Reagan's popularity was one of the "huge advantages going in".  It just wasn't so.  At the time Bush entered the race (late 1987) Reagan's approvals-disapproval were about equal in the 40s. 

What did happen was that Reagan's popularity improved a little throughout 1988 and in the fall it spiked to the 60s.  Much of that was due to the continued improvement in the economy and that Iran-Contra wasnt front page news anymore.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

If you want to argue I will, but Reagan had a 61% approval rating in October 1988

In which poll? I'm not disputing it, but the Gallup numbers I just linked to had him in the mid-fifties in the fall, higher after the election.

[Badger]

I ran Dukakis's campaign on my liberal campus, and from my dealings with the main campaign organization there was little it couldn't have done better. This was one presidential campaign where tactics and poor organization actually made as big a difference as the economy or war & peace issues.

There was no central unifying theme. At all. One commentator put it that there was no "backyard argument", of the kind you could tell your neighbor over the fence in under 30 seconds. "Good jobs and good wages" became (I kid you not) the main campaign "message".

[SmokingCricket]

He should have not hopped for a ride in a tank.

But in all fairness, I don't think Dukakis could have won that election.

[Badger]

He should have not hopped for a ride in a tank.

But in all fairness, I don't think Dukakis could have won that election.

Dukakis was actually well ahead in the polls over the summer. Even before any "post-convention bounce".

[phk]

Let another Democrat run.

Had he done about 2% better nationwide he would have gotten CA, PA, IL, MO, MD, CT, VT and an outside chance at SD.

Which is 128-131 eV's.

[Liberté]

The biggest thing people are missing here is this: what constituency within the Democratic Party backed Dukakis?

And the problem is that I can't think of one. Whose interests did he represent? He governed not unlike Bill Clinton did in Arkansas, actually: he attacked the bureaucratic Metropolitan District Commission, which earned him the ire of government employees; his "Massachusetts Miracle" was largely the product of nominal state income tax cuts and a slight increase on the sales tax; and, aside from his moderate renovation of Boston's public transit system, he engaged in no specular public works projects.

All this is to say that Dukakis was a neoliberal, a 'centrist', like Bill Clinton four years later but with half the charm. And unlike Clinton, he could not especially appeal to New Democrats or Blue Dogs, as he had no southern bonafides at all. A man can't get elected without someone backing him.

Nobody backed poor Dukakis.

[Middle-aged Europe]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You should look up when the Wall came down.  

I can only assume that the OP meant the new US-Soviet detente under Gorbachev/Reagan. Otherwise he really fumbled up history here.

Virtually nobody was anticipating the fall the Wall until it was actually falling in 1989, of course. And Reagan's Tear down this wall! only turned out to be quite prophetic in retrospect.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You should look up when the Wall came down.  

I can only assume that the OP meant the new US-Soviet detente under Gorbachev/Reagan. Otherwise he really fumbled up history here.

Virtually nobody was anticipating the fall the Wall until it was actually falling in 1989, of course. And Reagan's Tear down this wall! only turned out to be quite prophetic in retrospect.

As long as we understand is was prophetic, not causational. Much like the rest of Reagan's foriegn policy, notwithstanding the conservative myth of "St. Ronnie, Slayer of Communism".

[pbrower2a]

I think that the debate question where they asked if he would support the death penalty if someone raped and murdered his wife really hurt him. Instead of asking why someone would ask such a horrific question, he just droned on about how he opposed the death penalty.

He actually flip flopped on the death penalty while answering that question. He said that he opposed the death penalty, but was still very tough on crime.

It's possible to be tough on crime without having the death penalty (sentences are long and parole is difficult-to-impossible in Canada) and possible to be soft on most crimes yet have the death penalty (easy parole as used to be the case in Texas 00 two of the perpetrators of the dragging death of a black man in Texas were "accelerated graduates" pf the Texas penal system.

[phk]

Dropped out and let another Democrat run.

[courts]

Dropped out and let another Democrat run.