1988 -- Dukakis vs. Bush

[nclib]

This is the map compared to the national average...



(Note: I don't know how Maine's CD's voted.)

It looks very similar to an economically liberal vs. economically conservative map. (except Mich. and Ohio)

Did social issues play a significant role in 1988?

[Nym90]

Social issues did matter, though. Dukakis was assailed for being against the mandatory reading of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, against a Constitutional Amendment banning flag burning (which was illegal in most of the country until the Supreme Court ruled those laws unconstitutional that summer), and for proudly announcing that he was a "card-carrying" member of the ACLU. Also, he admitted to being a liberal near the end of the campaign (I know, can you imagine???) "in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy", though he had denied being a liberal for most of the campaign and had claimed he was moderate and that the election was about "competence, not ideology" as he stated in his acceptance speech. (Interestingly, Kerry seemed to have partially copied this part of Dukakis's strategy; his attacks against Bush seemed to be more along the lines of him having been a bad President rather than specifically that he was too conservative).

Dukakis himself focused mostly on economic issues, however; poverty, education, health care, etc. He was also probably hurt by the perception of the Democrats as being soft on communism (I believe he proposed cutting the defense budget to help pay for many of his social programs). He also tried to attack Bush for his involvement in Iran-Contra.

I agree, however, that people tended to vote more on economics back then; Kerry did much better than Dukakis in the suburbs, and won by even larger margins in the big cities (with much higher turnout; blacks weren't too enthusiastic about Dukakis, especially after some of his campaign's attacks on Jesse Jackson in the primaries). Dukakis, however, did better in rural America than did Kerry.

[SingingAnalyst]

MI was within 0.2% of national average: Bush 53.6/45.7 in MI vs. 53.4/45.7 in US. Also conservative blue-collar Macomb voted a full percentage point more Dem than socially moderate white-collar Oakland (38.8 to 37.; in 1984 and 1992 the two counties voted essentially the same (2 party-vote). Social issues mattered, but perhaps a bit less than in other nearby elections, and economic issues a bit more.

[sg0508]

1) Bush swamped Dukakis in the suburbs, which was the last time the GOP won the burbs on a national scale in a presidential election.  That's how MI, PA, IL, etc. stayed in the GOP column.

2) Dukakis and the perception of being soft on crime killed him.

3) The lack of Charisma didn't do Dukakis any favors.

4) The farm crisis in the plains helped Dukakis make things somewhat closer than the norm in those states.

5) Bush still had enough moderate support in the northeast to outperform at that time (i.e. no new taxes, tougher on crime, etc.).