Why did Dukakis have such a huge lead in the 1988 Election?

[CapoteMonster]

It's been well publicized that Dukakis led throughout the whole Summer and had a 54-37% after the DNC. Why did he have such a big lead over GHWB who had the coattails of Reagan's popularity which was still really good despite being tarnished by Iran-Contra. Can someone some please explain to me why Dukakis was running so strong versus a top-tier Republican in a right-leaning environment?

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

It's been well publicized that Dukakis led throughout the whole Summer and had a 54-37% after the DNC. Why did he have such a big lead over GHWB who had the coattails of Reagan's popularity which was still really good despite being tarnished by Iran-Contra. Can someone some please explain to me why Dukakis was running so strong versus a top-tier Republican in a right-leaning environment?

Well this didn't help

[sg0508]

1) Exposure- The Democratic Primary was long and drawn out.  The GOP primary didn't get nearly as much

2) National Media Attension- See #1

3) Reagan had waned on some, particularly minorities during his 2nd term

4) Iran Contra still in voters' minds

Why it flipped?

1) Bush defined Dukakis early and Mikey D was too late to respond

2) The economy was still "good" in 1988.  It's always the economy

3) Reagan's overall popularly was still decent

4) The law/order/crime issue was major in '88.  The tank photo vs. a veteran of war? No contest there.   Willie Horton didn't help Mikey D to say the least.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Why it flipped?

Two words: The Media.

[Never]

Why it flipped?

Two words: The Media.

That's not necessarily true, considering 12 out of 13 White House correspondents voted for Dukakis over Bush 41, and 76% of "elite journalists" voted for Dukakis.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Why it flipped?

Two words: The Media.

That's not necessarily true, considering 12 out of 13 White House correspondents voted for Dukakis over Bush 41, and 76% of "elite journalists" voted for Dukakis.

Those numbers are from the far-right Media Research Center.

[Never]

Why it flipped?

Two words: The Media.

That's not necessarily true, considering 12 out of 13 White House correspondents voted for Dukakis over Bush 41, and 76% of "elite journalists" voted for Dukakis.

Those numbers are from the far-right Media Research Center.

First off, far-right does not equal falsifying data. We can't just write off something because it comes from a partisan source. If that were the case, it wouldn't be acceptable for me to value the input of liberal commentators like Rachel Maddow, John Judis, and Ruy Teixeira or Democrat-aligned polling companies like PPP in the manner that I do.

Before you write off those numbers on White House correspondents, you should note that Kenneth Walsh of the U.S. News & World Report tabulated the data on White House correspondents. The information on elite journalists at large in 1988 was from a now-defunct journal called The Public Interest, a noted quarterly which even received praise from the New York Times.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Media executives were much more conservative than journalists. They decide what stories get covered.

[Never]

Media executives were much more conservative than journalists. They decide what stories get covered.

That's possible, but many stories emphasized by the media are not favorable to conservatives. Just look at the media's justified criticism of Romney's 47% remarks.

[CapoteMonster]

1) Exposure- The Democratic Primary was long and drawn out.  The GOP primary didn't get nearly as much

2) National Media Attension- See #1

3) Reagan had waned on some, particularly minorities during his 2nd term

4) Iran Contra still in voters' minds

Why it flipped?

1) Bush defined Dukakis early and Mikey D was too late to respond


2) The economy was still "good" in 1988.  It's always the economy

3) Reagan's overall popularly was still decent

4) The law/order/crime issue was major in '88.  The tank photo vs. a veteran of war? No contest there.   Willie Horton didn't help Mikey D to say the least.

Wasn't Reagan always unpopular among minorities? The rest of the answers were good though.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Media executives were much more conservative than journalists. They decide what stories get covered.

That's possible, but many stories emphasized by the media are not favorable to conservatives. Just look at the media's justified criticism of Romney's 47% remarks.

It wasn't necessarily justified. He said it was his job not to "care" about 47% of the population, referring to trying to get their votes in the election, and everyone made it out that he was talking about how he would govern them.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Media executives were much more conservative than journalists. They decide what stories get covered.

That's possible, but many stories emphasized by the media are not favorable to conservatives. Just look at the media's justified criticism of Romney's 47% remarks.

It wasn't necessarily justified. He said it was his job not to "care" about 47% of the population, referring to trying to get their votes in the election, and everyone made it out that he was talking about how he would govern them.

Well, he said a lot more then "My best possible performance is 53%, or, there's 47% of the population who is too democratic to support us", but also fiercely criticized these people, calling them people who can't take personal responsibility and do anything for themselves and are fully dependent on government. Here's the exact quote:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49...he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. ... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

While Romney was simply intending to emphazize that he had a 'ceiling' of sorts, he instead called people who like government helping them 'victims who can't take personal responsibility', and essentially said, indirectly, that government shouldn't be giving out any entitlements. In this, he not only alienated the 47% of people who weren't going to vote for him anyways, but also alienated moderates who saw what they were hearing in political ads perfectly replicated in real life: Romney was an out of touch rich guy, he didn't care about their problems, and he didn't want to help them. And this was/is a country that wants its government to help it recover from a still ongoing economic crisis (one in which underemployment is still over 12% even today). And I really do think that if Romney hadn't made this comment, while it wouldn't have been enough to win him the election, he would have picked up Florida, probably another state or two, and kept us up quite late on election night.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Let's be real.  Dukakis didn't lose because of the GOP's attack ads against him, although they certainly didn't help him.  He lost because the economy was good, President Reagan was popular, and his VP was running to replace him.  I think the main reason he had a lead early on was because he got more media attention.

[Never]

Media executives were much more conservative than journalists. They decide what stories get covered.

That's possible, but many stories emphasized by the media are not favorable to conservatives. Just look at the media's justified criticism of Romney's 47% remarks.

It wasn't necessarily justified. He said it was his job not to "care" about 47% of the population, referring to trying to get their votes in the election, and everyone made it out that he was talking about how he would govern them.

Well, he said a lot more then "My best possible performance is 53%, or, there's 47% of the population who is too democratic to support us", but also fiercely criticized these people, calling them people who can't take personal responsibility and do anything for themselves and are fully dependent on government. Here's the exact quote:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49...he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. ... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

While Romney was simply intending to emphazize that he had a 'ceiling' of sorts, he instead called people who like government helping them 'victims who can't take personal responsibility', and essentially said, indirectly, that government shouldn't be giving out any entitlements. In this, he not only alienated the 47% of people who weren't going to vote for him anyways, but also alienated moderates who saw what they were hearing in political ads perfectly replicated in real life: Romney was an out of touch rich guy, he didn't care about their problems, and he didn't want to help them. And this was/is a country that wants its government to help it recover from a still ongoing economic crisis (one in which underemployment is still over 12% even today). And I really do think that if Romney hadn't made this comment, while it wouldn't have been enough to win him the election, he would have picked up Florida, probably another state or two, and kept us up quite late on election night.

I basically agree with almost every point you made Wulfric. The criticism of Romney's remarks was justified because it became apparent that this candidate was not running to be president for all Americans. He unnecessarily divided us into two groups. We're not the hard-working or lazy states of America, we are the United States of America. While I feel welfare isn't a good option for most Americans, we should not attack the people taking advantage of government benefits, rather, it should be pointed out that there are superior and more fulfilling options for making a living.

[Matty]

Dukakis was a terrible candidate, and the national democratic party of the 80s alienated everyone who wasn't a union member or a minority.