Found 1988 Article about Dukakis Strategy
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:13:22 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Found 1988 Article about Dukakis Strategy
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Found 1988 Article about Dukakis Strategy  (Read 5017 times)
JRP1994
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,045


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 24, 2014, 02:17:42 PM »

http://www.csmonitor.com/1988/1018/apush.html

States part of Dukakis' "18 state strategy"
States that Dukakis was still fighting for
States mentioned as moving away from Dukakis



Results:

18 state strategy: Won 10 of 18 --- 55.56%
Targeted states: Won 0 of 14 --- 0.00%
Logged
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2014, 03:12:41 PM »

So, Dukakis Strategy = Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama states, missing only Maine and New Jersey

Good strategy in the long term
Logged
Vega
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,253
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2014, 03:23:14 PM »

I remember seeing alot of Dukakis ads in Hawaii. He was really pushing to win there. It was back before Hawaii became as blue as it is now.
Logged
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,968


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2014, 04:15:16 PM »

Looking back at the 1988 election--there are similar parallels to 1928.  Even though Al Smith was crushed nationally, he set the strategy that moved the urban vote to the Democrats, setting up the realignment election of 1932. 

The 1988 election has a somewhat similar end result for the Democrats--make the West Coast, upper Midwest, and Northeast competitive to set up the stage for 1992 and beyond. 

In hindsight, Dukakis was never going to win in the South/Border states-- but the belief that Lloyd Bentsen would be helpful plus the fact the Democrats did particularly well in the South in the 1986 midterms may have given Dukakis's election team an unrealistic hope.  Perhaps that was true in 1988.  Even so, his performance in Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Texas, and Oklahoma was better than Mondale's.  Of course now, the competitive Southern states are different (Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina).

Since then, this electoral strategy continues to function as the Democratic game plan.  And for now, it seems to be working--no less than 251 electoral votes since 1988.  And fighting for at least some of the South places the Repubs on the defensive.
Logged
Vega
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,253
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2014, 06:00:22 PM »

And for now, it seems to be working--no less than 251 electoral votes since 1988. 

To be honest, this country is too polarized anymore to let a candidate win more than 400 electoral votes anymore.
Logged
Liberalrocks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2014, 11:26:18 PM »
« Edited: August 25, 2014, 11:33:55 PM by Liberalrocks »

Im noting South Dakota and Montana as green here, yet actual results were a closer then expected Dukakis losses, a bit unusual result in those traditionally GOP states and considering Bush's national margin. Ive been told South Dakota had to do with the farm crisis. The Dukakis team proably didnt expect him to pull that close to Bush in such a traditionally republican states and they didnt yield many electoral college votes.
Logged
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2014, 02:29:19 PM »

Comparing the 25 presidential elections of the 20th century*, Dukakis had the 11th best percentage (not margin) for a Democrat. Better than every other losing Democrat, better than Wilson 1912 and Clinton 1992. He is in the top half.


* I consider that the election of 1900 belongs to the 20th century and the election of 2000 belongs to the 21th century, because in 1900, a president was elected for a term starting in 1901 and finishing in 1905, so, in the 20th century.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2014, 04:49:16 AM »

Comparing the 25 presidential elections of the 20th century*, Dukakis had the 11th best percentage (not margin) for a Democrat. Better than every other losing Democrat, better than Wilson 1912 and Clinton 1992. He is in the top half.


* I consider that the election of 1900 belongs to the 20th century and the election of 2000 belongs to the 21th century, because in 1900, a president was elected for a term starting in 1901 and finishing in 1905, so, in the 20th century.

Better than the 1912 and 1992 elections, too, but vote percentage isn't the only thing that counts.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2014, 10:24:33 PM »

It would be interesting to see a president win with under 20 states.

It's currently unlikely given how close Republicans and Democrats both have relatively safe small states.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,108
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2014, 10:39:02 PM »

It would be interesting to see a president win with under 20 states.

Think 1824.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,108
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2014, 11:18:51 PM »

And for now, it seems to be working--no less than 251 electoral votes since 1988. 

To be honest, this country is too polarized anymore to let a candidate win more than 400 electoral votes anymore.

Since after the 1980s, the most states carried by a presidential winner was with Bill Clinton in 1992. The 42nd president won 32 states (plus District of Columbia).

I noted, on another thread, that after the 1980s, the Republicans have averaged between 7 and 9 electoral votes per carried state. The Democrats have averaged between 11 and 13 electoral votes per carried state.

If a Democrat were to win election with 32 states (plus District of Columbia), it's possible to get that electoral-vote score to reach 400. Take the 28 states Barack Obama carried in 2008 (with Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District) and one starts with 359 electoral votes. Give these three to a winning Democrat: Georgia (16), Arizona (11), and Missouri (10). That's 396 electoral votes. Give another state to the Democrat: South Carolina (9), with percentage margins lately close to Georgia's, or Texas (38), depending on if it really is reachable, and there you have it.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2014, 11:00:07 PM »

@Vega: And yet only in the 49 state landslides did Hawaii vote Republican,even re-electing Jimmy Carter in 1980....sorry but I'm not convinced.

But Kudos to Dukakis for developing a strategy for the Democrats to be able to do what Republicans were doing from 1876-1928 and winning pretty much the whole way through (cheating in 1876,1888 and the Wilson and Cleveland admins were the lone exceptions): Which is that of saying "Screw you Confederacy"

And hey it practically works,what with the dubious give over to Dubya in 2000, either way Al Gore lost the entire South despite being a Southern Democrat.  John Kerry, same thing...except he needed Ohio (he would've won with less than 20 then) and lost that one unambiguously.

Obama got re-elected on what appears to be some kind of flip of the 1976 map, namely losing every Carter state except Florida and winning the Ford state of Virginia.
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2016, 05:59:10 PM »

In addition to Montana and South Dakota (-6% each), Dukakis also did fairly well in Missouri (-4%), New Mexico (-5%), and Colorado (-8%). In contrast, he underperformed in Connecticut (-5%), Michigan (-8%), and Ohio (-11%)
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 0.044 seconds with 12 queries.