I don't see how you can credit Hart or Dukakis for anything. The newfound Hart obsession these days is bizarre - Matt Bai writes a crappy article about him, he comes out of the woodwork to join the O'Malley campaign, and now he somehow helped the Democratic party?
It's especially strange why progressive Democrats who oppose Clinton for the DLC and moving the party to the economic center would like Hart, since Hart was basically the proto-Clinton. He was John the Baptist to Clinton's messiah. A young, unfaithful red state guy taking about new ideas and economic centrism and modernizing the party. The only thing he doesn't have that Clinton has is the Arkansas hick thing. Well, that and the unusual wife. But the main difference is that he lost.
Who talked about Hart?
Dukakis was like the Neil Kinnock of the Democrats. He tried to give himself a New Democrat makeover, but his coalition was still the old Democrat coalition. I mean, he won West Virginia while losing Maryland, for crying out loud. It's hard to believe that was only 26 years ago.
So what? Is the Old Democrat a bad Democrat? Clinton embodied the DLC, Mondale and Dukakis didn't. That's why they lost. I'll be honest with you: I would have voted for Carter and Mondale over Reagan because both of them were more honest than Reagan who acted his way into the White House just like Clinton did.
Actually, Clinton was struggling in the polls until Perot dropped out - then he suddenly surged to near landslide levels. Most of Perot's spring voters clearly preferred Clinton as a second choice.
Nah, it is hard for me to believe that Clinton could have won Georgia, Montana, Colorado and New Hampshire without Perot. And coming close in FL, WY, KS, AZ without Perot? I doubt it.
Dukakis received 45% in CO and 46% in MT. It's not unrealistic that Clinton would have won them in a two way race with Bush in 92 and then lost them to Dole in 96.
Poll
