if dukakis would have won in 88...

[WalterMitty]

...who would be president today?

interesting question to ponder.  even the most loyal bush backers cant possibly argue that w. would have been elected president if his father never was elected.

[PBrunsel]

Michael Dukakis [1989-1993] VP Lloyd Bentsen

Bob Dole [1993-2001] VP Jack Kemp

Jack Kemp [2001-Present] VP Rick Perry

[True Democrat]

I think Clinton would have gotten the nomination in 96 as he was a close friend of Dukakis's, and I don't think that Bentsen would have run.  Clinton wouldn't have picked Gore, but I think Clinton would have lost in 2000 for some reason that I don't know.  I don't think the Religious Right would have risen quite as much.  Probably a moderate conservative like McCain would be President today.

[AuH2O]

88: Dukakis

...

92: Dole def. Dukakis
96: Clinton def. Dole
00: Clinton def. McCain
04: J Bush def. Kerry

[chris allen]

1988: Dukakis (D)
1992: Perot (I)
1996: Perot (I)
2000: McCain (R)
2004: McCain (R)

Call me crazy...but....

[ATFFL]

1988: Dukakis (D)
1992: Perot (I)
1996: Perot (I)
2000: McCain (R)
2004: McCain (R)

Call me crazy...but....

If Bush is not in office Perot never runs.

[Defarge]

Dukakis loses in '92 to Dole.  Dole wins reelection in '96.  Dole's VP runs for reelection and loses narrowly to a charismatic Democrat.  Gephardt maybe? Graham? Not Clinton.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How to answer depends in part on why Dukakis wins.  Granted, Dukakis ran a bad campaign in '88, but even with a better campaign that focused on the same central issues, I can't see him winning in '88.  Something more than simply style, some actual substantive change would have to have occurred for him to win.

I can only see style alone getting Dukakis to roughly:


306 (51% PV) Reagan
231 (48% PV) Dukakis

Better than the 426-112 result he had in real life, but still not a victory.