Dukakis wins in 1988

[Mr.Phips]

After trailing narrowly going into the second debate, Michael Dukakis is not asked about his wife and the death penalty and turns in a very good debate performance.  He attacks the Bush and Reagan as doing nothing for anyone but the wealthy, is aggressive against Bush and wins the debate.  After the debate, he takes a narrow lead in opinion polls over Bush that goes back and forth until election day.  On election day, he wins a narrow 50%-49% popular vote victory and wins the electoral college 280-258 with the result in doubt until early Wednesday morning when late returns in Detroit give Dukakis the state of Michigan. 

In the House,  Democrats gain four more seats to end up with a 262-173 majority.  In the Senate, Democrats pick up Wyoming, Washington, Connecticut, Nevada, Nebraska and Virginia and only lose Mississippi, giving them a 59-41 majority there.

What happens during Dukakis' first term?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

What?? House maybe, but the rest is just impossible.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

What?? House maybe, but the rest is just impossible.

Just like vast majority of your maps . Sorry mate, it had to be said.

Whilst I agree a Dukakis victory in 1988, similar to the map seen in the first post is quite implausible, we must remember that this thread is in the Election What-Ifs board and how Governor Dukakis could have won in 1988 is debatable.

[Wakie]

Actually to get a Dukakis victory in '88 all you need to do is turn out the black vote in the same amount as Mondale did in '84.

[RosettaStoned]

Actually to get a Dukakis victory in '88 all you need to do is turn out the black vote in the same amount as Mondale did in '84.

How do you know that?!

[Nicodeme Depape]

Bush wasn't exactly ahead in the polls.... most polls showed a 2-3 point Bush lead. The Death Penalty and his wife is what killed Dukakis, otherwise he could have very easily won.

[Mr.Phips]

The polls showed a statistical dead heat going into the second debate.  I believe Newsweek actually had Dukakis narrowly ahead.  What sent his numbers falling was the death penalty response. 

[Eraserhead]

The guy was way too ethnic looking for 1988. Even today I sometimes look at the guy and say "damn, that guy is pretty ethnic looking". True story.

[bhouston79]

What?? House maybe, but the rest is just impossible.

Just like vast majority of your maps . Sorry mate, it had to be said.

Whilst I agree a Dukakis victory in 1988, similar to the map seen in the first post is quite implausible, we must remember that this thread is in the Election What-Ifs board and how Governor Dukakis could have won in 1988 is debatable.

Dukakis winning in 1988 isn't that implausible.  He lost the states of California, New Mexico, Missouri, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, and Vermont by less than 5 percentage points.  He lost the states of Michigan, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana by less than 10%, and he lost the states of Ohio and Texas by only 11 % and 12 % respectively.  So the bottom line is that a 5% swing in the electorate (i.e. Dukakis recieving 50% of the vote instead of 45% of the vote nationally, would have most likely swung the election to Dukakis.  As one of the posters above indicated, the second debate as well as the Willie Horton ads played a critical role in causing Dukakis's numbers to collapse.  Additionally, as I recall Dukakis actually had a 17% lead earlier in the summer immediately after the Democratic convention.  If Dukakis had have won that second debate, and effectively responded to the Willie Horton ads, it is entirely concievable that he would have won the 1988 election.

[RosettaStoned]

The guy was way too ethnic looking for 1988. Even today I sometimes look at the guy and say "damn, that guy is pretty ethnic looking". True story.

Everybody is ethnic.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The guy was way too ethnic looking for 1988. Even today I sometimes look at the guy and say "damn, that guy is pretty ethnic looking". True story.

Everybody is ethnic.

you know what he means though. Ethnic as in non-Anglo

[justfollowingtheelections]

The guy was way too ethnic looking for 1988. Even today I sometimes look at the guy and say "damn, that guy is pretty ethnic looking". True story.

That is a ridiculous statement IMO.  What is so "ethnic"-looking (whatever the hell that means) about Dukakis?