CNN Race for the White House: Discussion Thread

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Tonight, the third installment of CNN's Race for the White House series will be on.  It's about the 1988 Bush vs. Dukakis campaign.  I was wondering if any of you have been watching it, and if so, what you think of it.

I watched the first one on 1960, and I was pleasantly surprised at how fair it was to Nixon and how much it challenged the traditional depiction of him as a cartoon villain of history.  I haven't seen the second episode (on 1860), but there's a rerun tonight.  They're calling it "Lincoln vs. Douglas," which irritates me since it ignores John Breckenridge and John Bell.  I wonder if it mentions anything about them in the documentary itself. 

I'm looking forward to the '88 one tonight, but dreading it at the same time.  1988 is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented presidential campaigns in history, so I'll be interested to see whether they parrot the traditional "Bush ran a dirty, nasty, racist campaign, and that was the only reason he won" narrative.  Never mind that it's far from the truth.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It's bland. And spoiler alert, they don't mention Bell/Breckenridge at all during the 1860 show and spend 70% of the episode talking about Lincoln's Senate bid.

[/]

The '88 one is about to begin. I wonder what it will be like.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's bland. And spoiler alert, they don't mention Bell/Breckenridge at all during the 1860 show and spend 70% of the episode talking about Lincoln's Senate bid.

exaggeration


To be clear, it is mentioned that Breckenridge and Bell ran, but only briefly.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It's bland. And spoiler alert, they don't mention Bell/Breckenridge at all during the 1860 show and spend 70% of the episode talking about Lincoln's Senate bid.

exaggeration


To be clear, it is mentioned that Breckenridge and Bell ran, but only briefly.

Calm down Wolf Blitzer.

[Likely Voter]

I think it is a pretty good show. It has some interesting tidbits and I'm sure it is quite informative for people who are interested in politics but not necessarily students of history. And even for those that are there are some tidbits. I didn't know that the Lincoln campaign filled the Republican convention hall with their supporters using forged tickets. Not very Honest Abe but it worked.   

Another interesting show worth check out is "The Circus" on Showtime, which is a behind the scenes look at the current presidential race. Last week had a dinner/interview with various members of the GOP "Establishment" in DC and it was fascinating to watch them cry into their overpriced steaks over how they couldn't stop Trump.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think it is a pretty good show. It has some interesting tidbits and I'm sure it is quite informative for people who are interested in politics but not necessarily students of history. And even for those that are there are some tidbits. I didn't know that the Lincoln campaign filled the Republican convention hall with their supporters using forged tickets. Not very Honest Abe but it worked.   

Another interesting show worth check out is "The Circus" on Showtime, which is a behind the scenes look at the current presidential race. Last week had a dinner/interview with various members of the GOP "Establishment" in DC and it was fascinating to watch them cry into their overpriced steaks over how they couldn't stop Trump.

The Circus is really, really good. I've only seen one episode (amazingly, I have like 30 channels on TV and somehow get HBO) so far, but it was pretty awesome.

[Admiral Kizaru]

Yep, The Circus is a must for any election junkie on here. Some fantastic inside footage and it reinforces some narratives, e.g. Clinton being virtually inaccessible whilst they could meet Bernie on the local commuter train at the start and Kasich's cringeworthy jokes and mannerisms.

Was meaning to get a start on Race for the Whitehouse this weekend but then Daredevil season 2 was released. There was only going to be one winner unfortunately and it wasn't the former.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I watched the 1988 episode last night.  I don't know what to think.  I'm glad they didn't fall for the old "racist Willie Horton ad" myth, but otherwise it was the same old myths about this campaign.  (To be fair, John Sununu said they were afraid the Willie Horton attacks could be interpreted as racist, which is probably true, but the program itself did not try to make it out as a racial issue.)  They tried to make Lee Atwater into Bush's running mate and depict his campaign team as a bunch of evil geniuses.  Meanwhile, Dukakis was the poor, innocent, helpless victim of dirty tricks and character assassination.  They described Dukakis as "taking the moral high ground," and playing fair.  This is pretty much what I've come to expect from anyone writing about the 1988 campaign, but it doesn't stand up to facts. 

I was disappointed that they didn't focus much on Bush's convention speech, or on the more positive themes of his campaign like, "Read my lips: no new taxes," "a kinder, gentler, nation," or "a thousand points of light."  They downplayed the Democrat attacks on Bush for putting Dan Quayle on the ticker.  They also ignored the VP battle between Quayle and Bentsen, including the "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" exchange.  I wish they had covered all of this, but they had a clear agenda to paint Bush and the GOP as the bad guys.  At the very end, they showed clips of Bush's inauguration with "Hail to the Chief" playing, and then at the end showed Dukakis riding on a subway or bus (or something like that), implying that "This man should have been president, but those mean, nasty Republicans cheated him out of it with their dirty tricks."

They also parroted the talking point that Bush only won by attacking Dukakis and going negative, which is also a myth.  At one point during the episode, they showed a clip that showed two polls: one that had Dukakis winning by 10 points after the DNC, and one before the convention that had Bush winning by about 3 or 4.  So it's probably safe to say that the early lead Dukakis had in the summer was mostly a post-convention boost.  Dukakis also shot himself in the foot a number of times (like riding in the tank and his answer to the debate question about his wife).  Bush also had the advantage of being VP when voters were mostly happy with the status quo (though to be fair, you could make the same case for why Nixon should have won in 1960 and Gore in 2000).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Just saw the promo for the 1948 election. Apparently, the 1948 convention was the last brokered convention. Has CNN not heard of 1964? 1968? 1976?

[Likely Voter]

Just saw the promo for the 1948 election. Apparently, the 1948 convention was the last brokered convention. Has CNN not heard of 1964? 1968? 1976?

I think they are talking about going beyond the first ballot. The cases you cite I believe all still had a winner on the first ballot.

[RightBehind]

The 1948 was terrific. Not over until it's over.

I love the sweet irony of the Jake Tapper statement in the documentary that it's not about the experts or the pundits, but the people. Yet CNN desperately tries to pick up the pieces whenever Bernie beats Hillary in a state.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I was a little bit disappointed by some of the factual errors in the 1948 episode.  Hardly anything was mentioned about Strom Thurmond, although there was a brief mention of the Southern delegations at the DNC protesting Humphrey's speech.  (There's probably a reason that CNN didn't want to emphasize that--it highlights the Dems' racist past.)  They ignored Stassen and made it look like Taft was Dewey's main competition for the GOP nomination, then said that Taft was President Taft's son (he was actually his grandson, IIRC.)  They did the same thing in the 1988 episode when they said that Dukakis was the grandson of immigrants, when it was, in fact, his parents who were the immigrants.  Then, at the end, they called Truman's victory a "landslide," in spite of the fact that he got exactly the same number of electoral votes that Kennedy did in 1960, which was one of the closest elections in US history.  It's an especially egregious error when they previously said that the election came down to Ohio and California.

The whole thing was clearly biased in favor of Truman (and why wouldn't it be, given that it was one of the greatest political comebacks in history?). 

[RightBehind]

I thought the Tafts were indeed father and son?

The documentary did not mention Barkley one time, I don't think.

[Clark Kent]

I thought the Tafts were indeed father and son?

Yep. Robert Taft was President Taft's oldest son.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I thought the Tafts were indeed father and son?

Yep. Robert Taft was President Taft's oldest son.

I stand corrected.