I just bet you do. :rolleyes: If it wasn’t inflammatory, do you really think it would have been “explored” at all? Please.
My own memories. The “Reagan prosperity” was gone like the chimera it always was. The administration was adrift as his Alzheimer’s took hold, with Nancy’s astrologer making key decisions. Most people weren’t better off, but the government was in deep debt. Sure, that feeling was widespread. As unmotivated a campaign as Dukakis ran, he still picked up 45.6%, 10 states, and 111 electoral votes, remember.
If Bush had something solid to run on, some positive record of achievement, some actual plans, don’t you think he’d have at least mentioned it?
I saw the debates in 1988. Dukakis’ performance was unbelievable, jaw-droppingly bad. It wasn’t just the horrible “dead wife” question, Dukakis couldn’t come up with a decent answer for any question. He came off as defensive and whiny, a man I wouldn’t trust to manage a Dennys, let alone the U.S.
In general, was the country and were most Americans better off in 1988 or in 1980?
The mortgage rate in November, 1980 was 12.31%. In 1988 it was 9.11%
The inflation rate in November, 1980 was 12.65%. In 1988 it was 4.25%
The unemployment rate in November, 1980 was 7.5%. In 1988 it was 5.3%
I’d get into foreign policy during the Carter years, but this doesn’t help the Democrats’ case either.
Reagan quadrupled the national debt, ran giagantic deficits and presided over double digit unemployment as well as a massive shrinkage of the middle class. Reagan sucked.
Speaking of foreign policy…who was it that sold weapons to Iran (after Iran had killed 150 Marines in Beirut), supported the Taliban, propped up Saddam Hussein and funded an illegal, secret war in South america? was that Reagan or Carter?
That was almost entirely due to Paul Volcker, Appointed by Carter, reappointed by Reagan. Volcker raised interest rates at the end of the Carter Administration, in order to stifle inflation. It crippled the economy for a while, but it worked.
The worst damage didn’t really happen until Reagan’s second term and people didn’t know about Iran-Contra yet. I’m one of the idiots who voted for Reagan over Mondale. I have no idea what I was thinking.
The bottom line is that most voters are ignorant of all of the issues; ask them questions about actual facts and most have no idea what’s going on, even concerning issues they express definite opinions on. So campaign managers have realized it’s not important where their candidate stands on any issues - the important thing is to convince voters they like their candidate better than the other guy. So Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush won elections because the voters liked them and despite the fact that many of these same voters claimed to hold opposing opinions on many issues than the candidate they were voting for. In 1988 you had a contest between two candidates, neither of whom had much in the way of charisma. But Bush had slightly more and he benefited from Reagan’s legacy of likeability, so he won.
According to the book, Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars?, Dukakis was very ill the day of the infamous Los Angeles debate with the Kitty Dukakis question.
Perhaps a more interesting question would be could Gary Hart have won in 1988?
He certainly could have won the primary if not for the Donna Rice scandal, and a youthful, charismatic candidate could have stood up to Bush, imo. His candidacy in 1988 reminds me a lot of Clinton’s in 1992. Clinton of course faced off against a less popular George Bush than Hart would have faced. I’ve always wondered, though…
As someone opposed to Bush in 1988, even at the time I thought Dukakis had no real chance, and was a horrible candidate.
Don’t kid yourself. IF it had been explored, and not demagogued as your team did (with results you like), here’s what would have been revealed: The furlough programs were created essentially by Republican administrations in the federal and many state governments, and there’s some good data that they were effective in reducing recidivism as planned. One counterexample was latched onto by a highly-partisan Mass. newspaper, pushed through the Legislature by leaders interested primarily in getting Dukakis out of power, and he instead refused to make the change to a Republican-created program that had generally worked.
But such exploration would not have helped Bush, it is ridiculous to think your team would have engaged in it (especially during a campaign), and your pious, handwringing claim to wish it had been otherwise lacks any credibility.
That assumes that Dukakis lost solely on the Willie Horton issue. I don’t think this was the case at all.
Election results from 1984 and 1980, and indeed 1976 and 1972, show tremendous weakness for the Democratic Party in presidential elections, regardless of candidate. It is clear that Dukakis was working from an inferior position here, in terms of the electoral vote.
He compounded this error in October by concentrating campaign efforts in just 18 states, thereby essentially forfeiting the race in large parts of the country. This has not been a viable means for a Democrat to win the White House, as McGovern, Dukakis and Gore showed in their losses, and Clinton and Carter showed with their wins.
No, it does not. There were a variety of reasons. The Horton issue is just the most egregious example of the GOP slime/lies machine in action at the time, and your defense of it is the most egregious example of your rationalization of it. May we take it that you concede that you don’t really “wish it had been less inflammatory”?
Just curious, does anyone remember who Dukakis beat out in the primaries? Also, wasn’t there a third party candidate for this one as well?
It probably says quite a bit for that campaign that I can’t really remember.