http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988
While I think George HW Bush was a fairly competent President while Michael Dukakis was a poor candidate for a variety of reasons, I’d still have gone with the Democrats in this election.
Pretty much this, and I actually did cast my vote for Dukakis.
Though I don’t think Bush The Greater was racist, his campaign certainly was. The Willie Horton ad was probably the most shameful race-baiting ad in history.
Bush I did a great job with the end of the Cold War as well as with Gulf War I. However, he seemed disinterested in domestic policy and the recession hurt him. I do wonder if he regrets Clarence Thomas?
I’d have to go with Dukakis, but hope he picks a very well qualified foreign policy staff. Lloyd Bentsen wouldn’t be useless as VP, unlike Quayle.
This was the first election I got to vote in and I did so with an absentee ballot from college for Dukakis. My vote went to New York State, but since I was in Massachussetts, I got to enjoy the small victory there.
However, I’ll never forgive him for not standing up to being accused of being “card-carrying member of the ACLU”. Why he allowed that to be a negative and didn’t fight back was beyond me.
I voted more for Bentsen than I did Dukakis in 1988 and I did it again today.
Bush shouldn’t have won in 1988, but did.
Bush shouldn’t have lost in 1992, but did.
I think both elections may have gone the way they “should”. Bush was a decently competent president and his handling of the Gulf War I was as well executed as his son’s war was not. He had the courage to tell the Grover Norquist types to pound sand as he, as he had to, reneged on his “read my lips” line.
Clinton’s election turned out for the best, as well. His eight years of peace and prosperity have been unmatched in the past 100 years.
If Dukakis had won that election, Bob Dole would probably be a two term President presiding over that peace and prosperity.
I worked on the Dukakis national field staff for a year out of college, and although the election outcome was discouraging, I learned a lot about politics and was glad to have had the experience. I voted for Dukakis again today. He was a smart guy and a good governor of Massachusetts; he was, I certainly concede, not the most scintillating campaigner. As for GHWB, the Willie Horton ad, the Pledge of Allegiance “controversy,” Boston Harbor cleanup, his bitter primary campaign against Bob Dole, using Lee Atwater as his hatchet-man, the selection of Dan Quayle, etc., all made me think less of him.
I think adaher has a point, though. Had Dukakis won, he would’ve raised taxes just as Bush felt compelled to do; he would not have been as well-equipped to handle Gulf War I (assuming Saddam Hussein still invaded Kuwait on his watch), and he would’ve inherited the economic slowdown that eventually did in Bush. It might’ve been a looong time before the Dems took the White House again.
Only eight, probably. Bill Clinton probably just becomes President in 2000 instead of 1992.
And then 9/11 is prevented because Clinton, unlike Bush, would have taken the intelligence briefings seriously.
I voted Bush. although I paid very little attention to politics in those days. Both candidates were competent moderates, but it was Bush who impressed me as having more experience and leadership qualities.
About five years later, the GOP lurched and became [checks forum] imperfect. In this new post-rational era I wouldn’t support a GOP candidate for President even if they ran Mother Teresa against Bozo the Clown.
ETA:
These “retrospective” elections are difficult or ambiguous for various reasons. It sounds like Dukakis might have worked out better regardless of his or Bush’s qualities!
And so we get hit later, because Osama and al Qaeda remain in their sanctuary in Afghanistan, free to plan attacks at their leisure with no military pressure from the West.
There’s also the small matter of preventing it in the first place given the dysfunction that was found, in some cases due to existing law. The agencies couldn’t share intelligence. They all had pieces of the puzzle but how likely is it that those pieces would have been put together, even if a new Democratic President wanted to make that a top priority in his first year of office when he had health care and gays in the military to do?
Because Clinton prevented the USS *Cole *bombing and Nairobi and Dar es Salaam embassy bombings - oh, wait…
Who’s to say it wouldn’t have been averted because Clinton didn’t starve the Iraqi children in the 90’s.
This was also my first election in which I was eligible to vote. Although I am a strong progressive/liberal now, I was pretty conservative back then (as much as I was into politics, which was not much). I also had a generally high opinion of the Reagan administration and as a Massachusetts native, a low opinion of Dukakis. I think even going back now I would not change my vote - GHW Bush was a better than average president.
What do you base that on?
What on Earth are you talking about?
Because the 1990-1991 recession was a regular cyclic recession and thus unavoidable. And Dukakis had the same limitations as Bush when it came to making the people think he cared about their problems. Bob Dole was the next guy on the list for the GOP and probably would have beaten Dukakis in 1992.
He’s referring to the supposed foreign policy provocations against Al Qaeda, most of which were explicit Clinton policies, such as the containment policy towards Iraq.
Bush started the sanctions(actually, the whole international community did), but the idea of keeping the sanctions as a permanent alternative to just getting rid of Saddam was a Clinton policy. Arguably, it was more costly to Iraq than war would have been.