DBWI: If Dukakis had lost in '88.

[The Uchronian]

As a volunteer for the local Democratic Party here in north Texas, during my last meeting with fellow Hillary 2016 folks, I recently met with a guy who worked with the Dukakis campaign in 1988.....and he mentioned that the good Governor had considered going on a tank ride earlier that year, but called it off at the last minute(sounds funny, right?). But what if he had? Dukakis's victory was fairly narrow in '88; if he hadn't won over Iowa or Ohio, Bush would've been President instead, and he decided not to run again in '92, anyway, as Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was rather more popular.

And how would a Bush victory affect the 1992 and '96 elections? Neither Pete Wilson or Bob Dole were exactly terribly good candidates, and Ross Perot was able to capitalize on moderates' increasing dissatisfaction with the two-party system, thus handing a significant margin of victory to Clinton in both years.

 

[Kaiser K]

OOC: If Dukakis had won in '88, it's really unlikely he wouldn't run for a second term unless he died or something really scandalous happened; and it would be similarly unlikely Clinton gained any national prominence; he only did so because the '92 Democratic Field was so empty of it's top candidates due to Bush being seen as initially unbeatable.

 

[dw93]

As a volunteer for the local Democratic Party here in north Texas, during my last meeting with fellow Hillary 2016 folks, I recently met with a guy who worked with the Dukakis campaign in 1988.....and he mentioned that the good Governor had considered going on a tank ride earlier that year, but called it off at the last minute(sounds funny, right?). But what if he had? Dukakis's victory was fairly narrow in '88; if he hadn't won over Iowa or Ohio, Bush would've been President instead, and he decided not to run again in '92, anyway, as Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was rather more popular.

And how would a Bush victory affect the 1992 and '96 elections? Neither Pete Wilson or Bob Dole were exactly terribly good candidates, and Ross Perot was able to capitalize on moderates' increasing dissatisfaction with the two-party system, thus handing a significant margin of victory to Clinton in both years.

If Bush had won in '88, the Berlin wall still would've fallen in 1989, we would've still taken Noriega out of power in '89 as well. The passage of the ADA in 1990 still would've happened as the Democrats still would've controlled congress that year under Bush. Taxes also still would've been raised in '90 as well (this would've hurt Bush as he pledged not to raise taxes in 1988).

The differences would be that the Democrats would've kept control of the Senate in the 1990 midterms as opposed to losing 7 seats and handing the Senate over to the GOP, and the democratic house majority going into 1991 would be larger than it was with Dukakis as the recession would've hurt him with voters.

As for Iraq, does a Bush administration make it clear to Saddam from the beginning that if he invades Kuwait, the U.S. would not support him and that there'd be consequences if he invaded like Dukakis did? If Bush doesn't, we might've gone to war, Dukakis, to his credit prevented this from happening. As for the Cold War, it might've ended earlier than it did if Bush had won. Dukakis gloated about the wall coming down, and thus crippled the U.S.' diplomatic relationship with Gorbachev. Something tells me Bush would've kept a level head through all of it for the sake of maintaining diplomatic ties with Gorbachev, and this would lead to a smooth reunification of Germany and a dissolution of the USSR sometime around 1991 rather than ending in 1999.

As for 1992, Bush might struggle more than Dukakis did. There's certainly going to be voter fatigue with the GOP after holding the White House for 12 years and I'll bet voters still seeing the economy as stagnant through 1992 would hurt Bush as well. Plus, the Democratic field for 1992 ITTL will be stronger than the GOP field we experienced. You might have Mario Cuomo, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Dick Gephardt, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, and maybe even Ted Kennedy run against Bush. The only candidate of those I can see Bush defeating in a bad year like '92 is Brown. The rest would probably beat him, heck Dukakis only got re elected and by a razor thin margin, because he somehow managed to run an even better campaign in 1992 than he did in '88 while Bob Dole ran a horrible campaign and kept rambling and raving about "Democrat Recessions: and while the voters were upset that Dukakis didn't turn the economy around right away, they knew he understood how hard the recession was on them and that he at least tried to do something about it, only to be obstructed by a Republican senate. Bush seemed like a guy that would've taken a hands off approach with the economy, making it easy for the Democrats to paint him as out of touch.

 

[The Uchronian]

If Bush had won in '88, the Berlin wall still would've fallen in 1989, we would've still taken Noriega out of power in '89 as well. The passage of the ADA in 1990 still would've happened as the Democrats still would've controlled congress that year under Bush. Taxes also still would've been raised in '90 as well (this would've hurt Bush as he pledged not to raise taxes in 1988).

The differences would be that the Democrats would've kept control of the Senate in the 1990 midterms as opposed to losing 7 seats and handing the Senate over to the GOP, and the democratic house majority going into 1991 would be larger than it was with Dukakis as the recession would've hurt him with voters.

As for Iraq, does a Bush administration make it clear to Saddam from the beginning that if he invades Kuwait, the U.S. would not support him and that there'd be consequences if he invaded like Dukakis did? If Bush doesn't, we might've gone to war, Dukakis, to his credit prevented this from happening. As for the Cold War, it might've ended earlier than it did if Bush had won. Dukakis gloated about the wall coming down, and thus crippled the U.S.' diplomatic relationship with Gorbachev. Something tells me Bush would've kept a level head through all of it for the sake of maintaining diplomatic ties with Gorbachev, and this would lead to a smooth reunification of Germany and a dissolution of the USSR sometime around 1991 rather than ending in 1999.

As for 1992, Bush might struggle more than Dukakis did. There's certainly going to be voter fatigue with the GOP after holding the White House for 12 years and I'll bet voters still seeing the economy as stagnant through 1992 would hurt Bush as well. Plus, the Democratic field for 1992 ITTL will be stronger than the GOP field we experienced. You might have Mario Cuomo, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Dick Gephardt, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, and maybe even Ted Kennedy run against Bush. The only candidate of those I can see Bush defeating in a bad year like '92 is Brown. The rest would probably beat him, heck Dukakis only got re elected and by a razor thin margin, because he somehow managed to run an even better campaign in 1992 than he did in '88 while Bob Dole ran a horrible campaign and kept rambling and raving about "Democrat Recessions: and while the voters were upset that Dukakis didn't turn the economy around right away, they knew he understood how hard the recession was on them and that he at least tried to do something about it, only to be obstructed by a Republican senate. Bush seemed like a guy that would've taken a hands off approach with the economy, making it easy for the Democrats to paint him as out of touch.

OOC: I really do like this post, but I wanted to correct you on one thing: Dukakis didn't run again in 1992 ITTL(his mediocre popularity was the main issue). Bill Clinton was chosen in his place, mainly as a safeguard of sorts, given his widespread appeal.

IC: Yeah, that's true; a huge part of Clinton's appeal was that he promised to not only keep the policies of Dukakis's that worked(and a fair number of them did work quite well in the long run!), but also expand on them, as well as his refusal to pander to the Religious Right(the Defense of Marriage Act managed to pass the Senate but was vetoed by Clinton in '96, in no small part thanks to the influence of Jerry Brown and Vice President Ferraro.).

On the foreign policy front, He also promised to pull the last troops out of Afghanistan so we could deal with Saddam, which we did have to do after Israel was invaded by Syria again in 1994, with help from not just Iraq(mainly with air support!), but also the Hamas group and the other extreme rightist Islamist groups(let's just say that they weren't happy with the upcoming negotiations in Oslo, as Israeli P.M. Yitzhak Rabin had been openly making peace with the leftists and centrists, including with some who would later defect from Hamas, during the '92 Geneva talks, while leaving them out of the equation; to them, that was essentially their Dolchstosslegende, and Oslo was going to be much more of the same.).....which turned out to be a rather smart move on our part-as a result of the Second Gulf War, not only was Saddam taken out(and eventually executed for war crimes in 1997), Hamas was also badly weakened, and unable to gain support of any but a small part of the Palestinian public.....Yitzhak Rabin, for his part, is now regarded as the second greatest Israeli PM of all time(a legacy that Benjamin Netanyahu almost pissed away, sadly).

 

[dw93]

OOC: I really do like this post, but I wanted to correct you on one thing: Dukakis didn't run again in 1992 ITTL(his mediocre popularity was the main issue). Bill Clinton was chosen in his place, mainly as a safeguard of sorts, given his widespread appeal.

IC: Yeah, that's true; a huge part of Clinton's appeal was that he promised to not only keep the policies of Dukakis's that worked(and a fair number of them did work quite well in the long run!), but also expand on them, as well as his refusal to pander to the Religious Right(the Defense of Marriage Act managed to pass the Senate but was vetoed by Clinton in '96, in no small part thanks to the influence of Jerry Brown and Vice President Ferraro.).

On the foreign policy front, He also promised to pull the last troops out of Afghanistan so we could deal with Saddam, which we did have to do after Israel was invaded by Syria again in 1994, with help from not just Iraq(mainly with air support!), but also the Hamas group and the other extreme rightist Islamist groups(let's just say that they weren't happy with the upcoming negotiations in Oslo, as Israeli P.M. Yitzhak Rabin had been openly making peace with the leftists and centrists, including with some who would later defect from Hamas, during the '92 Geneva talks, while leaving them out of the equation; to them, that was essentially their Dolchstosslegende, and Oslo was going to be much more of the same.).....which turned out to be a rather smart move on our part-as a result of the Second Gulf War, not only was Saddam taken out(and eventually executed for war crimes in 1997), Hamas was also badly weakened, and unable to gain support of any but a small part of the Palestinian public.....Yitzhak Rabin, for his part, is now regarded as the second greatest Israeli PM of all time(a legacy that Benjamin Netanyahu almost pissed away, sadly).

I have to agree with Kaiser K on the part about Dukakis not running for a second term, which is why I had him run for a second term in my original post. I doubt he would decline a second term unless he was ill, there was a major scandal, or he had some sort of major personal family issue to deal with. Presidents with less than mediocre popularity (think Carter 1980, Hoover 1932, or HW Bush in OTL 1992) still ran for a second term. Only LBJ chose not to and he to had less that stellar approval ratings in 1968 due to the war and the riots. The only change I can see being made to the Democratic ticket in 1992 TTL is the bottom of the ticket, and even then I doubt it would happen as I think Benson would prove to be a pretty solid VP.

 

[West]

Dukakis was a decent president but Im going to disagree on the soviet union thing. You see the longer the soviets kept up their system the greater the crash when they disolved, and the less of a chance of them rebounding and becoming a problem in the long run.

If the russians collapsed eailer they would have rebuilt themselves stronger and into a greater power. You would have a russia with the GDP of Japan or South korea instead of the economic power of Italy.

 

[The Uchronian]

I have to agree with Kaiser K on the part about Dukakis not running for a second term, which is why I had him run for a second term in my original post. I doubt he would decline a second term unless he was ill, there was a major scandal, or he had some sort of major personal family issue to deal with. Presidents with less than mediocre popularity (think Carter 1980, Hoover 1932, or HW Bush in OTL 1992) still ran for a second term. Only LBJ chose not to and he to had less that stellar approval ratings in 1968 due to the war and the riots. The only change I can see being made to the Democratic ticket in 1992 TTL is the bottom of the ticket, and even then I doubt it would happen as I think Benson would prove to be a pretty solid VP.

OOC: You do have a valid point regarding Hoover, Carter, and H.W. Bush, but, in my defense, there was certainly the possibility that any of these guys could have decided not to risk a second run(especially not Hoover, whose party's policies ended up practically creating the Great Depression.). And as I pointed out, Dukakis here didn't exactly have stellar ratings here, either(though for different reasons. For one, while he was fairly respected for the rapprochement with Russia, he was also criticized for being weak and indecisive elsewhere, like with Afghanistan-it's why Clinton had to finish pulling out troops!), so that's why he pulled the same stunt that LBJ did.

In any case, I'm going to go ahead and keep the scenario as it was originally written for now(although I am considering having him primaried, instead), but I'll try to expand on why else Dukakis ended up being a one term President later on, when the opprotunity arises.

Dukakis was a decent president but Im going to disagree on the soviet union thing. You see the longer the soviets kept up their system the greater the crash when they disolved, and the less of a chance of them rebounding and becoming a problem in the long run.

If the russians collapsed eailer they would have rebuilt themselves stronger and into a greater power. You would have a russia with the GDP of Japan or South korea instead of the economic power of Italy.

IC: Russia is a good bit stronger than Italy these days, though. But I think the main problem was, more than anything, is that Russia essentially traded in a decent leader(Gorbachev), for a couple of incompetents(Yeltsin and Putin, or Dumb & Dumber, as some wags in the former U.S.S.R. might call them, in reference to the 1994 hit movie starring Jim Carrey), who basically sold their country out to their local oligarchs. Dimitri Medvedev tried to turn things around, but he was assassinated in 2011, and Russia's recovery continues to stall.