If Michael Dukakis had fought back harder would he have won in 1988?

[bluestateguy]

It's commonly assumed, correctly I think, that Dukakis' lame non-responses to the mean-spirited Bush campaign badly damaged his campaign. He was leading by 17 points in the polls as late as mid-August, and by low single digits in some polls as late as Labor Day.

But let's say he had responded with rapid-fire ferocity to the Willie Horton ads, the Pledge of Allegiance nonsense and the various charges levied upon him. Let's say that he had quickly gone on the offensive against Bush.

Would the outcome have been any different?

I'm inclined to say maybe, but likely not. Dukakis' impotent campaign did him no favors, but it could also be argued that Bush Sr. won by running as a Reagan Heir Apparent. Reagan was popular in 1988, and Bush found a way to take advantage of that (in ways that Al Gore did not take advantage of Bill Clinton's popularity in 2000). So I suspect that even if Dukakis had come out swinging, he would have lost a closer election than the one we had in 1988.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. no. he was not a likable guy and dweeby. Some said cold.

he did not connect with people.

[depakid]

2. Bottom line: candidates don't lose 17 point leads

against someone like Bush at the time unless they either 1. seriously implode or 2. allow the corporate media (which are not their friends) to walk all over them.

Unfortunately, the Dems seem STILL not to have learned this lesson.

From an article I read the other day:

3) The Democrats keep failing the Dukakis test.

The key moment of the debate, as far as I was concerned, came toward the end, when Williams hit Hillary with this question:

Senator Clinton, Rudolph Giuliani, a friend of yours from back home, said this past week, quote: "The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us." Another quote: "America will be safer with a Republican president." How do you think, Senator, it happened that that notion of Republicans as protectors in a post-9/11 world has taken on so?

Translated into human speech, that question read something like this:

Senator Clinton, a Republican presidential candidate recently said Americans feel more safe under Republicans. How do you think the notion that Americans are more safe under Republicans came about?

I mean, seriously, folks, this is not a tough question to answer. All Hillary had to say was, "Rudy Giuliani says Americans are safer with Republicans, and suddenly you think it's true? How did you ever get a job in journalism?" and that would have been that. But the Democrats never balk at the inane questions that get thrown their way. For instance, no one ever accuses a Republican candidate of being "too conservative." But every Democrat politely and nervously answers charges of being "too liberal" every election. It is the Democrats' cowering, craven responses to these questions that validate their otherwise fallacious premises.

When media figures hound them with the same list of witch-hunting talking points each season -- Dems are incapable of protecting the country, middle America won't tolerate a "liberal," voters won't elect an "intellectual," etc. -- the Democrats unfailingly become accomplices in the conspiracy by dignifying the questions with serious responses. We first saw this back in the famous Bush I-Dukakis debate, when CNN's Bernard Shaw asked Mike Dukakis if he would advocate the death penalty if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered. Instead of angrily telling Shaw to fuck off, Dukakis calmly answered the question in a professorial tone, solidifying his reputation as a spineless wuss in the eyes of the whole country.

In this case, a string of Democrats again swallowed the Giuliani premise whole. Hillary began her answer by saying, "Well, Brian, I think that, as a senator from New York, it is something that I've worked on very hard ever since 9/11 to try to convince the administration to do those things that would actually work to make us safer..." Blah blah blah blah. Dodd was even worse. His answer began with the line, "Well, that's a great question, Brian..."

That's a great question, Brian? Is Dodd fucking kidding?

This little snippet is one of the major reasons Dems candidates lose- and will lose repeatedly if they don't stand up and hand some (if not many or most) of the so called "journalists" their asses.

[sandnsea]

12. That's point 1

with which I agree whole-heartedly. I heard Tucker Carlson try to say Michelle Obama was hostile towards her husband because she told jokes aobut him. And he and another pundit had a serious conversation about it. :crazy: Which leads me to point two...

Even if we could get the candidates to tell the media to fuck off, or in the words of my favorite lady, to "shove it" - there's still the rank and file who buy into the bullshit and repeat it ad nausuem - see the rest of this thread. :grr: How long before "concerned" Democrats start saying Michelle Obama is hostile to her husband??

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

3. that election was gone the second Gary hart's affair became public

Hart is the greatest president we never had.

Dukakis blew his lead without the Willie Horton ad.
His campaign manager, Susan Estrich, was as incompetant as they come. It's hilarious that she's on FAUX News now giving adice to Dems.

[maine_raptor]

4. A 17 point lead blown, Lee Atwater, and a tank photo.

After the Dem convention, Dukakis had his lead, but rather than campaign, he went back to Boston until after the GOP convention. That let Lee Atwater define the message. Dukakis played right into his hands by trying to look macho in a M1A1 tank. That photo, IMHO, was more damaging than the debate question (although that didn't help matters either).

[moondust]

5. If a Repug had done the tank thing

I think the MSM would have portrayed them as "in touch with the troops" or "the soldier's soldier" or some other such flattering BS. After all, lots of guys have worn the same gear and looked just like he did as they gave up their lives in war zones. I never really got the joke.

[Colobo]

6. If Romney does it, he'll look stupid

And it will ruin his campaign.

[SoCalDem]

7. Dukakis was a nebishy looking guy..not "presidential-looking"

It's sad, but that's how most people choose presidents..

People re-live the Prom King/Queen momemt every 4 years..

that's why we are in so much trouble:(

[moondust]

8. Nailed it.

[Selatius]

9. He didn't fight when Bush pulled the Willie Horton/Pledge of Allegiance crap

You must be willing to take a stand and hold convictions. If you don't, yeah, you may win on the margins, but you'll never really be the guy people remembered as the one who was willing enough to fight.

Also, the tank photo really didn't help his cause. I don't know who suggested that to him or if he thought of it himself, but somebody should've told him it was a bad idea, bad in the same sense as George W. Bush landing on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit with a "mission accomplished" banner above his head.

[maine_raptor]

10. Worse than the landing.

The Duke never got a chance to show off his codpiece, :rofl:

[rove karl rove]

11. doutful

If Gore had won the nomination, he would have beated GHWB. Dukakis, nope.