Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 13:03:32 GMT
Suppose Dukakis wins in 1988.
How would 1992 pan out? And the rest?
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961 
|
Post by mondialito on Nov 30, 2018 13:24:26 GMT
Impossible, he was a dreadful candidate.
A better counterfactual is if Mario Cuomo runs in the Democratic primary.
|
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Nov 30, 2018 13:45:46 GMT
Impossible, he was a dreadful candidate. A better counterfactual is if Mario Cuomo runs in the Democratic primary. In 88 or 92? It wasn't impossible and Dukakis wasn't dreadful, he was just a bit 'meh'. At one point he had a near 20 point lead around convention season. He never managed to counter the negative ads run by Bush, that was his big problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 30, 2018 14:08:54 GMT
Impossible, he was a dreadful candidate. A better counterfactual is if Mario Cuomo runs in the Democratic primary. In 88 or 92? It wasn't impossible and Dukakis wasn't dreadful, he was just a bit 'meh'. At one point he had a near 20 point lead around convention season. He never managed to counter the negative ads run by Bush, that was his big problem.  |
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Nov 30, 2018 14:26:40 GMT
It was all downhill from there...  link |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Nov 30, 2018 17:26:50 GMT
Impossible, he was a dreadful candidate. A better counterfactual is if Mario Cuomo runs in the Democratic primary. In 88 or 92? It wasn't impossible and Dukakis wasn't dreadful, he was just a bit 'meh'. At one point he had a near 20 point lead around convention season. He never managed to counter the negative ads run by Bush, that was his big problem. I'm talking about 1988. If Cuomo runs, I think he would win the nomination. In the General Election he would be far more adept at defending himself from Lee Atwater's smear campaign and make his liberal views far more relatable to voters than Dukakis ever could.
A good example of this is the way Dukakis handled a question on the Death Penalty during one of the debates. When asked (outrageously, IMO) if he would still be against it if his own wife was raped and murdered, Dukakis gave a very dry answer restating his position. Cuomo remarked that if he was asked a similar question he we would have said:
“How dare you speak about my wife in that way? You should be ashamed of yourself for dishonouring her like that. But I tell you this. If I caught the man who did those things to my wife, I’d grab him by the neck, rip out his throat and tear him limb from limb. But this is not about me. This is about the state. And the state has to be better than me. That’s why we have laws.”
Would all of that have been enough to beat Bush when the economy was performing fairly well? Maybe not, but he would have stood a better chance.
|
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Nov 30, 2018 19:29:27 GMT
It's interesting that Cuomo didn't run in 1992 as he felt Bush was unbeatable, but I agree he may have had a better chance in '88.
|
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Nov 30, 2018 22:27:02 GMT
I understand that Bill Clinton said the only reason Dukakis didn't win because his name was too long, which is funny because it has the same number of letters as his own.
Anyway, it was the Eighties, a time of conservative landslides both here and across the pond.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Dec 1, 2018 13:04:39 GMT
I understand that Bill Clinton said the only reason Dukakis didn't win because his name was too long, which is funny because it has the same number of letters as his own. Anyway, it was the Eighties, a time of conservative landslides both here and across the pond. I hope that thing about long names isn't true, I have money on Hickenlooper as next POTUS. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 13:29:41 GMT
Very good episode on 88 election on Netflix
|
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Dec 1, 2018 14:13:44 GMT
Impossible, he was a dreadful candidate. A better counterfactual is if Mario Cuomo runs in the Democratic primary. Or Jesse Jackson. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 14:22:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Dec 1, 2018 14:42:19 GMT
This thread feels a bit eerie given today's news.
The Democrats could have done with the tickets being flipped - Bentsen/Dukakis vs. Quayle/Bush would surely have produced a rather different outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Dec 1, 2018 16:16:21 GMT
I understand that Bill Clinton said the only reason Dukakis didn't win because his name was too long, which is funny because it has the same number of letters as his own. Anyway, it was the Eighties, a time of conservative landslides both here and across the pond. I hope that thing about long names isn't true, I have money on Hickenlooper as next POTUS. Eisenhower had the solution to that little problem, as so much else. I think the campaign slogan (I like Ike) was the most beautiful in its simplicity that I can ever remember and still memorable all these years later. Many tried to imitate it and failed. Madly for Adlai certainly wasn't there! |
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Dec 1, 2018 16:58:50 GMT
As far as I know, there isn't any literature on how candidates name length affects the vote. There are studies that suggest that a candidates surname affects voter choice - people with alphabetical names go at the top of the ballot and get more votes.
Now that you mention it, it is quite a thing. Maybe not name length but ease of pronunciation?
2016: Trump/Clinton primaries Clinton/Sanders Trump/Rubio/Kasich/Carson/Cruz
2012: Obama/Romney
2008: Obama/McCain - Obama/Clinton
2004: Kerry/Bush
2000: Bush/Al Gore
1996: Clinton/Dole Dole/Forbes/Buchanan
1992: Clinton/Bush Clinton/Tsongas/Brown
1988: Bush/Dukakis - Dukakis/Jackson/Gephardt
Can't be bothered with the rest.
Anyway, back to the OP question, how would a different president have handled the end of the Cold war? I can't really imagine Dukakis doing anything different.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Dec 1, 2018 18:07:14 GMT
As far as I know, there isn't any literature on how candidates name length affects the vote. There are studies that suggest that a candidates surname affects voter choice - people with alphabetical names go at the top of the ballot and get more votes. Now that you mention it, it is quite a thing. Maybe not name length but ease of pronunciation? 2016: Trump/Clinton primaries Clinton/Sanders Trump/Rubio/Kasich/Carson/Cruz 2012: Obama/Romney 2008: Obama/McCain - Obama/Clinton 2004: Kerry/Bush 2000: Bush/Al Gore 1996: Clinton/Dole Dole/Forbes/Buchanan 1992: Clinton/Bush Clinton/Tsongas/Brown 1988: Bush/Dukakis - Dukakis/Jackson/Gephardt Can't be bothered with the rest. Anyway, back to the OP question, how would a different president have handled the end of the Cold war? I can't really imagine Dukakis doing anything different. Most of the truly important events with regard to cold war had happened by 1989 so I think you are right that Dukakis wouldn't have changed anything significant. The big what ifs with the end of the cold war are different results in 1980 and 1984. |
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Dec 1, 2018 18:40:01 GMT
How would he have handled Iraq/Kuwait? Bush did a good job, but would he have done better/worse or gone all the way to Baghdad?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 2, 2018 10:39:41 GMT
Impossible, he was a dreadful candidate. A better counterfactual is if Mario Cuomo runs in the Democratic primary. Or Jesse Jackson. He would have done well to win as many states as Dukakis did (and I was a big fan at the time) This wasn't 2008, back then the US was still nowhere near ready for a non-white POTUS. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Dec 2, 2018 11:36:00 GMT
There are studies that suggest that a candidates surname affects voter choice - people with alphabetical names go at the top of the ballot and get more votes. True here but in most parts of the US ballot paper order is determined differently. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,788
|
Post by john07 on Dec 4, 2018 9:44:14 GMT
As far as I know, there isn't any literature on how candidates name length affects the vote. There are studies that suggest that a candidates surname affects voter choice - people with alphabetical names go at the top of the ballot and get more votes. That reminds me of my time at the University of Manchester. All student union elections had the candidates in alphabetical order. Or the did until the Internal Vice President (who was responsible for all elections) discovered a forgotten rule that in alternate elections the order would be flipped to reverse alphabetical. His name was Dave Watson! |
|
