In July of 1988, a Gallup poll showed Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis leading George H.W. Bush (then the incumbent vice president) by 17 percentage points.
As you recall, Bush ended up not only winning the election but in a relative landslide (by 8 percentage points in the national popular vote and carrying 41 states).
The polls in the current race have been stable for quite a while, showing Democrat Joe Biden leading President Donald Trump by margins that range from high single digits in many polls to 10 percent in some. Can Trump pull off a smaller (since he trails by less) but similar come-from-behind victory?
In Saturday’s New York Times, Adam Nagourney revisits the 1988 tale. I’ll link to it below. But the point is obvious. Between the summer and the fall, a lot can change. Obviously, a turnaround of the 1988 magnitude is not typical, but it happened, and 1988 is not ancient history. Bush’s team had identified a few lines of attack that you may recall if you were around in 1988.
Perhaps the name Willie Horton rings a bell. Horton, a convicted murderer, benefited from a Massachusetts program, under Dukakis, that allowed prisoners to get a weekend “furlough” out of prison. Horton didn’t return from his furlough, and managed to commit assault and rape. Bush ran scary, effective ads that pretty much turned Willie Horton into Dukakis’ running mate. That’s just one element, but the most famous and perhaps the most effective, of the attacks on Dukakis that turned the race around.
[image_credit]George Bush Presidential Library and Museum[/image_credit][image_caption]Vice President Bush debating Gov. Michael Dukakis on Oct. 13, 1988, in Los Angeles.[/image_caption]
Perhaps you haven’t thought about that election for a long time, if ever. If nothing else, it’s a reminder that the poll numbers in the summer and the outcome in November can be quite different. I can pretty much guarantee that the Trump re-election team has been thinking about the 1988 race, and even about the Willie Horton ads, as they contemplate which lines of attack against Joe Biden might enter the history books alongside the tale of Dukakis and Horton.
Team Trump has, of course, been trash-talking Biden for months already. If the polls are right, nothing Trump has tried so far has seemed to change the race, which seems to be a referendum on Donald Trump’s (awful) character and (terrible) record as president. Team Trump’s efforts to nickname Biden “Sleepy Joe” and brand him, a solid liberal, as a “socialist,” have not worked, at least to date, according to the polls.
Reading Nagourney’s look-back at 1988 as we prepare for this week’s GOP convention (by the way, I predict Trump will be renominated), I couldn’t help but wonder whether Team Trump has cooked up some new lines of attack, other than calling Biden “sleepy,” calling Kamala Harris “nasty” (his favorite term for women who stand up to him) and other than the red-baiting they’ve already done to death. Perhaps some item from Biden’s long history in public life will be introduced to scare the country into believing that some fate equivalent to Willie Horton raping women would occur if Biden were to become president.
That was a deeply cynical last sentence, unbefitting. Republican cynicism and race-baiting notwithstanding.
The fact is, Biden is Biden’s worst enemy, and best hope at this point. There are three debates scheduled. If Biden is solid, presidential and unflappable, he will win the election. If he gets drawn down into the weeds by Trump baiting him, and flounders, he could lose and even get replaced by…HRC?
Surely Trump in the debates will wage psychological warfare. Biden needs to hold fast, or be deeply embarrassed. It wasn’t just the Willie Horton add. Who remembers the picture of Dukakis on that tank, with that helmet askance? If I recall correctly, he looked childish and ridiculous, and after that his numbers “tanked”.
Biden is not Dukakis, and Trump is not Bush.
Right. Biden is about 25 or 30 years older than Dukakis was in ’88. He also has a long history of mangaling his words, not helped lately by his age. Trump is not like the imperial statesman Bush I. Trump will treat the debates like a WWF brawl. If Biden tries to meet Trump on Trump’s terms, Biden will not look good. Trump will tear him down if Biden acts like an imperial statesman. Not sure how Biden wins the debates, but it is sure to make for great TV.
Did you watch Biden’s speech?
It’s a good indication of how he’ll handle Trump.
Remember, Biden’s been winning elections for a long time now, even though he and Trump are about the same age (and Biden appears to be in better shape. He can walk down an airplane ramp without holding on for dear life).
Also, he can spell.
Biden’s best strategy, and the one he appears to be following, is to be the adult to Trump’s 6 year old.
His best reply to many of Trump’s debate statements will be simply to say ‘there’s no point in answering statements that are not true. And yelling won’t change that.’ And then let Trump dig himself in deeper.
Trump will keep his 30-35%, but that won’t win an election, even with Electoral College games.
HRC Did just fine in all of the debates and how did that work out for her?
But Trump aced that test proving what a genius he is, Paul. You know, the one some folks use to see if their relative should have his or her keys taken away. Saying five words in a row and then bragging about it? And Biden supposedly has cognitive issues?
The Republican convention and the debates aren’t going to do much, in my opinion. Trump will at times stay on script painfully reading like a middle school student not in the high reading group or go off on bizarre, rambling riffs where everyone knows he’s lying. The rest of that line-up of speakers will do absolutely nothing to convince a person to vote for Trump.
He has two possibilities to maybe to swing things around in his favor. One, are the continued protests getting out of hand which will feed into the ads that are sure to come. Two, the Russians ramping up their campaign and mucking things up, whether it’s another hack or simply creating a narrative to hurt Biden. Oh, I guess there’s a third depending on how effective the Repbulican voter suppression tactics are.
AND its no longer 1988.
Yeah, the tank was brutal. When your opponent runs clips from your own ad, you have screwed up.
Dukakis was a surprisingly weak candidate. It’s a wonder his weaknesses didn’t come up before he was nominated.
A few points:
1. Al Gore is the one who introduced Willie Horton to American politics in the 1988 primary against Mike Dukakis by asking him questions in a debate right before the 1988 New York primary about “weekend passes for convicted criminals,” figuring the press would fill in the details for him. The Bush campaign later took the idea and created an ad from it.
2. On this date in 2012, during Obama’s re-election campaign, his approval rating stood at 48% (Rasmussen). As of today, Trump is at 51%.
3. As late as October 15th of 2012, less than 3 weeks before the election, Romney led Obama 50-46% in national polls.
4. Obama trailed Romney until late October (25th) when the tide turned based on a poor debate performance from Romney and Obama finally overtook him in the polls on October 26th, 10 days before the election.
5. Nothing matters until the debates.
“as of today Trump is at 51% [approval]”
Um, what?
According to Trump.
According to 538, Trump’s average approval rating right now is about 42%. Biden’s is about 51%.
You may have been looking at Trumps DISapproval ratings.
1. So? Bush used it in the general election.
2. Rasmussen polls are notoriously skewed to the right.
3. The debates probably will change no minds. Trump will go into his usual incoherent rage that resonates only with his most devout followers. He may not behave the same way towards Biden as he did towards Senator Clinton (in Trump world, a woman speaks for the sole purpose of being interrupted and demeaned by a man), but when he speaks off-the-cuff, he sounds like the recording is being played backwards.
Dennis, Dennis, Dennis…
Finding a polling blip from a notoriously R biased organization does not make it true, no matter how much you want it to be:
President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Approve 51, Disapprove 47, +4
President Trump Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 42, Disapprove 56 -14
President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 39, Disapprove 59 -20
President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 43, Disapprove 54 -11
And the 538 poll of polls puts it at -13.
I suppose you are buying the Trump dead heat in MN too?
Let’s not forget today’s AP-NORC poll with Trump Approve 35, Disapprove 65, -30…
More like dead meat.
Rasmussen is not a real polling firm. Its founder, Scott Rasmussen, is no longer with them, and their accuracy has declined even from the poor results when he was there. Its now just a clown outfit to make Trump happy.
I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Duncan’s first couple of sentences. The third sentence, however, seems – to phrase it politely – a flight of fancy. I was trying to think of a scenario in which the Democratic party, should Biden die or otherwise be forced to leave the race, would choose HRC over the duly selected candidate for VP. Others with more insider knowledge may be able to make a plausible case for that, but I cannot. As a certified old person, I remember both the Willie Horton ad and the Dukakis tank debacle. Mr. Duncan has accurately described my own reaction upon seeing the photo of Dukakis and the tank.
That said, while the Trump campaign is digging feverishly for any sort of dirt they can throw on Biden and / or Harris, the Democrats need only scroll back through dozens of press conferences, tweets, and speeches to find tens of thousands of outright lies from Trump. If, as Pat Terry suggests (correctly, I think) you’re in trouble when your opponent starts running clips from your own ad, Democrats should be able to bury Trump under an avalanche of clips of his own words and actions. They should also look at his “agenda” for a 2nd term, which will provide plenty of things to campaign against in its own right.
I expect an avalanche of videos of Trump, Biden and Harris doing things contrary to there words of today. That won’t matter much to their base. The debates though are going to have a real impact I bet…
As for HRC, if Biden were to collapse in the debates, the DNC will in no way put Ms Harris up for Pres. Most of the people running the DNC are Clinton and Obama people, and most of them think (or at least expect us to belive) that the 2016 election was stolen from HRC by the Russians/Putin, so let’s just say I would not be surprised if in an emergency we could have the 2016 election all over again.
Trump: Russian Hoax! Russian Hoax! Russian Hoax! Russian Hoax!
R Controlled Senate Intel Committee: Russia meddled, Trump campaign passively accepted
Mueller Report: Russia meddled, Trump campaign passively accepted
US Intelligence Infrastructure : Russia meddled, Trump campaign passively accepted
WHD: Russian Hoax! Russian Hoax! Russian Hoax! Russian Hoax!
If we can’t agree on facts proven by thousands of interviews, factual summaries, millions of dollars, preponderance of evidence, the collective intelligence capabilities of the US government, let’s just pack it in: Truth no longer exists. And that is DJT’s gift to our nation. I’m sending the gift back, how about you?
Had HRC been a better candidate, the outside influnces might not have pulled Trump over the line. I agree with WHD’s point that Dem leadership misses this important point. I.e. it is possible to believe that the Russians meddled in the election, members of the Trump campaign acted illegally, and a better Dem nominee could have won anyway.
HRC could have won with a better MI/WI strategy, or Comey deciding a final week intervention was over the top, or a disclosure of Stormy Daniels hush money. And a better candidate too? Maybe there was not one to pick from. Biden chose not to run, Sanders, maybe yes maybe no on beating Trump, Lincoln Chaffee, Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb?
It simply comes down to a perfect storm of political opportunity for Trump.
Can lighting strike twice? Only this time it will need to be a perfect perfect storm.
You consistently “quote” me while making up your own words to make me sound like I believe something I have never said and would never say.
I have said many times it was a mole hill made a mountain, by forces desiring to deflect responsibility from HRC and the DNC, to maintain hostilities with Russia and Putin with the ultimate goal of regime change, and to de-legitimize this president.
But Ray McGovern says it better than me.
https://consortiumnews.com/2020/08/21/ray-mcgovern-catapulting-russian-meddling-propaganda/
Biden has already been nominated.
I guess we should expect the vaunted NYT (which did everything it could to turn 2016 into a much-desired “horse-race” and give the nation the worst president in American history) to harken back to the days of 1988 and the great collapse of little-known MA governor Dukakis. Does it presage a planned effort by the NYT to make sure we really know all Repubs want us to know about the (phony) Ukraine “scandal” of the Bidens dreamed up by the Rightwing Noise Machine, just as its editors had to make sure the nation roiled around in the (equally phony) “But Her Emails!” nonsense of 2016? Inquiring minds, etc…
Biden is a well known (almost too well known) figure in the politics of the country, and Bush Sr was a respected adult figure of some integrity and envisioned ability. Unlike wannabe autocrat Trumpolini, neither was an unqualified, hated incompetent who had already irreversibly wrecked the country and its economy, and who has historic levels of the citizenry saying they “strongly disapprove” of him and would never vote for him under any circumstance. 1988 was a prosperity election, 2020 is a crisis and chaos election.
Of course, the megalomaniac ignoramus Trump could “win”, but it surely won’t be by winning the popular vote by 8% as Bush did in ’88; it will be by eking out a bare electoral college win after doing everything possible to game the election results and suppress both voting by Dems and counting votes of Dems. But there is no doubt that Trumpolini will employ the same sort of race-baiting that Bush Sr used to win in 1988; he’s doing it already, and it it looks to be Trump’s only actual “argument” to his (predisposed-to-racist-appeals) reactionary white voters.
Whatever tactic that drags the voters (and nation) deeper into the muck and sewage, that’s the ticket! Take note, NYT…
Yeah, willing to bet the NYT has just a BIT less influence than it did in 1988. Seriously, I get it, but are we all unwilling to recognize just how much the world has changed in the intervening 32 years? Could Trump attempt a “Willie Horton” style ad smear? Sure. Would it be mercilessly ripped apart on Twitter and every other social media platform in the Western world 10 seconds later? Of course.
Additional context from the Nagourney piece is relevant here. Dukakis was relatively unknown; and while he enjoyed a significant polling lead, the Bush campaign determined that 1) voters did not have a set view of him and 2) he wouldn’t respond to attacks. The “soft on crime” attack ads came out of that.
I don’t think the 88 race correlates well with 2020. Trump is an incumbent; he is what he is & there’re few voters who don’t have an opinion of him. Biden likewise is not unknown to voters. He has a lot in common with GHWB, in fact – a stable, long term politician and two term veep for an admired President.
It’s certainly reasonable to look at the polls as ephemeral snapshots that will look different tomorrow than today. But if we want to look at history as an example of how far polls can move, we should also look at how the polls were moved.
It’s far more likely we learn new details from the past that reflect negatively on Trump than on Biden.
While there is a non-zero chance that Trump will turn the tide in his favor and be re-elected, there are many reasons why 1988 is not a strong precedent for 2020.
First, George HW Bush was, at the time, still something of an unknown quantity. He had been Vice President for eight years, but his lack of visibility and lack of any meaningful role in the Reagan administration was a running joke. Trump, on the other hand, is by now a known quantity. He is the incumbent President with history-making low approval ratings. Those ratings have been low throughout his tenure. If they haven’t changed by now, what could make them change in the next few weeks?
Second, the racial climate of the nation has changed dramatically since 1988. The electorate is less white and less Anglophone (as a first language) than it was in 1988. Two-thirds of all Americans support Black Lives Matter. Trump’s efforts at race-baiting (“Keep our suburbs safe”) have been largely unsuccessful at improving his popularity (less than one-fifth of Americans believe he has improved race relations). While Biden has no doubt made mistakes in the past on racial issues, it would be an amazing flight of hypocrisy for Trump to try to exploit those gaffes (which means, it’s six-two-and even that he will).
Third, leaving aside the racial issues, Trump has a record to run on, and he has made a pig’s breakfast of his presidency. His foreign policy triumphs are either “Trump blunders that didn’t turn out worse than they could have,” or “things done by others without his involvement for which he will still try to claim credit (Israel and UAE).” His pandemic response has been beyond pitiful, and whatever became of that better replacement for Obamacare? Did we miss it because of the hoopla around Infrastructure Week?
I’m making no predictions about the outcome of this election. I will say only that members of the Trump Party who want to point to 1988 )(or 1968, or 2016, or any other year) as a precedent and a reason to hope should try again.
As far as I’ve seen, nobody yet has explained where Trump will attract new voters.
His fundamental problem is that he can’t afford to lose anybody in a handful of states he won by very slim margins. But he seems to be losing significant numbers of suburbanites with college or better educations, particularly white women.
Where is he going to make up those votes?
Agreed, starting from a basis of 50% of the people not voting for Trump because he is Trump ain’t an easy starting point…
Ukraine?
Russia?
The biggest immediate benefit from a Biden victory, particularly if it is a big one. No reporter will be required to report on Trump, except based on what his lawyers are doing to stop the bleeding. And his family – no need to ever think of them again.