Every time a poll is posted on Kos that shows a Democrat with a lead over President Bush there is an invevitable comment about Dukakis having a 17 point lead and losing handily to Bush. I spent a bit of time this evening on Lexis-Nexis looking at the trend lines of 1988 and how Bush, Sr. was able to turn around a lackluster campaigin into a fairly dominant victory.
The 1988 Democratic primaries was a very spirited affair with a number of candidates, and some scandal, that lasted well into May when Dukakis was finally able to clinch the nomination. In the process he beat out Gore, Gephardt, Hart, Simon and Jackson. The Republican primary was somewhat less spirited with Vice President Bush beating Dole and Kemp.
On March 24, a WP-ABC Poll had Dukakis ahead of Bush 50-45. This poll also asked a number of questions regarding Bush's role in the Iran Contra scandal and a large percentage believed that he was not being entirely truthful about his role. 33% said that the scandal made them less likely to vote for Bush. At this time Dukakis is still competing for the Democratic nomination.
On April 21, Dukakis still held a slight lead over Bush (49-44) as it looked more and more certain that he would get the nomination. It was also at this time that the Bush campaign started focusing its negative campaign tactics toward Dukakis. Roger Ailes (yes that one), Bush's media consultant shot off one of the earliest zingers regarding Dukakis: "He probably knows all the words to My Fair Lady, but doesn't know how to sing it." The Bush strategy was to not just paint Dukakis as a "frost-belt liberal" but to tie him to Carter's "days of malaise."
Jackson continued to challenge Dukakis to the end. With Jackson's challenge, and a couple of surprising primary wins on his part, Dukakis was forced to reach out to Jackson's coalition saying that there was no great differences between him and Jackson.
In May, things were still looking great for Dukakis as he extended his lead over Bush to 13% (53-40) in another WP-ABC poll. Other questions in the poll seemed to indicate that Dukakis' lead was due more to an aversion to Bush and declining confidence in Reagan and his policies than to Dukakis. In fact, two out of three voters said they were voting for Dukakis because they disliked Bush.
The negative campaigning by Bush grew stronger in June as Bush started to make a bigger media presence doing more TV interviews and calling Dukakis a "tax-raising liberal." However, a June 21 WP-ABC poll shows Dukakis with a 12 point lead (51-39). Still at this time both candidates were relatively unknown to voters. However, responses to the question "Is the country going in the right direction?" increased 7 points (from 35 to 42) over the course of the past month.
It is at this point that things begin to erode for Dukakis. A June 30 Gallup poll shows Dukakis' lead shrinking to just a 46-41 lead. In early July Bush started using Willie Horton and when Bentsen is picked to be Dukakis' running mate he paints the two as being out of step with each other.
With Dukakis' polls declining the Democratis headed into their convention. The bounce was significant with a July 25 NBC-WSJ poll giving Dukakis a 51-34 percent lead and a August 3 CBS-NYT poll gave Dukakis a 50-33 percent lead (the 17 point lead so often referred to.) There are a couple interesting aspects of this "bounce." One it isn't so much a bounce for Dukakis as it is a fall for Bush. Dukakis is still hovering around the 50 point mark, but a large percentage of voters are now undecided. Again this is probably a phenomena of two relatively obscure candidates.
This lead evaporated very quickly. An August 7 Gallup poll gave Dukakis only a 7 point lead (49-42). Going into the Republican convention the Bush campaign was reporting that they were trailing Dukakis by 10 points. Their internal polling was actually showing that Bush was even and at times slightly ahead but they wanted to give the impression that Bush got a huge post-convention bounce.
By September Bush was building a larger lead (50-46 in a Sep 21 WP-ABC poll) but what all the polls indicated was that there was a general lack of enthusiasm for both candidates. More importantly in state by state polls Bush held a huge electoral advantage. Bush painted the election as a choice between "peace and prosperity or the possibility of risking it all on a lefty liberal." He never looked back and easily won the election.
What does all this mean in 2004? Let's assume Kerry is the nominee. We can expect Bush Jr. to follow a similar course and try to negatively portray Kerry the same way his father portrayed Bush. The negative attacks will come hard and often. The question is, will such a strategy work in 2004 the same way it worked in 1988? Personally, I don't think it will. Bush was able to run a negative campaign because he was a fairly behind the scenes Vice President with little record himself. Formulating negative attacks in such a position is much easier, because you are a hard target for your opponent to sling retaliatory attacks. (This also worked for Bush Jr. in 2000.) Nor was there much enthusiasm for either of the candidates one way or the other so it was easier to create a negative portrayal of your opponent without generating much of a reaction or public outcry. There is also an expectation that Bush Jr. will go negative on Kerry. This expectation will probably soften the blow especially if the negative attacks are the same tired rhetoric of the past.
While Bush Sr. was able to conjur up the "gray days" of Carter, Bush Jr. will have a hard time convincing voters that the economic and job growth that occurred under the last Democratic president was a bad thing. I believe that is why we will be seeing a boatload of culture war issues because in the insulated Republican world they see the Clinton years as a very negative time for those issues.
This election year is also different because there seems to be a lot more interest in the election and both candidates have extensive records to draw from. Charges by one side can be countered with tangible challenges from the other side. My gut feeling is that the Republicans are hoping this is 1988 but it is probably closer to 1992.
I will look at the 1992 and 2000 election in future diaries.