A more positive 1988 US election

[Runaway256]

IOTL, the 1988 election was among the most negative of elections in American history, and really established negative campaigning as one of the greatest strategies of candidates. Michael Dukakis was attacked for a whole host of things, from being un-American to releasing murderers and even more. If the Bush campaign did not go so hard on the offensive, how would that affect the election and American political culture?

 

[Montgomerie Ward]

I think the 1980 election planted the seeds for negative campaigning. Reagan would attack Carter viciously.

The 1988 election is closer, but George H. W. Bush still probably wins. Michael Dukakis made many enemies during the primaries and ran a bad campaign that evaporated the Democrats' lead. However, with a more positive 1988 election, future elections would probably be more focused on the issues rather than driving base turnout.

 

[UCB79]

I think the 1980 election planted the seeds for negative campaigning. Reagan would attack Carter viciously.

The 1988 election is closer, but George H. W. Bush still probably wins. Michael Dukakis made many enemies during the primaries and ran a bad campaign that evaporated the Democrats' lead. However, with a more positive 1988 election, future elections would probably be more focused on the issues rather than driving base turnout.

But this would not stop the Republicans
from turning rightward, ever rightward. In so
doing, they have come to feel that they are
so right(correct)& the Democrats so wrong,
that any & all tactics short of violence are
permissible, even worthy. Their motto be-
came- & I think still would have, regardless
of whether or not H.W. actually ran a “kinder,
gentler” campaign- one identical to that of
the late, great Al Davis:“Just win baby.”