Who was the conservative favorite in 1988?

[LT Brass Bancroft]

I was only 11, so I was wondering who was the preferred candidate of those of us who were old enough to vote back then. Of course H.W. Bush won the nomination. I remember Bob Dole, Pat Robertson, Peter DuPont, and I think Jack Kemp running. Did Bush have trouble convincing conservatives to vote for him, or did everyone just figure that if he was good enough to be Reagan's Vice President, he was good enough for the nomination?

[Dr. Sivana]

I guess it was H.W, because he was with Reagan.

Nah, he finished near the back of the field in Iowan (corn guys wanted Dole, conservatives backed Robertson). I was in school and supported Jack Kemp. Kemp did not know how to run/fund-raise a national campaign, and stayed in 5%-land. George the Elder veered right ... and STAYED right for the general election, until he got full of himself for '92, and took the bump from the Iraq invasion as a general approval, and completely misread the Perot candidacy. That campaign will be a study in failure for eons to come.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Kemp was a favorite of Conservatives at the time, though Pat Robertson was drawing a lot of support from Evangelicals. (which was tailor-made for snarkmeisters on the left to attack Evangelicals, given Pat’s longstanding battle with foot-in-mouth disease, leaked photos of his solid gold bathroom fixtures, etc.)

As I recall Dukakis was leading handily in the polls until that ridiculous photo of him in the tank came out. Then he went into a free-fall collapse.

[Gaffer]

So, Iowa is the be-all and end-all of actuality, huh?

It’s perception. In the end, who got the nomination?

[iowamark]

Gramm ran for President in 1995-1996. I do not think that he ran in 1988. I think that your source is in error.

[Clay Moore]

I guess it was H.W, because he was with Reagan. At least, that’s what we thought.

Let us not forget that it was GHW Bush that coined the phrase "Voodoo Economics" when he was running against Reagan in 1980 to describe what became the Reagan economic revolution.

[Dr. Sivana]

So, Iowa is the be-all and end-all of actuality, huh?

I never said that. But it was astonishing that a SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT with essentially unlimited financial and political resources was able to do no better than 19% and finish well behind Pat Robertson in a very high profile caucus. Eventually conservatives backed him because he had not yet betrayed us, and he was talking conservative at the time. His campaign against Dukakis was masterful...which is why the MSM attacked aspects (Willie Horton) of it, so it doesn't get done again.

[Gaffer]

Your first example was about Iowa. It was decided before it even started is my point.

Iowa’s mystical importance in national politics is solely due to being ‘first’. The quixotic tents, the straw polls and the rabid pandering that goes on is idiotic.

I’d take Iowa politics more seriously when they get rid of ethanol subsides and generation requirements.

[logi_cal869]

we went into win

That is factually incorrect.

[logi_cal869]

He definitely had the base fooled

Yes, he did.

[kevkrom]

I was only 18 at the time, but I think my first choice was Kemp. Bush won largely because of the idea that he would just be an extension of the Reagan years.

[MDspinboyredux]

You are correct. Phil Gramm ran in 95-96. Supported Louisiana caucus move to earlier than Iowa’s (presumably to build momentum) only to lose to Pat Buchannan. Gramm subsequently lost Iowa badly and left the race shortly thereafter.

“10, worst case scenario” - Rich McBride

[kevkrom]

But it was astonishing that a SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT with essentially unlimited financial and political resources was able to do no better than 19% and finish well behind Pat Robertson in a very high profile caucus.

The Iowa GOP caucuses have a somewhat disturbing trend of supporting the candidate who thumps the Bible the hardest, regardless of his actual qualifications for the job (c.f., Huckabee).

While I want a godly man to be the candidate, Iowa tends to vote for national preacher, not CEO.

[bagman]

Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp, Pete DuPont were all viable conservative candidates.

George H W Bush was suspect due to his characterization of Reaganomics as “voodoo economics” in 1980.

[LT Brass Bancroft]

Did Reagan actually endorse Bush before the primaries were over? I thought he had waited until the nomination was sewn up.

[Dr. Sivana]

It was decided before it even started is my point.

It may have been decided by the establishment, but not by the populace at large. Of course, Bush the Elder also beat Reagan in Iowa in 1980, thumping no Bibles, and Dole (farm subsidy type guy) being on the same roster. That prompted Reagan to fire the evil John Sears, and just in time.

In '88, Bush couldn't even get a majority in New Hampshire, and Robertson beat Bush (handily) in non-Bible thumping areas like Minnesota and Washington state. Does that mean these places wanted Robertson? No. But like Buchanan's surprisingly strong showing in New Hampshire in '92, it indicated widespread distrust of the anointed candidate.

[Gaffer]

I think analysis of conditions back then is futile myself. The conventional GOP has been working a very long time to subvert actual free choice of its candidates, and they will resort to all manner of trickery and subterfuge to accomplish it.

Further, history from then is primarily via the main stream media...no internet, no free exchange of ideas and information and no real opportunity for those among us to speak out effectively. In the end, it boils down to personal perceptions, right or wrong, but they really didn’t matter, IMO.

[mknj]

I think Alexander Haig ran also...would he have been OK?

[Dr. Sivana]

I think analysis of conditions back then is futile myself.

There's a lot of truth in that statement. To some degree, however, those who can bring up such arguments in their favor (I mean the candidates) will inevitably turn to them to help make their case.

I remember when Reagan was running in '76, it was widely said that a governor wasn't a strong candidate due to lack of foreign policy experience. He repeatedly had to point to the behemoth that California was to be taken seriously as a national figure. Jimmy Carter got a pass the same year, but not from opponents like Scoop Jackson and Frank Church.

Now, the idea that being governor of even a medium sized state is not enough is laughable.

For the reason you state, I wouldn't even rule out an out there candidate with NO traditional resume in the near future (a Perot type), though I don't think it will happen this cycle.

[Dr. Sivana]

I think Alexander Haig ran also...would he have been OK?

Catholic pro-abort, the worst kind.

[Gaffer]

I’m just hoping Cruz’s support snowballs myself.