The 1988 Trap: Democrats Are in Danger of Repeating a Painful Lesson

Why Democrats Must Work to Avoid Repeating Another Devastating Loss

Bush and Dukakis before the second presidential debate, where Dukakis’s cold answer to a question about his wife’s hypothetical murder proved you can lose an election in 30 seconds flat.

A Republican celebrity, once dismissed as a political lightweight, just won an overwhelming second term as President of the United States. He reshaped American politics, demoralized the Democratic Party, scrambled traditional coalitions, and seemed to rise in popularity no matter what.

That was 1984.

Ronald Reagan was the man in question. But it could just as easily describe the moment we find ourselves in now with Donald Trump. The parallels are striking, and for Democrats looking to 2028, it serves as a flashing yellow light.

Since World War II, every time a sitting President could not—or did not—seek re-election, their party lost control of the White House. Except once. The year was 1988, and yes, I was a high school senior. While it was almost 40 years ago, I can’t stop thinking about it (and not just because I still listen to U2’s The Joshua Tree on repeat).

If Democrats aren’t careful, we are about to relive one of the most painful and avoidable election outcomes for our party in modern American politics.

After eight years of Reagan, the 1988 election ended in a relative landslide.

Three Warnings from 1988

In 1988, the Reagan revolution was ending. After two terms in the White House and decades in the public eye, Americans signaled fatigue. The Reagan administration was mired in scandal, the economy was struggling, deficits were rising, the stock market was volatile, and the Soviet Union loomed large.

Democrats seemed poised to benefit. While not the initial favorite, the eventual Democratic nominee, Michael Dukakis, was a competent governor and self-described “technocrat.”

On first impression, Americans seemed to approve. Dukakis held a steady lead in the early polling, even ballooning to a 17-point lead after the Democratic convention. And many thought that being “anti-Reagan/Bush” would be enough to carry him over the finish line.

But as the race intensified and the Bush campaign sharpened its attacks, Dukakis struggled to respond—and, most importantly, failed to drive home a compelling vision for the future. Voters soured on him, and George H.W. Bush won in a relative landslide.

So why did Dukakis lose a race that many considered inevitable for him to win? Three moments from the campaign tell the story that Democrats should remember as warnings ahead of 2028:

1. Bush declared, “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

Bush’s famous line was ultimately a policy trap that hurt him in 1992. But in 1988, it worked because it was simple, declarative, and easy to remember. In just six words, he conveyed that he understood voters’ economic struggles and was on their side. Dukakis, by contrast, never found a message that stuck; his campaign cycled through more than half a dozen in the campaign’s final months, none of which resonated with voters.

2. Dukakis’s infamous tank photo op

While the Dukakis tank photo op has been lampooned for nearly 40 years (and even in the moment, one aide said, Dukakis “looked like an idiot”), the damage with voters went far beyond just looking goofy. He looked weak. Americans want strong leaders. This has been true since George Washington. Their safety and security will always be top of mind, and one of the most basic expectations they have of the government. Strong isn’t reckless, cruel, or intimidating; it’s competent, confident, and decisive. Dukakis could never convey that, and the photo in the tank brought his weakness to life.

3. Dukakis struggling to answer questions about his wife’s hypothetical murder

In front of 67 million viewers, Dukakis’s response to a deeply personal debate question revealed another weakness: an inability to connect emotionally. His detached, almost clinical, and definitely bizarre answer—pivoting to drugs and a “hemispheric summit”—left voters questioning whether he had values they could trust. Whether voters agreed with him on the death penalty, his answer gave them no sense of his core values — or whether he shared theirs.

Dukakis’s tank photo op was meant to show strength, but instead highlighted his weakness.

Fast Forward To 2028

In the era of algorithms, influencers, and instant virality, Democrats can’t afford to repeat the mistakes of 1988.

The notion that we can just be “anti-Trump” or “anti-MAGA” and ride a wave of discontent to victory in 2028 is a fantasy. With Democrats at their lowest favorability rating in 35 years (63% unfavorable) and Republicans holding trust advantages on every major economic issue—inflation (+10), tariffs (+7), immigration (+24)—we must prove we are a credible alternative with real answers to the challenges voters care most about.

That begins with the economy. Voters need to know, in plain and memorable terms, that Democrats are laser-focused on their pocketbooks and the future of American prosperity. Dukakis had a staff full of brilliant advisors and produced an endless stream of plans, but never offered a clear economic vision that could be repeated and remembered. We can’t make that mistake again—expertise and policy detail are valuable, but they have to be distilled into a simple, powerful message that cuts through the noise. Somewhere, my buddy James Carville is raising his whiskey glass and screaming, “It’s always the economy, stupid!”

Voters also want leaders who project strength, competence, and control. The Cold War is over(ish?), but crime, immigration, and public safety remain top of mind. Too often, Democrats avoid these topics for fear of “playing on Republican turf.” That approach only cedes the ground. Meeting voters where they are, validating their concerns, and offering credible leadership is essential. Pretending problems don’t exist—or burying them in charts and academic plans–will only push swing voters further away.

Equally important are values. Dukakis’s ramblings when asked if he would support the death penalty for his wife’s hypothetical murder confirmed for many voters that he was culturally out of step. Whether on crime, family, or identity, candidates must hold their values authentically but communicate them with empathy. Voters will accept differences on cultural issues if they believe a candidate truly understands their perspective and is aligned with them on the economy.

And while it will be up to the prospective candidates to make their case to voters, the larger Democratic infrastructure bears responsibility, too. It needs to ensure candidates are positioned to succeed, giving them the tools to navigate what will surely be a contentious and crowded primary.

While there needs to be, and will be, a bigger conversation about how the presidential primary should work, some ideas already out there are worth a closer look:

1. Don’t hold primary debates on single, non-economic issues. In 2020, there was a push for the party to sanction debates on individual topics like climate change, reproductive rights, etc. While these issues matter deeply, we have only a few chances to break through in today’s fractured media environment. Those moments should highlight our economic vision. We can’t afford high-profile events–on TV, TikTok, or elsewhere–that distract from the economy.

2. When debates are sanctioned, be thoughtful about the qualifying criteria. Organizers should avoid creating perverse incentives that push candidates to cater to an activist base in ways that will excite a primary audience but alienate the swing voters we’ll need to win the general election.

3. Don’t publicly box candidates into unpopular positions. Third Way, a mainstream Democrat-aligned think tank, has done a lot of research on this, and Democrats would be wise to weigh the risks and benefits before going down that path.

4. Don’t split the mainstream vote in the primary. It is hard to ask a candidate who has spent years of their life and sacrificed so much that it is time to throw in the towel. But, if too many mainstream contenders stay in the race, Democrats could end up with an outside the mainstream nominee winning with only a plurality of votes–just like Trump in the 2016 GOP primary. And while Trump went on to win the general election, that’s hardly a playbook Democrats should want to recreate.

The point is simple: how we run our primary will shape which Democrat emerges to carry our banner in 2028. If the process produces a nominee who hasn’t been tested on economic vision, on strength, and on values, we’ll be setting ourselves up to lose to Trumpism all over again.

Dukakis’s failure wasn’t just his—it was a system that never forced him to sharpen a simple, memorable economic message. We can’t afford to repeat that mistake. Because in 2028, the opponent won’t be Reagan. It will be Trumpism: darker, more divisive, and more corrosive. And if Democrats once again fail to inspire trust, we already know how this movie ends.

U2 is the greatest rock band of all time. But when I go to sleep on November 7, 2028, I hope The Joshua Tree is the only thing that reminds me of 1988.