The thing I'd seen, in the immediate aftermath of the '88 election, was an article by Tom Wicker of the NY Times, in which he posited that, had Dukakis run with Senator John Glenn of Ohio, (the former astronaut), he would have been strong enough in the mid-western industrial belt to get the Electoral College.
One other thing that seemed a strong point for Glenn, was that Jesse Jackson, who came in second in the Democratic primaries that year, had indicated the Glenn would have been his own preference for a veep if he'd gotten the nomination himself.
The latter might have indicated that Jackson would have worked a little harder for the ticket (assuming he hadn't given it his best).
Another couple of things on this: on election night, both Pennsylvania and Illinois, together, in those days, about 50 Electoral votes, were "flashing" in the NBC-TV news coverage. That was an indicator they were both too close to call.
Close, as well, were Maryland, (a state that, on balance, does seem "made" for a Dukakis/Bentsen ticket!), New Mexico, California and Vermont.
I recall at one time, adding all those up, were Dukakis have asked for recounts. It was over 200 Electoral votes, but one problem was that Bentsen is alleged by some, to have made his concession speech too soon.
Western Michigan, Missouri and Ohio still had voters in line, as did California and New Mexico, at the point Bentsen conceded.
It isn't clear, though, that the result in Ohio would have been different, and the margins in Michigan and New Mexico were also going to be very close had people not "given up" and gotten out of line to vote on Bentsen's concession (assuming they did).
One state that turned out to be interesting, was Texas, where Bentsen was running for Senator and Vice-President simultaneously. This awkward situation, could have led to some possible confusion in counting the ballots, but I could never put anything specific together.
In addition, the Florida Senate race between Connie Mack and Buddy McKay got very close--a possible harbinger of the cliffhanger 2000 Presidential election in Florida.
At the time, it didn't seem significant or hopeful that Vermont and another state, Montana, had gotten surprisingly close. It turned out, though, that Montana was carried by Clinton in 1992, apparently by a margin large enough to be able to factor out the Perot party (one of a handful of such states that time).
And, we've seen how Vermont had actually changed parties.
Anyway, where I'm trying to go here, is the idea:
1. That Bentsen DOESN'T concede, but rather takes a stance more similar to that of Edwards for Kerry in 2004--that "we'll wait another day, at least". Then, as those western Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, Texas, and California voters finish out their voting, their states go for the Democrats.
2. That Dukakis, decides to ask for some recounts in the close states of Maryland and Vermont, as the result of seeing the close results.
I recall adding up the Electoral votes. Could we have had an outcome similar to what was suggested in 2004--an Electoral only victory for the Democrat, Dukakis?
Ohio did seem a bit unlikely, even so, the margin was so large. And, at the time, I didn't have it on the list of "possibles" for Dukakis. But Michigan might have gone the other way, though it wasn't as closel as Illinois and Penn, both of which were close. Meanwhile, Missouri, too, may have gone the other way. It was close. Then, too, Texas seemed "vague" and possibly somehow recountable. I kept wondering, what that Florida Senate race, might have suggested about the Presidential ballots. But I dared not suggest it at the time.
The other possible scenario, would be that Dukakis did run with Glenn instead of Bentsen. In that case, perhaps Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvania would have been walkovers, with Illinois also in the Democratic column. But what of Maryland? I think Dukakis might actually have done better in Vermont and New Hampshire in that case.
But what of California and New Mexico? Would they have been as close?
So--it's hard to tell. The "what ifs" sometimes seem to be more about the issues as they were raised. It was an election in which the GOP got the middle class. They weren't persuaded that Dukakis was going to look after them, somehow.
If Dukakis had run with Glenn, he might still have had to do better on "law and order" issues, since Ohio and PA are "gun" states to some extent, probably more so then, even, than now.
By the same token, though, if he had come across as more "law and order" than he was able to do in the OTL, how much better might he have done with those middle class voters--and in the border or southern states?
GHW Bush still "harkened" back to Connecticut (his birthplace) and to his family's traditional ties to Kennebunkport in Maine, to pull him through those two in '88. But, he also "claimed" Texas--which could have become a bit more of a reach for him, with Bentsen not conceding early.
Actually, I think the best prospect for the Dems that year, was a different Presidential candidate. Paul Simon was one, with possibly a westerner. But, then again, the Dems were looking east and south, their traditional pattern, and it would be too far off base to think they'd have gone very far west.
There are some odds and ends about the South. For example, Tennessee was close in the 1984 election. I was surprised at how close it was. I think maybe that old "solid south" almost made it into 1984 in TN, except TN didn't usually go into the Democrat column in those days.
The other thing, would have been if the Dems had done more with Iran/Contra and run Nunn of Georgia for Veep with Dukakis. That might have had some effect, too.