Interestingly, Cuomo came out ahead in the poll with almost 21%. I do agree that Cuomo could've been a strong candidate - a forceful personality who could speak both to liberals and values voters, and an economic populist who championed the everyday American, Cuomo would be well equipped to take the fight to Bush. His background would've been a valuable asset, with his family's immigrant story contrasting well with the aristocratic Bush.
But as others have pointed out, Cuomo's position on the death penalty would be difficult to defend and Reagan was a popular President in 1988. Bush would be able to boast of a strong economy, while he'd still be vulnerable on Iran-Contra and his choice of Dan Quayle. If Cuomo runs a strong campaign that does everything Dukakis didn't, he could've won - albeit
very narrowly. Here are two maps that depict a Cuomo victory:
The first is a nation-wide 4% swing from Republicans to Democrats. Cuomo wins with 280 electoral votes to Bush's 258. In the popular vote he barely comes out on top with 49.6% to Bush's 49.4%. I myself question these results because although Cuomo loses Ohio and New Jersey he wins Montana and South Dakota:
The second map is similar to the first, but in my opinion more realistic: Cuomo wins with 307 electoral votes to Bush's 231. Unlike the first map he wins Ohio, New Jersey, and Delaware but loses Montana, South Dakota, and Colorado.
Which map do you folks find more realistic?