Bush ran very well in suburbs across the country, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise that he did well in Maryland.
Yea, Bush's margins in the suburbs were stunning in many cases.
OTOH, he shat the bed in rural Areas. In many cases, by startling magnitudes. Got destroyed in eastern oklahoma, almost lost the dakotas and montana, lost cajun parts of louisiana, did putrid in down state illinois and sourthwest virginia, just to name a few.
Awesome---- I liked you cleverly crafted sarcastic response regarding the Dukakis performance in rural areas....
I would additionally add the extremely poor performance that Dukakis experienced in East Texas, SE Oklahoma, Northern Missouri, not to even mention rural parts of Oregon and Washington State. ;
But really, to the OPs question and your response regarding George HW's performance in suburban areas that was definitively the case. You had a ton of people that voted Reagan in '84 loving their "Bi-Partisan tax cuts". Bush Sr was perceived as a continuation of Reagan on economic issues, but less extreme on social and foreign policy.
Could Dukakis have won Maryland--- absolutely.
Was it the Whites in the 'burbs of DC, or a dramatic collapse in East Shore Maryland that caused the narrow loss? IDK.
Willie Horton may or may not have been the reason why Maryland went Republican in '88. It is important to note though, that as a state South of the Mason-Dixon line, George Wallace was able to bag almost 20% of the vote only a few decades back in '68, so there was an obvious ancestral "White Resentment vote" going back, many of whom were still alive and voting in Maryland in 1988.
