Reagan's popularity (which had come back strong from its late 1986/early 1987 lows from Iran Contra), a perceived strong economy, and Bush's no new taxes pledge were undoubtedly effective for Bush's eventual victory. Plus, the Kitty Dukakis issues in the second debate hurt Dukakis badly. After the second debate, Dukakis was behind by 17 points (a big 34 point swing in just a matter of a few months) and was expected to win only about 30-35 electoral votes.
To his credit, Dukakis realized by then that he was way behind, and he focused on the "Inside Straight" of 17-18 states to pick up the electoral victory. It wasn't close, but he closed the overall margin considerably by Election Day. Dukakis did pick up parts of the country to create the blueprint that Bill Clinton capitalized on in 1992. And the Democrats held both the House and Senate throughout Bush's term in office.
It hardly says much that they kept the House during the Bush years; that's like saying Phil Murphy and the NJ Democrats are great for keeping a trifecta in NJ. The Democrats had a lock on the House from 1955-1995 that even 1980 and other red waves couldn't break. If Democrats somehow lost the House because of Dukakis, I think he would be hated by most Democrats. It has very little to do with Dukakis at all, in fact, that Democrats kept the House - more to do with the aforementioned lock on the House, and the fact that Bush wasn't that popular (except right after Desert Storm, which unfortunately for him did not occur in late October 1990 or late October 1992). It actually speaks more to Bush being not that strong, in which case the question is why Dukakis lost (although this would be a big misconception, since the House was Safe D because of the aforementioned lock, and the fact that Bush was actually quite strong).
Poll
