Sure enough. See Real Clear Politics on the election:
This was the equivalent of The Alamo for the mainstream media. CBS News and the New York Times, and to a lesser extent their colleagues at the other major networks and newspapers, exhausted themselves in a near-pathological desire to remove George W. Bush from office. They know the days of the liberal elites in New York and Washington setting the news agenda for the American people are coming to an end. Which is why they fought so hard to eliminate President Bush and restore a Democrat to the White House.
The Democratic Party and its allies were no less aggressive. George Soros and his billions, the 527’s and their millions, Michael Moore and his propaganda “documentary” – all were thrown at this president in the most comprehensive, coordinated attack ever marshaled to defeat a sitting president.
The Democratic Party registered more voters than ever before, got more people to the polls than any time in history, and far exceeded their numbers and goals. And at the end of the day, it was all for naught. George W. Bush steamrolled to a majority of the vote while picking up 4 critical Senate seats and expanding the GOP’s margin in the House.
This is why the Democrats are apoplectic and find themselves staring into the abyss. They know they gave it everything they had and it wasn’t enough to defeat the Bush Juggernaut. And they know they are left with an empty shell of a party that is unlikely to put together as focused and disciplined an effort any time soon.
So let’s be nice to our lefty friends, they’re in a lot of pain right now.
One thing I found perplexing about the article is that it mentions Presidential elections since 1888. WHat is the significance of 1888?
Anyway, it’s interesting to speculate: would Bush’s margin have been greater without the MoveOn and Michael Moore people? Or slimmer? Did they drive away as many people as they attracted, in other words?
In any case: many political scientists believe that 51% is the “perfect majority,” because it’s more solid and reliable than landslides. Landslide wins by one side are often followed in the next election by substantial losses for whoever got the landslide, because overwhelming majorities are inherently unstable.