I'm with you on that. If you reread the posts in question, you'll see the obvious attempts to undermine Reagan's election legacy.
The 2004 GOP gains in the House and Senate were small, but significant. But Bush didn't make the GOP the majority party. Newt Gingrich accomplished that feat in 1994, when he advanced the Contract With America and took control of the House for the first time in 40 years.
When Reagan was elected in 1980 and reelected in 1984, his two landslide victories gave him a mandate and translated into GOP control of the Senate for the first time in almost 30 years. That GOP Senate majority lasted the next six years (1981-1986). The GOP also increased its House seats in 1981, from 158 to 194. A huge 34 seat pickup thanks to Reagan coattails. Substantial for sure and a glimpse of things to come. When you toss into that mix, southern conservative House Democrats who sided with Reagan, it gave the President the majority he needed to pass his economic reform and recovery plan that included the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Tax Reform Act of 1986, his efforts at starting to rebuild the military and to cut discretionary spending during his first three years in office.
>>>>I have no desire to argue which man is "better", I will not be drawn into that frivolous argument.
IMO, it's not frivolous to debate the facts. I'll defend Reagan's record against the revisionists, all day long. And proud to do so.
the numbers add up to both a resounding victory for W but also indicate that there are a ton of numb nuts that were swayed by all the MSM and other lib cards stacked up against W. It's frightening to think if the Dems put up a candidate with any common appeal(who wasn't a complete lurch like jerk with a jerk for a wife to top it off), they could have won. Fortunately, ther are no Dems who fit the bill that their disease minded core base would accept.