I could care less about the popular vote, other than it silenced the Dems ability to steal the election.
Reagan set records by achieving an electoral landslide. It was impressive and set records.
Bush set records by triumphing over fraudulent stories by MSM (Rather/CBS) and collaboration of the U.N with the NYT's (ammo dump). He did so not only by winning, but by making this the second election he has carried Reps to victory in House and Senate.
Both have proud records historical in nature.
It would be dishonest to deny either achievement by either man.
That's ridiculous. Bush triumphed over adversity, but he set no records in doing so. Besides, the MSM, CBS, the UN and the NYTimes were all against Reagan too and considered him the enemy. Yet Reagan won in two landslide victories and changed the course of the GOP and of America itself.
There's a difference between the re-election of Reagan and that of Bush. Reagan won because people voted for Reagan, in an era of LM control. Bush won because many voted against sKerry in an era where the LM went all out for the Dem and were upset by some guys sailing by on a fifty foot patrol craft. And don't forget FR. Don't forget the 'blogs', or talk-radio, almost everywhere MOR or conservative. You need to give the credit where it's due. Otherwise, Bush tried to lose the campaign. He seemed immature in the debates, though he clobbered Kerry on the answers, and substance. He talked about 'gay partnerships' just weeks before 'gay marriage' was voted down on eleven separate ballots. Ann Coulter sarcastically called Karl Rove, the 'boy genius'. Bush refers to him admiringly as, the 'architect', shades of the masonic adoration of the great 'architect'. Despite his own efforts, Bush was swept in by 'values voters' who did admire his otherwise consistent pre-election stance, and his performance as CinC as particularly contrasted with Kerry's clear incapacity to lead in that role.