[Meldrim]

"Not even Ronald Reagan managed to win the kind of deep and broad electoral victory that George W. Bush did on Nov. 2."

Apples and oranges. Reagan carried 49 states. The realignment of the South had not happened, though Reagan did much to move it along. Bush was fortunate he was not running against a more capable candidate.

[My2Cents]

Frankly, Bush reaped the fruits of Reagan's political successes. Had there been no Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party would still be a mish-mash of "moderates," and the congress and White House would be in the hands of the Democrats. But we have to give Bush credit -- his efforts and victories in the mid-term election of '02, and his own victory together with solidifying the majorities in both houses of Congress, are historical. But without Reagan's political legacy, we wouldn't be talking about "historic" gains.

[GMMAC]

On the other hand, Ronald Reagan was fortunate in 1980 both that he was running against the most inept and disingenuous American President in at least a century (if not of all time!) and that, by comparison, the liberal media kept the gloves on.
But, hey, "the Gipper" and "W" - God Bless 'em both!

[NilesJo]

Apples and oranges. Reagan carried 49 states. [] Bush was fortunate he was not running against a more capable candidate.

Oh, I guess you mean like....Jimmy Carter!...LOL