Instead of pontificating about it, let's examine some actual election results. The last time any party won in a landslide was the Republicans in 1994. And they supported abolishing not only the NEA, but also 4 cabinet departments. They got about 55% of the vote.
The Contract with America was all but given a pass by the media in 1994. Because of that many in the mushy middle joined conservatives in voting for it.
Well then, the R Congress gets elected in '94 and along comes the media in '95 with its constant barrage against Newt and the Contract and by the end of '95 the mushy middle ended it's support of decreased government spending as they believed the propaganda that children and god-knows-what would be tossed in the streets by the mean R's. The mushy middle was scared off by the media in '95 and the election of '94 was just the absence of this -- all to the benefit of the Clintons.
In 2000 -- the last presidential vote -- Al Gore and Ralph Nader received a majority of the vote. It is my guess that these voters can't get enough of government spending.
I blame them!
I'd hardly call that an edorsement of big gov't.
The two people that I know who cast a ballot for Gore, described it as "voting against Bush" instead of for Gore.
And most of the people I know that voted for Bush were voting against Gore.
Some of us that voted for Bush, actually voted "for" him because we were nieve enough to believe his lies about wanting less gov't and not engaging in nation building.
There simply wasn't much enthusiam for either candidate, and I expect it will be the same in 2004.