Stirling makes an excellent point over at The Blogging of the President: 2004:
“As the facts later showed, there were half a dozen scams to shave off votes from Gore – no one of which was enough to scew the election by itself, but taken together they were. The media put their thumb on the scales in favor of tax breaks and consolidation, we therefore got Bush. The political system fell into line, we therefore got a strong unilateral control of power. The legitimacy doves said ‘tie election! tie election!’. But in a tie election one would get a government of national unity, a group that governed from the center by consensus. The other theory – the unspeakable one that the election had been stolen – predicted a government from the extreme. Which theory has turned out to be more predictive of Bush and his government? The tie election theory, or the election theft theory?”
An excellent point. If it were a CLOSE election, we would have gotten a government of unity, governing from the center. But no, we got a far-right extremist government, governing by decree, excluding the Democrats from participating in legislation, using government agencies to consolidate their power, and launching attacks on the opposition.