The difference in the media landscape today has to have an impact, but I couldn't tell you what it might be. When the news doesn't favor one end of the political spectrum, they claim a media conspirancy; but when the news is good, they celebrate the diversity of modern media for allowing the "truth" to finally be told. It could just be that all the new media has made public opinion more volatile, but doesn't favor one side or the other, and thus doesn't really change the outcome. But I'm just guessing.

Nixon had his hard core of supporters, and those are the people who to this day insist that Nixon was framed by the Democrats. Nixon and the Republicans also developed the first draft of a technique of class warfare and resentment against an elite that they've almost perfected today. Version 1.0 consisted of their "Silent Majority", led by Preacher Agnew's endless ranting against the "Eastern Liberal Elites" who were the "nattering nabobs of negativism". The modern version can be seen in the careful cultivation of the so-called "Red-state/Blue-state" division, formed largely by harnessing social reactionaries through specific hotbutton issues like gay marriage and abortion, and labelling today's villain the "cultural elite".

But the thing is, those "resentment blocs" have proven to be fickle: Nixon's Silent Majority abandoned him when the truth about Watergate came out; and in the case of Bush, he may lose the social reactionaries if he either fails to deliver on enough of their agenda; or they become generally disillusioned and perhaps turn to more extreme demogogues like Pat Robertson.

I know I'm getting old when I can see historical parallels across three decades based on firsthand experience. But it really does seem like the more things change, the more they stay the same. I think I'll stipulate in my will that my epitaph should read "Been there, done that".