Will they remember?

[Nym90]

True, tactics would have been different and thus no one knows what the result would have been, but having looked at Dave's statistics for 2000 showing voter turnout in each state, I fail to see conclusive evidence that a higher turnout would have benefited Bush and that the GOP vote was disproportionately depressed in solid Republican states versus solid Democratic states.
Turnout in the largest states is the most important to look at here. Turnout in California and New York were both below the national average, at 45% and 48%, and in other large Democratic states, Illinois and Pennsylvania, turnout was only slightly above average at 52%. In the largest Republican state, Texas, turnout was low at 43%, but it was higher in Ohio at 56%. Turnout in Florida, despite the fact that everyone knew going in that it would potentially be a decisive state, was only 48%, so the idea that turnout is higher in swing states, while definitely a logical theory, is actually often not true. Likewise, New York, in which you were probably assuming that turnout might have been high due to Hillary's Senate run, also only had a 48% turnout. So the presence of interesting races farther down the ballot is no such guarantee either.
It's true that turnout was fairly low in most of the South, in which Bush did well, but I doubt that a higher turnout here would have benefited Bush. White voters are more likely to vote than blacks, and thus a higher turnout in these states would have been more likely to benefit Democrats. Hispanics likewise tend to have low voting rates, and they also favor Democrats more so than Republicans; this was probably one of the main reasons why California and Texas had low turnouts, and thus higher turnouts there might have benefited Democrats more.
Overall, higher turnout usually benefits Democrats, and strategists from both parties readily admit this.

[Nym90]

Much of the 70's music was pretty good. Led Zeppelin, the Who, the Eagles, Elton John, just to name a few off the top of my head.
Otherwise I agree that the economy was not that good in the 70's, though there were many external factors outside of the control of the Presidents during that era. Also, the economy boomed in the 90's and this was largely due to Clinton's economic policies (though again as always external factors played a role).

[Nym90]

Socially, I would somewhat agree, although Clinton did stop the more extreme portions of the Contract with America with his veto pen. Economically, the Clinton policies were just starting to take effect in late 1993, and the budget surpluses under Clinton weren't produced until 1998. The Republicans didn't start cutting taxes for the wealthy until Bush got into office.

[Nym90]

I agree that school uniforms were a bad idea. Indeed, Clinton did go more towards the middle after the GOP took control of Congress. I didn't agree with some of what he said either at that time (ie welfare reform). However, I think Clinton realized the political reality of the situation was that he had to at least attempt to work with the Republican Congress rather than being completely obstructionist. Certainly it can be debated as to whether or not this was good tactics, but it did help him win reelection in 1996 along with his economic record.