Poll re: George W. Bush and Republican Presidential Chances

[Non Swing Voter]

George W. Bush trumpeted anti-gay sentiment and other socially conservative causes (not to mention the idiotic Iraq War based on lies) that appealed to seniors at the time, allowing him to carve out one narrow popular vote victory despite being a complete loser of a human being.  That said, did this strategy maybe help the GOP for a few cycles but doom them long term based on seniors dying off and changing demographics?  By long term, I mean 2008-2028.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Didn't Bush do better with the middle-aged than seniors?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No; Bill Clinton did.

That being said, Bush certainly didn't help matters, discrediting neocons in the eyes of the public and leading the GOP leadership to move so far to the right that we very well may NOT win another presidential election any time soon.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

John McCain had he gotton elected in 2000 with the Ronald Reagan, TR compassionate conservatism would have been much more of difficult GOPer to beat in 2004 and he would have conducted the war in Iraq better than Bush. 2008 was the Democrats turn. But 2006 he might have held onto the House and a GOPer might have stood a better shot in 2012.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

For 2008, yes.
However, the Republican Party since has gone very far right, so it's now the party's fault.

[Mechaman]

This thread is so full of misinformation.  George W Bush was a patriotic American and a great president.  He knew the values that made this country great and would never succumb as low as our current crack addict in chief has.

I wish everyday that Bush was still in office, so we could finally stick it to the Islamofascists who have as their sole mission to destroy America.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Americans are too stupid and have too short a memory for that.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-blame-bush-era-may-be-at-an-end/

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He fulfilled his father's legacy. But, Dick Cheney was the one and Scotter Libby that cost the GOP the House in 2006.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Americans are too stupid and have too short a memory for that.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-blame-bush-era-may-be-at-an-end/

So, Americans are dumb because they're no longer blaming Bush for everything six years into Obama's Presidency?  Got it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Americans are too stupid and have too short a memory for that.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-blame-bush-era-may-be-at-an-end/

So, Americans are dumb because they're no longer blaming Bush for everything six years into Obama's Presidency?  Got it.

Regardless, his favorable rating is way too high.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It took FDR 12 years or 3 terms to pull us out of Hoover Depression. Voters may give Obama and Hillary 3 terms to  recover from the Dubya recession that the Dems aren't responsible for. But it was Dem policies like TARP Dubya used to recover the economy.

[Never]

At best, it seems like a party can only hold the White House for three terms in a row, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, like how WWII and the onset of the Cold War allowed America to rally around Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

Anyhow, I felt that the premise of this thread was flawed. While the conventional wisdom was that George W. Bush was a terrible president when he left office, judgment of his time in office is more muted now. When we look back on his presidency after we've had a few more presidents, I believe that Bush 43 will be viewed as a slightly below average president with good intentions who adequately handled the hand he was dealt, similar to how Americans now view Truman. Sure, the War on Terror wasn't admirably executed, but I don't think it was any worse than the Korean War. Also, the economy was fine under Bush's leadership until the last year or two. Considering all of this, I don't think that George W. Bush ruined the chances of future Republican presidential candidates.

[SPC]

At best, it seems like a party can only hold the White House for three terms in a row, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, like how WWII and the onset of the Cold War allowed America to rally around Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

For the time period you are referring to, the only test of this theory has been the 1992 election, in which economic problems and populist candidacies were major factors. A change of ~2% of the vote would have added 1964, 1972, 1980, and 2004 to the sample so that one could reach stronger conclusions regarding the viability of a party seeking a fourth term in office. I don't think its fair to assume that some "fatigue" force prevents a party from winning more than three terms in office when four of the last five opportunities to test this hypothesis essentially were a coin toss away from occuring.

[RR1997]

I bet most voters barely remember the Bush Presidency.

[Mordecai]

At best, it seems like a party can only hold the White House for three terms in a row, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, like how WWII and the onset of the Cold War allowed America to rally around Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

Anyhow, I felt that the premise of this thread was flawed. While the conventional wisdom was that George W. Bush was a terrible president when he left office, judgment of his time in office is more muted now. When we look back on his presidency after we've had a few more presidents, I believe that Bush 43 will be viewed as a slightly below average president with good intentions who adequately handled the hand he was dealt, similar to how Americans now view Truman. Sure, the War on Terror wasn't admirably executed, but I don't think it was any worse than the Korean War. Also, the economy was fine under Bush's leadership until the last year or two. Considering all of this, I don't think that George W. Bush ruined the chances of future Republican presidential candidates.

He will probably be vindicated for the invasion of Iraq and that's probably the only one I can think of that would be reasonable. Contrary to what a lot of people on the left say, it was not the worst foreign policy decision ever and did (eventually) yield a favorable outcome. However, they are right when they say that the administration exaggerated the evidence in the case to invade, preferring to fear-monger based on Saddam having a nuclear weapon in a few years instead of making a reasoned, cogent case, and they were totally unprepared for the long-term nation building process.

Bush really was a crummy President who was an extremely poor judge of character, didn't have a good handle on foreign policy and was too comfortable in having a loose management style. True, he got dealt a bad hand in terms of 9/11, but he was also really incompetent and had some real awful scandals in his administration.

[Person Man]

At best, it seems like a party can only hold the White House for three terms in a row, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, like how WWII and the onset of the Cold War allowed America to rally around Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

Anyhow, I felt that the premise of this thread was flawed. While the conventional wisdom was that George W. Bush was a terrible president when he left office, judgment of his time in office is more muted now. When we look back on his presidency after we've had a few more presidents, I believe that Bush 43 will be viewed as a slightly below average president with good intentions who adequately handled the hand he was dealt, similar to how Americans now view Truman. Sure, the War on Terror wasn't admirably executed, but I don't think it was any worse than the Korean War. Also, the economy was fine under Bush's leadership until the last year or two. Considering all of this, I don't think that George W. Bush ruined the chances of future Republican presidential candidates.

He will probably be vindicated for the invasion of Iraq and that's probably the only one I can think of that would be reasonable. Contrary to what a lot of people on the left say, it was not the worst foreign policy decision ever and did (eventually) yield a favorable outcome. However, they are right when they say that the administration exaggerated the evidence in the case to invade, preferring to fear-monger based on Saddam having a nuclear weapon in a few years instead of making a reasoned, cogent case, and they were totally unprepared for the long-term nation building process.

Bush really was a crummy President who was an extremely poor judge of character, didn't have a good handle on foreign policy and was too comfortable in having a loose management style. True, he got dealt a bad hand in terms of 9/11, but he was also really incompetent and had some real awful scandals in his administration.

I would go further to say that his economic stewardship between 9/11 and Lehman brothers was average at best. The economy struggled between 2002 and 2005 and we had like two good years, 2006 and 2007 and then you know what happened.

Was he the worst president? Probably not. He wasn't terrible, but he was a poor president.

[Never]

At best, it seems like a party can only hold the White House for three terms in a row, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, like how WWII and the onset of the Cold War allowed America to rally around Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

Anyhow, I felt that the premise of this thread was flawed. While the conventional wisdom was that George W. Bush was a terrible president when he left office, judgment of his time in office is more muted now. When we look back on his presidency after we've had a few more presidents, I believe that Bush 43 will be viewed as a slightly below average president with good intentions who adequately handled the hand he was dealt, similar to how Americans now view Truman. Sure, the War on Terror wasn't admirably executed, but I don't think it was any worse than the Korean War. Also, the economy was fine under Bush's leadership until the last year or two. Considering all of this, I don't think that George W. Bush ruined the chances of future Republican presidential candidates.

He will probably be vindicated for the invasion of Iraq and that's probably the only one I can think of that would be reasonable. Contrary to what a lot of people on the left say, it was not the worst foreign policy decision ever and did (eventually) yield a favorable outcome. However, they are right when they say that the administration exaggerated the evidence in the case to invade, preferring to fear-monger based on Saddam having a nuclear weapon in a few years instead of making a reasoned, cogent case, and they were totally unprepared for the long-term nation building process.

Bush really was a crummy President who was an extremely poor judge of character, didn't have a good handle on foreign policy and was too comfortable in having a loose management style. True, he got dealt a bad hand in terms of 9/11, but he was also really incompetent and had some real awful scandals in his administration.

I would go further to say that his economic stewardship between 9/11 and Lehman brothers was average at best. The economy struggled between 2002 and 2005 and we had like two good years, 2006 and 2007 and then you know what happened.

Was he the worst president? Probably not. He wasn't terrible, but he was a poor president.

I think you make a very good point about the economy under Bush. It was really a mixed bag. If we gave presidents grades, I would give GWB a "C" on the economy.

He would probably be viewed as being an okay president if the War on Terror hadn't happened, but it's not like he would ever win a third term if that were possible.

[Person Man]

He would have lost the House and never retaken the Senate if 911 hadn't happened. He may or may not of won reelection.