Is George W. Bush still hurting the Republican Party

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Not at all.

[Brittain33]

At this point the Republicans own their own image and policies. To the extent that they're still fighting a culture war about SSM that played well for Bush in 2004 but plays poorly now, that's their own fault, but I think that's a pretty minor trend these days.

[TNF]

In the sense that the GOP has been thoroughly discredited as a governing party? Only partially. The other half of that equation stems from the conduct of the House of Representatives post 2011.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Who?

[porky88]

He is to the Republicans in the 2010s what Jimmy Carter was to the Democrats in the 1980s.

[Mister Mets]

He's not as bad as Carter was to Democrats, just because the losses haven't been as embarrassing.

But it would be much better for Republicans if he had a better reputation. A strength of the Democrats is that Clinton and Obama will be strong surrogates for decades to come. Bush isn't that for Republicans. Nor is he a strong model of governance.

He allows Democrats to point to policy failures on the financial crisis and the Middle East, which surely persuades new voters now.

In his defense, he hasn't really hurt Republicans with any individual voting bloc.

[Ebowed]

In his defense, he hasn't really hurt Republicans with any individual voting bloc.

Muslims, Asian Americans.

[All Along The Watchtower]

No. I hear almost nothing about George W. Bush these days (other than that bizarre painting hobby) from any quarter. Since January 20, 2009, Republicans have decided that simply pretending that the years 2001-2009 didn't happen is a winning political strategy. And from the looks of their gains in the House and Senate, they may be on to something there.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I grew up under Clinton and came of age under Bush.  He still reminds me of why I'll never be a Republican.  And I was one until mid 2003.

[anvi]

Sadly, no.  His presidency should though; his foreign policy decisions were calamitous, but they're still defended in Pub circles.  Anyway, I don't think he hurts the party.  But his legacy might not help Jeb very much.

[Orser67]

I think Bush still has some effect, inasmuch as his presidency undermines the argument that a Republican president would be better than a Democratic one.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

At the presidential level, probably somewhat. A significant segment of the electorate can't  even remember a Republican president not named Bush (even if they were technically alive for one), and it's the less-regarded one who was more recent. I don't think he was the decisive factor in 2012 though.

Could he blamed for losses below the presidential level after 2008? Maybe only in the sense that the Tea Party arose in part as a rebellion against Dubya's "big government conservatism."

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

His disastrous Presidency has led voters to believe that Republicans can't be trusted in foreign policy.

[Devils30]

His legacy will matter much less if the GOP nominates Walker, Rubio, Paul but will cause major problems for the party if Jeb is nominee. The GOP donors will freak out in June 2016 when polls show Clinton up 8 points in Ohio and 9 in Virginia. W may have a better image when out of office but Democratic groups will run ads discussing Iraq, Katrina and the Great Recession. In the face of a better economy voters may decide that the Bush presidency doesn't need a sequel.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No. I hear almost nothing about George W. Bush these days (other than that bizarre painting hobby) from any quarter. Since January 20, 2009, Republicans have decided that simply pretending that the years 2001-2009 didn't happen is a winning political strategy. And from the looks of their gains in the House and Senate, they may be on to something there.

That's because Democrats are generally lacking in political skills.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No. I hear almost nothing about George W. Bush these days (other than that bizarre painting hobby) from any quarter. Since January 20, 2009, Republicans have decided that simply pretending that the years 2001-2009 didn't happen is a winning political strategy. And from the looks of their gains in the House and Senate, they may be on to something there.

That's because Democrats are generally lacking in political skills.

The party in power tend to lose seats in midterm elections, and most of the seats that were lost were in the states that were G O P anyways, and the retirements in SD, Mnt, and WVA, were on the Democratic side this time.

In 2012 and 2016, where the states are more favorable for the Dems, and we are expected to do fairly well, and despite the realignment of the south in 2010 and 2014, we have kept the presidency, for 16 years.

His policies hurt John McCain, but that isnt the case anymore, but his legacy, last name will of course come off of Jeb's chances either in the G O P primary or general.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

No, but only because they've managed to effectively unperson him up to now.

[hopper]

In his defense, he hasn't really hurt Republicans with any individual voting bloc.

Muslims, Asian Americans.

Asians-No you can't blame Bush W. for that. Even McCain in the horrible Republican Year of 2008 got 35% of the Asian Vote.

Muslims-I don't know about that.

[hopper]

No. I hear almost nothing about George W. Bush these days (other than that bizarre painting hobby) from any quarter. Since January 20, 2009, Republicans have decided that simply pretending that the years 2001-2009 didn't happen is a winning political strategy. And from the looks of their gains in the House and Senate, they may be on to something there.

That's because Democrats are generally lacking in political skills.

Well Obama isn't(lacking in political skills) that's for sure.

[Rockefeller GOP]

In his defense, he hasn't really hurt Republicans with any individual voting bloc.

Muslims, Asian Americans.

How?

[hopper]

His legacy will matter much less if the GOP nominates Walker, Rubio, Paul but will cause major problems for the party if Jeb is nominee. The GOP donors will freak out in June 2016 when polls show Clinton up 8 points in Ohio and 9 in Virginia. W may have a better image when out of office but Democratic groups will run ads discussing Iraq, Katrina and the Great Recession. In the face of a better economy voters may decide that the Bush presidency doesn't need a sequel.

Well ok if Jeb is the nominee Bush W.'s tenure as President will come up no doubt.

Good point that Dems will run ads on Iraq and Katrina. The Great Recession had more to do with Bush W. himself(it was bipartisan) though although he does deserve the majority of the blame because he was President at the time of the recession tool place.

[Suburbia]

No, the GOP haven't nominated good candidates. If Jeb is the GOP nominee, then GWB will be back in the headlines.

[dmmidmi]

By trying to convince the general populous that Jeb Bush is an acceptable candidate for the Presidency, it's hard to make the argument that George Bush is harming the party. The party is doing this to themselves.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

By trying to convince the general populous that Jeb Bush is an acceptable candidate for the Presidency, it's hard to make the argument that George Bush is harming the party. The party is doing this to themselves.

While Dems have steered cleared of ethics, whether it is Walker with pension reform and teachers, or Christie with Bridgegate, it just reminds people of Halliburton and common core, concerning Jeb.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Let's compare. At the 2016 national conventions...

The Democrats will have:
1. Barack Obama, an outgoing president who is very popular with his own party.
2. Bill Clinton, a former president who is very popular with his party and with a number of non-Democrats.
3. Jimmy Carter, a former president who was rather mediocre but is somewhat well-regarded as a humanitarian/elder statesman figure.

The Republicans will have:
1. George W. Bush, a former president who is unpopular with much of his party and with most non-Republicans, to the point that he was not welcome at the 2008 and 2012 conventions and probably won't attend the 2016 convention either.
2. George H. W. Bush, a former president whose ideology is so divorced from the modern GOP that it's hard to see him feeling welcome to play an active role in the party without some sort of time machine. And even if he wanted to, he's too feeble and unhealthy at this point to be involved.

Pretty sure the Republicans win on this count, since Democrats have Carter. Without him, your point would be much stronger.

Very few people take particular pride or great joy in Carter's record as president, but he's really not reviled any more except by you.