Is George W. Bush still hurting the Republican Party (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 09:51:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Is George W. Bush still hurting the Republican Party (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Bush legacy hurting the Republicans?
#1
Yes, it still plays a big role
 
#2
No, the Republicans haven't nominated good candidates
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 88

Author Topic: Is George W. Bush still hurting the Republican Party  (Read 6660 times)
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


« on: January 25, 2015, 09:10:13 PM »

Honestly, I think that he's much less of a liability as he was in 2008, and that Barack Obama will be a liability forever, to some degree. His presidency is the reason we lost all the Blue Dogs in the South, as the election of a Black president was the final straw with Southern voters.

As for 2012, that's what happens when you run the craziest candidates you can find.
Yes to some degree the Blue Dogs lost of Obama being black but that is not the whole reason why the Blue Dogs lost in the South.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2015, 10:36:41 PM »

@Wolverine: I could argue that Bush is the final nail in the coffin for the Northeast, as the election of rural born-again hick pretty much got rid of what few Rockefeller Republicans there were...sure Toomey,Kirk, Johnson, Collins, and Ayotte exist...but four of them are likely dead politically in 2016 and Maine will probably be DEEP ATLAS RED for good once Collins retires

So don't cry about the South for the Dems, they have the Northeast and California to more than make that up.

As for Obama, he brought in Virginia and brought the coastal South that didn't even vote for Clinton back to competitiveness.


And anyway, Clinton was considered an scourge for a long time and personally very disregarded in spite of well received policies...sorta like Reagan...propped up by hindsight by  harsher ideologues, and one day so will Obama....if Christie or some GOP actually beats Clinton.




As for Carter, he's made a new name and like Truman, most of what he did is now considered quite sensible in the situation anyway.
Yes Kirk and Johnson will probably lose. Toomey and Ayotte can still win I think.

Don't think Maine is in the bag once Collins retires. They elected a Republican for ME-02.

Yes Obama brought you guys NC and VA but not SC and not even GA.

Yes people like Carter personally and they respect him more than they did say more than even a few years ago. I will go that far for Carter.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2015, 10:45:55 PM »

McCain probably lost in 2008 because Obama was a fresh breathe of change away from the Bush administration.

Is Bush still to blame for the Republican party's troubles? Or is it the wackiness of the tea party?

Both.
More so the latter than the former at this point.

Most definitely.  I feel as if the Democrats will start talking about GWB a lot more in order to rev-up minority/Millennial turnout in 2016, especially if Jeb is the nominee.

George W. Bush made me leave the GOP. The Tea Party ensured that I would never come back.
The Tea Party was a fad. Its not that popular anymore.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2015, 09:42:01 PM »

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.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2015, 09:44:11 PM »

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.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2015, 09:56:01 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 14 queries.