Reagan's death

[© Tweed the Younger]

Curious

[agcatter]

no difference

[Storebought]

No difference. Most voters can't remember last month, let alone 20 years.

[agcatter]

.....or even last night.

[NHPolitico]

It might boost his support among GOP voters back solidly in the 90s.

[emergingDmajority1]

5 months from now this will be ancient history

I've read both Kerry and Bush's response to his death, Kerry statement is better. I'm surprised Bush's speech writers couldn't come up with something a bit "deeper"

[KEmperor]

It will provide a slight Republican boost for the next month or so, but it will have virtually no impact by November.

[Josh/Devilman88]

help a little, for a while but then die off.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If Bush makes a great speech at the funeral, it could be a small boost.  But Reagan's death could also hurt Bush because of the contrast created by true greatness.

[muon2]

The best it can do is mask Iraq from the news while coverage is focussed on Reagan. Given that the handover is in 3 weeks, that may well be beneficial to Bush.

[classical liberal]

...Reagan's death could also hurt Bush because of the contrast created by true greatness.

Reagan's death will hurt Bush because of the contrast created by true greatness.

[agcatter]

It won't help or hurt.  The damned election is FIVE MONTHS AWAY

[zachman]

...Reagan's death could also hurt Bush because of the contrast created by true greatness.

Reagan's death will hurt Bush because of the contrast created by true greatness.

You might be right. When the news reports say he could get along with Tip O'Neil and America would forget its disputes at 6 o'clock, people will wish we had that now, and Bush is a symbol of our current status quo.

[WalterMitty]

...Reagan's death could also hurt Bush because of the contrast created by true greatness.

Reagan's death will hurt Bush because of the contrast created by true greatness.

interesting that you are such a reagan fan, nut, seeing as how you are such an opponent of government spending.

yes, reagan had a lot good points, but limiting federal spending wasnt one of them.

[Smash255]

I doubt it will have an impact.   One thing that could wind up hurting Bush however is if Nancy Reagan starts talking more about the whole stem cell research issue, but even if that happens I doubt it will have any impact on the election even if its real close

[MAS117]

only boss would make a poll like this...let the man rest in peace...

[Lunar]

It's a political site.  We did already have a thread like this on one of the other boards though.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

only boss would make a poll like this...let the man rest in peace...

America misses Ronald Reagan very much.  Comparisons to our current leaders are unavoidable.  He was a father figure, and much more.  

[Sibboleth]

No effect. Might boost turnout but that's about it really.

[millwx]

yes, reagan had a lot good points, but limiting federal spending wasnt one of them.

Actually, while spending did go up, Reagan did better than most.   Here are the numbers for the past several Presidencies:

Discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP (NOT using percentages is the mistake most people make):

Under LBJ: 20.3% increase
Under Nixon: 27.2% decrease
Under Ford: 2.0% increase
Under Carter: No change
Under Reagan: 7.9% decrease
Under GWH Bush: 7.5% decrease
Under Clinton: 26.7% decrease
Under GW Bush: 20.6% increase

Many believe defense should be left out of this, likewise international discretionary outlays.  So, here's the same list for domestic discretionary outlays:

Under LBJ: 20.0% increase
Under Nixon: 2.8% increase
Under Ford: 21.6% increase
Under Carter: 4.4% increase
Under Reagan: 34.0% decrease
Under GWH Bush: 9.7% increase
Under Clinton: 8.8% decrease
Under GW Bush: 16.1% increase

These two lists are very bi-partisan.  Two presidents, one from each party, were clearly the best at controlling spending.  Ditto for the worst.

The two best: Reagan and Clinton
The two worst: LBJ and our illustrious current president GW Bush

Yes, Reagan increased spending dramatically, but his policies expanded the GDP greatly as well... providing more money to spend.  Relative to GDP, he and his administration did an excellent job controlling spending.  So, why the huge deficits?  Non-discretionary spending, not as much under the president's control (this is why most examine discretionary spending to judge a president's spending), increased dramatically.  I'm not saying he was perfect; clearly, he could have done something about those deficits.  But, he gets a bad rap on the spending issue.  In the past four decades Reagan and Clinton have done the best job controlling spending.  LBJ and GW Bush have been disastrous in terms of controlling spending.

[Sibboleth]

LBJ raised spending a lot because of the Great Society thing (as well as the War on Poverty, Civil Rights and so on).

[classical liberal]

That doesn't excuse him for raising spending without raising the GDP to counter the change.

[millwx]

That doesn't excuse him for raising spending without raising the GDP to counter the change.

I was going to counter similarly, but it's really beside the point.  Frankly, I wasn't a big fan of the Reagan policies - I'm somewhat of a deficit hawk.  But that is neither here nor there.  I'm not arguing policies or reasons.  I'm just looking at the bottom line... "spending" as defined by the standard yardstick "non-defense discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP".  With this bottom line, any criticism of Reagan's overspending is unfounded (yes, there are other "yardsticks" that may show otherwise... I'm not arguing this... I'm merely looking at a standard guideline since 1962).  Using this yardstick, Reagan and Clinton did a phenomenal job controlling spending.  LBJ and GW Bush were (are) horrendous.  This is not a matter of politics or partisanship... each party has someone to gloat and someone to be ashamed of... just bottom line facts.  And my original point was, based on this data, Reagan should not be criticized for spending.

[opebo]

It will help Bush.

[The Vorlon]

The best it can do is mask Iraq from the news while coverage is focussed on Reagan. Given that the handover is in 3 weeks, that may well be beneficial to Bush.

The atom smasher from Batavia hits it on the nose.