Reply With Quote
Bush may haunt the country for generations is more appropriate..
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...icans-for.html
Bush May Haunt Republicans for Generations
Gallup has some fascinating data out, based on more than 120,000 interviews they've completed over the past four months, on the way that partisan identification breaks down by age:
Democrats, somewhat unsurprisingly, have the largest partisan ID advantage among Gen Y'ers, followed by among Baby Boomers. Republicans do relatively well (although are still at a net disadvantage) among Generation X'ers.
What's interesting, though, is what happens when we look at not these abstract generational categories, but rather at the following question: who was President when you turned 18? As annotated in the chart below, the popularity -- or lack thereof -- of the President when the voter turned 18 would seem to have a lot of explanatory power for how their politics turned out later on:
It's become common knowledge that the younger generation is highly predisposed toward Democrats. (Actually, that's not quite right -- they're more predisposed against Republicans than they are toward Democrats -- but the net effects on their voting behavior are probably about the same.) What's more remarkable, though, is how sharp the increase in the partisan ID gap becomes at about age 25. People aged 26-34 are pretty Democratic, put people aged 18-25 are really Democratic.
The former group came of age in the Clinton Era. Clinton, in the public's mind, is usually regarded as an average-to-slightly-above-average President, and the voters who came of age during his Presidency are associated with an average-to-slightly-above degree of Democratic affiliation.
The 18-25 year olds, however, came of age in the George W. Bush Era. And Bush, at least the vast majority of us think, was not a good President. In fact, most of us would say, he was a really awful President. And the people who turned 18 during his tenure are associated with extremely low levels of Republican identification.
The reason this is a real worry for the Republicans is because you can still see the echo of past Presidencies on the partisan ID trends today. Popular presidents are associated with above-average levels of party support among the generation that came of age during their time in office, whereas unpopular Presidents are associated with below-average ones. Moving backward in time:
George H.W. Bush, a roughly average President who was generally quite popular until roughly the last 12 months of his tenure, is associated with a slightly above-average amount of Republican support.
Reagan, a highly successful President who was popular throughout most of his term and may be even more popular today, is associated with a considerably above-average amount of Republican support.
Carter, a mediocre-to-average President, is associated with slightly below-average levels of Democratic support.
Ford, a mediocre-to-average President, is associated with average or slightly below-average levels of Republican support.
Nixon, who was reasonably popular before the Watergate Scandal broke but who is generally regarded as a very poor President today, is associated with below-average levels of Republican support.
Johnson, whose complicated time in office is generally regarded today as having been an above-average Presidency, is associated with generally above-average levels of Democratic support.
Kennedy, who was very popular throughout his brief tenure in the White House, is associated with above-average levels of Democratic support. (You can almost see the e in popularity among 64- and 65- year olds, who would have been about 17 when Kennedy took office.)
Eisenhower, an popular and effective Republican president, is associated with significantly above-average levels of Republican support.
Finally, we get to Truman and Roosevelt, where things seem to break down a bit. Truman is regarded quite favorably by historians today but was unpopular for much of his tenure; he is associated with average-to-slightly-below levels of Democratic support. The numbers then bounce around a bit for FDR, perhaps because there aren't all that many people in their mid-80s and so the sample sizes are small.
In general, however, this points toward the idea that partisan identification -- while not exactly being "hard-wired" -- can be quite persistent as the voter moves through her lifecourse. Voters who came of age during the eight years of the Bush Presidency are roughly eight points more Democratic than the rest of the country; that advantage could be worth an extra point or two to Democrats throughout the next half-century.
----------
I don't necessarily agree with everything the article says, but it's quite an interesting read.
Bush may haunt the country for generations is more appropriate..
I would place a long term bet that history will prove you wrong.
There are several ways to conclude what the chart may mean. I have my own interpretation, but right now, I an tired. Got off work a little over an hour ago and need some sleep.
I'm pretty sure Democrats will find a way to screw it up. Obama can drag them kicking and screaming only so far.
I originally thought it might take a generation for the country to realize just how much George W. Bush saved their bacon over the past eight years. However, given the speed at which Barack Obama is running this country into the ground, economically and security-wise, I'd say it'll happen in about four years.
The next mid-term election will give us a clue.
dubya saved nobody's bacon. He wasted the bacon of 4000+ US military and 100s of 1000s of Iraqis and Afghanis. Still blaming dubya/ hhead/condi's willful negligence of terrorism for 8 months prior to 9/11 as 100% on Clinton? you betcha!9/11 is 100% on the Repugs. What about that bacon, Yoni?
Your barely intelligible post doesn't warrant a response. Have fun playing with yourself.
weak , Yoni. We know you can't think, now you admit you can't read.
I hope you're as good at prediction as you are at debating.
Yoni's not alone here. President Bush will be remembered better in history than the accounts of him are now.
Any long term betting pools?
He has failed us on border security and some social spending, but he has been a good wartime leader.
Laugh all you want. Be a fool in our futures history.
With you on his side, I probably don't need any allies against him.
Huge spending and 5k soldiers dead.
That's not really anything out of the ordinary for a President.
I'll remember him as the bid spending republican who put the ball on the T for the following administrations.
Best take ever, LockBeard.
I guess Yoni hopes that historyy doesn't show that Bush misled the country to rush into an unecessary war. Historians will judge if Iraq was the right choice at that time.
Yoni,
Since Clinton got a lot of the blame because all of the 9/11 planning happened under his watch I must ask a simple question. Will Bush carry the same blame if there is another attack that was planned during his 8 yrs?
The unecessary war he started in Iraq?
It's already started to happen.
Solid take, Profe.
I think history will demonstrate just how necessary was the war in Iraq.
You're right. History will say it was totally unneccessary. A complete waste of time and resources. While the United States is toppling Middle East dictators it's letting Mugabe, Charles Taylor, and Omar Al-Bashiri live in Africa.
A complete waste.
No ....... No one is ing about it now. Nothing has changed either. When will these pussies start ing about it to Obama? Let me guess, They won't!
Dude, how can you say "You're right" then completly say the opposite. ing weird.
I was agreeing that history will judge just how necessary the war in Iraq was. And I'm stating that history will say it was a complete waste of time, life, and money.
I ed plenty about Obama's vague, underresourced designs in Afghanistan. Where the were you, jack?
And our national interest in those places is....?
I am proud of you. Way to many don't and it's hypocritical.
This is essentially faith-based.
You like to handicap history. You do it often.
WC is also a big fan of this style. In the name of rational speculation, you get to be as pompously and outrageously wrong as possible, as often as possible. Silly amateur historians.
It's like fighting with a foam sword. If you're not doing it wrong, you're not doing it right.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
