Posted on 03/25/2007 10:13:50 AM PDT by My GOP
This is an excellent, must read article. It is fairly long so I just posted the link.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/452layhd.asp?pg=2
But it's easy to do a cut and paste and come up with the information. Whether their picture fits what's going on is the more important question. Otherwise, it's just he said, she said, tit for tat.
There was a 5 or 6 seat shift to the Democrats in the Senate in 2006, and a large 8-seat Democratic gain in 1986. But Republicans lost 30 House seats in 2006, and only 5 in 1986.
There are a lot of other factors involved in the election results and in evaluating Presidents, but clearly, if what the electorate says carries any weight, the verdict on Bush is going to be more negative than that on Reagan.
The GOP didn't have that many seats to lose in the House in 1986. I can't remember now how many seats the GOP held in the House then, but in those days everyone had become comfortable with a Democrat majority in the House for perpetuity.
Good article, thanks for posting
Okay, but we could also look at poll numbers. Reagan wasn't as popular at the time, as he is in retrospect, but my gut feeling is that people have soured on Bush much more than they did on Reagan. The funny thing, though, is that George Bush was actually more popular than Ronald Reagan if you compare their first terms only.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.