old europe wrote:For example, during the Lewinsky scandal, was there a similar reaction observable, and just the historical distance casts a more favorable light on the presidency of Clinton?
I remember several polls where respondents were asked to name the best Presidents the US have had, or the best since 19xx, or to rank them; but I dont think I ever saw a poll before that actually had respondents remake the choice for each election.
It is clear that history clears some folds.. Reagan, for example, in his time was a deeply controversial President, but has over the years acquired an ever less contested sheen which now, in this poll, has his then-opponents at 20+ point margins. Clinton also appears to have acquired extra glow in hindsight.
But it's only worked for some. Reagan, Clinton and obviously JFK (who, the Scripp page shows, would get a whopping 75%-to-14% victory over Nixon in '60, in retrospect). Even Jimmy Carter gets bonus points against Ford, which must enrage conservatives, to whom he's apparently the epitome of all that was wrong.
But not Nixon, obviously (Watergate), and also not Lyndon B Johnson or George Bush Sr. They dont get such a personal "winners bonus".
Though LBJ and Bush Sr would still win their retrospective elections against Goldwater and Dukakis, with a bigger margin than they did at the time even, that's purely because their opponents are judged harshly by history (which, in the case of Goldwater, arguably the godfather of today's dominant neoconservativism, surprised me).
It's not because of any extra sheen they themselves have acquired through the forgiving passing of time; their scores are no higher, or lower, than they were in actuality. They have simply faded enough for a significant share of today's respondents to have no opinion about their race.
Meanwhile, history definitely doesn't like losers. When looking back in retrospect, people are apparently reluctant to attach themselves to someone who lost. Or it's the process that starts on election night when the commentariat starts analysing; once they lost, everyone suddenly sees why they were flawed.
Thus, almost all the losers would in retrospect get at least 10% less than they actually did. There are three main exceptions. Al Gore and John Kerry are two of them, which is a function of GWB's impopularity. And George McGovern is the third one.
You can look at the McGovern number from either angle, of course. Last night and today we've heard the Republicans howl that, now that Lamont defeated Lieberman, "the McGovern wing" of the Democratic Party has taken over again with its losing ways. In that light t's wortwhile noting that McGovern doesnt actually look so bad to the mainstream voter with hindsight: he would actually get more votes in retrospect than he did at the time. Watergate, of course; but perhaps it's also that his anti-Vietnam stand looks more attractive again now with an eye on Iraq.
But you can also turn it around, of course. You can intone that
even though people now know that Nixon was going to head for Watergate,
still his opponent McGovern would only win a retrospective race with just 3 points. Four out of ten Americans would still have voted Nixon
anyway!
See, I can have this debate all by myself
