With the mid-terms out of the way, we can see how GWB stacks up as a party leader compared to other post-war presidents. Despite the doom and gloom from Tuesday, it turns out that he has been exceedingly average.
Take his re-election victory in 2004. His 50.8% puts him in the middle of the pack.
Same thing for his effecton his party's standing in Congress. Republicans have lost under Bush, but his is not the worst performance by a two term presidency.
This measures the change in seats between those held at the time of the president's first election race and those held after the second mid-term. As noted here, the numbers are skewed by the Democratic reliance on the Jim Crow South between 1945 and 1970.
If Bush's performance has not been the worst among recent presidents, neither has it been stellar.
OTOH, i am still surprised at how bad Clinton's performance was. Why do Dems love the guy so much?