I cannot explain why commentators have used this historical 100 days as a benchmark for American Presidents. Even the worst of them have not had a defeat analogous to Waterloo. One of Karl Marx's more comprehensible works compares the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte to his nephew, Louis Napoleon. Unfortunately, Hegal never wrote those words. But Marx's idea that the forces of history often repeat their influences has merit.
Coincidence can be a very powerful thing.
This is a better, albeit imperfect, historical analogy to Napoleon that the 100 fleeting days of power that Bonaparte enjoyed before Waterloo. In addition to providing a counterpart to Napoleon Bonaparte, Bush also serves as a counterpart of sorts to Louis Bonaparte. The only question at hand is the determination of the tragedy for which Bush provides the farcical mirror. I seek not to replicate Marx's materialist analysis of the two French revolutions, but to highlight a way to see the Bush presidency with respect to history. Rutherford Hayes Hayes emerged victorious from the 1876 Presidential election by an electoral college vote of 185 to 184, but only after political battles that went into March 1877.