So it’s taken about ten months for him to squander about 25% of the roughly 90% approval rating he had around the time US troops were charging into Afghanistan looking for Osama Bin Laden, who remains at large.
I seem to recall the general talk around that time, on SDMB and elsewhere, was that he was a shoo-in for re-election and that any Democrat chosen to run against him was basically a ritual sacrifice (known in DC parlance as a “Mondale”). Others pointed out that his father had about an 85% approval rating at the height of the Gulf War and still lost on “the economy, stupid.”
So. What happened? What’s happening? Let’s keep the discussion nice and airy and polite, please. I don’t want to get thown in the briar patch of GD.
Personally, I think the factors, in order, are:
The wear-off of the Sept. 11 righteous-anger kill-em-all buzz. We’re still mad, just not spitting mad. We aren’t clinging to the Daddy Figure as desperately, and can start debating how best to fight terrorism. Healthy debate tends to even out approval ratings closer to 50%.
Delayed reaction to the more excessive, potentially intrusive aspects of the Patriot Act and other post September 11 legislation. People liked the ideas at the time, but are maybe a bit wary now of the FBI’s right to spy on their attorney-client conversations. They “disapprove” of the details in retrospect, and say so to pollsters.
Corporate scandals and its demonization of corporate greed, and the fact that Bush has kind of a corporate image, right or wrong.
The Economy Stupid, Part Deux. People are not expert economists and couldn’t really tell you if it’s Bush’s fault or Clinton’s, but they do know their Lucent stock is worth beans and they’re annoyed.
Iraq–No one likes Saddam, but a costly war is scary to many who are craving “don’t rock the boat” stability more than a free Iraq. Unconsciously they withdraw support for Bush fearing that too much approval will encourage him towards unilateralism.
Now I’m deliberately refraining from commenting on whether these sentiments are right or wrong. This discussion is about what people think and feel in general, stupidly or otherwise. Why do you think Bush has lost ground? Is it normal given the situation, or has he screwed up? And will it continue? What could turn it around?
The Economy Stupid, Part Deux. People are not expert economists and couldn’t really tell you if it’s Bush’s fault or Clinton’s, but they do know their Lucent stock is worth beans and they’re annoyed.
I agree. (not that I have any stock in Lucent
Iraq–No one likes Saddam, but a costly war is scary to many who are craving “don’t rock the boat” stability more than a free Iraq. Unconsciously they withdraw support for Bush fearing that too much approval will encourage him towards unilateralism.
On this point my husband (who spends a lot of his time in that Briar Patch) were recently having a discussion. We both agreed that given the administrations past use of the media for political gains that Bush will do something and soon. I was offering up thoughts on more benign issues such as increase warnings of possible terrorism and the like, when he scared the begeesus out of me by offering up a possible October Road war against Iraq.
My guess is that Bush will continue to use the fears of Americans in the media to both increase his popularity and pave the wave for Republicans in the upcoming November elections.
On a more superficial front Bush also kinda looks funny, his sounds bites are generally disappointing, especially in writing. And he’s never seemed all that likeable (at least to me) on TV. I almost always feel that he’s feeling some since of disdain towards the camera and the American populace.
And that inability to appear noble and incontrol while also appearing friendly and congenial is important these days. Well for decades I’m sure.
I generally agree with all of the observations in the OP. I would also like to add that, IMHO, the choices made by the media have a substantial impact on the “mood” of the general populace. While “the media” is not monolithic in the message that is put out, there is a tendancy toward a crowd mentality on what subjects are reported. To me this creates an overall “wave” effect in the direction of the reporting. For now, on the subjects related in the OP, the “wave” is not flowing in a strong positive direction to GWB. The general public, for better or worse, largely follows the trends expressed in the media (chicken / egg? I don’t know.)
I’m sure the Bush administration would like to be able to manage the media “wave” more to their benefit, but they have not shown great mastery in that are. And once the honeymoon is over with the media it’s a constant struggle to produce a positive message from an administration.
The media honeymoon is over, and for those now inclined to believe Bush is an incompetent jackass, each week brings fresh evidence. Anyone catch the Waco economic summit? Didn’t think so.
Ace’s pick: 50% approval by November, necessitating Iraqi regime change.
No Bush supporter, here, but the guy’s popularity rating is still higher than his percentage won of the popular vote, no mean feat after two years in office.
That said, I see a slow decline in his popularity for the duration of his presidency unless “all hell breaks loose,” in which case all bets are off or the economy really takes off in the next two years to the extent that it is obvious to almost everyone, but this seems very doubtful to me.
Bush accomplished his education program and tax cut prior to 9/11 and really doesn’t have much left in the tank, IMHO.
Like father like son. Patriotic war early in term followed by economic downturn leaves a sour taste in voters’ mouths. Since 9-11 happened so early in GWB’s term, he can’t expect much benefit from it, a couple of years down the road. Voters have notoriously short memories, and what they’re going to be immediately concerned about when the next election comes around is who’s going to keep their 401Ks from going down the toilet - not whom they rallied 'round when buildings were crashing down around their ears. Unfortunately for Bush, he hasn’t demonstrated that he can save American pocketbooks, and it’s costing him.
Besides which, the prospect of a costly - both in terms of lives and in terms of oil - and possible futile war in Iraq is not a cheery sight.
Unless Bush gets another huge national disaster, it’s going to be pretty tough for him to win in '04 - provided the Dems put up someone remotely plausable.
I think that, whether or not his falling approval ratings will affect Bush’s chances at re-election depends entirely on whom the Democrats put up. A re-match with Gore’s been whispered about, but my bet is, that if Gore gets the Dem nomination, he’ll lose. Not enough riteous indignation in the world would put Gore in the White House after the utter botch up of 2000. Nobody wants to be reminded of that. 'Specially not the poor spotted owls.
I think it is a safe bet Bush will NOT win re-election.
Assuming the Democrats pick someone half-way decent, I think come election time, people begin to reflect on if they are “better off now than they were four years ago?”
Unfairly or not, I don’t think they are going to remember the W years with fuzzy warm thoughts so their answer will be “no”.
So, barring the Dem’s putting up Ozzie and Nicole as running mates, I think the next President will be a Dem.
[To be honest, I’d even vote for Ozzie and Nicole over W…]
k2dave, actually, during the impeachment, all of four years ago, President Clinton’s approval rating was in the high 60’s, and peaked at 73%. Yes, you read correctly – Clinton under impeachment had a higher approval rating than Bush under this Global Police Action.
The important numbers are those of “would you vote for him for president in the next election.” The sky-high numbers Bush got were job approval ratings, which are a different animal. IIRC, he got a bump in re-election numbers after 9/11, but not the same as the approval numbers (I think it went from the 40s to the 50s). That rating has sunk along with approval, but I don’t think it’s been as steep (which is probably a given since it didn’t get as high). That said, I still think it’s too early to say he’s dead meat in 2004. November 2002 is a different matter, however. The question is whether Congressional Democrats will take advantage of the opportunity, but they’ve been rather meek up to this point.
I think this is a very salient (and sad) point, just as how many analysts say that Dukakis lost to Bush the Elder because he was shorter and his eyebrows were too bushy (and his cameo in that tank was a PR disaster). Most people respond emotionally not intellectually–to products and brands, not just politicians–and Bush made good use of that by appearing more natural than Al “El Stiffo” Gore. Of course Gore eeked out more votes mostly because Bush didn’t seem too bright (the reality of which is questionable), but side by side I don’t think either one looked particularly “presidential” compared to say, Reagan the Communicator or Clinton the Empathizer.
And yeah, Bush’s soundbites are seeming more clumsy these days. Maybe he needs Gore standing next to him to make him look and sound better. But compare his communication style/charisma with any other popular world leader such as Blair or Putin and well, he’s just no FDR, is he?
But as has been mentioned, 65% isn’t bad. And it’s much too early to project the next election. But I think the Democrats will take a slim margin in the House this November, ushering in a new golden era of completely the same special-interest, posturing gridlock.
And BTW, I do own Lucent stock. I’d like to blame someone, but in fact it was me who said, “It can’t possibly drop below $30/share. Buy! Buy!”
Sixty-five percent? The poll I saw had it around 55. But yeah, I think Bush is dead meat in '04, and the Republicans are probably gonna do badly in November. I don’t especially want to see the 'Pubs get pounded (I tend to like them better than the Dem’s), but the economy is on the rocks, Bush is acting like he was anointed King of the World, and the propect of a bloody war with Iraq is shaking people up at a time when most of us had finally gotten back to normal. BTW, support for a war with Iraq is apparently around 50%, and falling.
You sound like a moderate, and the more moderates I see recognizing the arrogance of this administration, the better I like the country’s chances. You’d never guess it, but I’ve voted Republican often in the past, as the Democrats are frequently dilatory and disorganized. Not this November; the Republicans need a serious, serious wake-up call, like losing 20 seats in the House.
I like many elements of the conservative platform, it’s just that all I see on the Republican side are arrogant hypocrites.
How do you feel about McCain in 04? or Hillary Clinton? Just curious.
Hillary…I sort of like her, but want to wait and see.
However, I have never seen such RABID HATRED when you mention her name to Republicans - I think some would sooner vote for Osama.
I mean, granted they are not going to like any Dem, but wow…just saying “Hillary” gets grown men sputtering and stammering. It almost wants to make me vote for her just to see the reaction!
How about a McCain/Clinton ticket? Hey, look, there goes a flying pig.
I think GW’s ratings will contnue to slide for a couple of months. The Iraq thing is a befuddling PR mess, and Cheney getting all hawkish is just going to make people more nervous. The Saddam thing is just old. Not saying he’s not a threat, just that he doesn’t seem threatening to most Americans because no attacks have been traced to him, and frankly we’ve had a decade of him being caricaturized in movies like South Park and he’s staring to resemble Fidel Castro: Part Deux.
Barring another terrorist attack, I see him continuing to flounder in wafflish policy, declining to take necessary hardline actions in the Middle East, on corporate responsibility, in getting Afghanistan off the ground, in reducing our dependency on oil and our consequent hypocritical blind-eye to Saudi non-democracy, in replacing his refusal to endorse Kyoto or attend Johannasberg with a sensible development/pollution policy, etc. I really think he’s starting to come across as status-quo vanilla statesman, and the public gets bored with that easily.
He’ll drop below 50% before November, and worse, people will start looking to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Ashcroft, Greenspan, and Condee “Kill’em” Rice to see what’s really going on. Bad sign.
Hillary Clinton is the perfect answer to froth-at-the-mouth right-wingers who defend Ann Coulter to people because “you just can’t stand to see an intelligent woman speak her mind”.
Wasn’t McCain even threatening to go Independent like Jeffords did for a while? Has he backed off of that or is that still possible?
Ooh, this is so much fun. I feel like I’m on the McLaughlin Group.
McCain/Clinton is certainly an intriguing idea. AND, I feel like they could do a lot together - take out a lot of political trash. Though I really can’t see it happening.
I’m not confident that the Dems will win a lot of seats this Nov, even though I think people are getting distrustful of the right wing, after Enron and co. and with the threat of war in Iraq. I’d expect more moderates - from both parties, but I would be surprised if there were an overwhelming victory for either side.
Bush’s biggest problem: Indecisiveness. He has no discernable foreign policy. He doesn’t really seem to have a platform for dealing with allies OR enemies, and his inconstance and uncertainty just end up pissing them both off. if he wants to win votes, he needs to have a definite policy (and a definite personality), or else he needs advisors who AGREE on the important issues, so he can just do what they tell him. Unfortunately for W, his advisors (most of whom have far stronger personalities than he does) rarely agree, and all are well informed enough to make good arguments for their particular views. So Bush doesn’t know whom to listen to, and ends up looking wishy-washy and sometimes even childish. Which is bad for voter confidence, and even worse for international relations.
I generally like George W. Bush, but I don’t take poll numbers too seriously, because even when he had astronomically high approval ratings, his support was always a mile wide but an inch deep. Just like his father’s in the aftermath of the Gulf War.
Aproval ratings can tell you many things: how likeable a candidate is, how patriotic the country is feeling at any given moment… but they can’t tell you anything about how passionate people are. There are a lot of people who LIKE George W. Bush, but precious few who love him and would go to the wall for him. Even the far right never EMBRACED him, they simply settled on him as the best of a weak bunch of contenders, and the one most likely to get elected.
So, Bush is definitely vulnerable in 2004… but Democrats are kidding themselves once again, if they think beating him is going to be easy. Even with a weak econonomy, I can’t see a single Southern state going Democratic in 2004. Oh sure, the Dems have a large bloc of solid states of their own (California and New York will be locks again), but the point is this: we’re looking at a virtual repeat of the 2000 elections. ALmost every state that went for Bush bfefore will do so again, and almost every state that went for Gore will go Democrat again. Once again, it will come down to a few closely contested states.
Another electoral/popular vote discrepancy is not unlikely.
