Yes, of course, but I am asking just how profound the electoral victory would be for a president with a 90% approval rating. Is a 50-state sweep likely?
I think that even Reagan’s approval ratings were far lower than 90% when he won forty-nine states in 1984.
So, which president *did *get the man considered responsible for 9/11?
Nobody asked me what I thought of My Former Governor’s response on 9/11. Sitting like a bump on a log in a classroom? Then fleeing across the country without a word to the people?
There was an attempt to form a united front in a time of tragedy. Which cannot be expected from the party of racism & xenophobia.
What was he supposed to do, zoom right into Washington D.C. aboard the most recognizable and most targetable aircraft in the world, in the midst of turmoil, in the midst of air traffic control nationwide trying to ground flights?
Going to Offutt Air Force Base, home of the former Strategic Air Command, was a perfectly reasonable, practical thing to do.
Doesn’t matter. The point is that when the US is under attack, Americans will rally around the national symbols, one of which is the President. Even people who thought that Dubya looked and sounded like a monkey who had been dressed in a suit and then strategically shaved were still going to rally around because, dammit, he may be a monkey but he’s the President of the United States.
The bounce doesn’t last, of course. Bush’s 90% rating lasted about five minutes, and then fell pretty steadily until April 2003, when it bounced a second time when he claimed a quick victory in Iraq. That bounce was equally transient and the steady decline again resumed, and by November 2003 Bush was back where he had been just before 9/11.
I think if there had been an election earlier than November 2004 Bush’s approval might have declined faster than in fact it did, if only because the process of an election campaign encourages a critical look at the candidates, and probably more people would have realised sooner that loyalty to the US and its President is compatible with a belief that you don’t have to have a monkey as President and, all other things being equal, it’s probably better if you don’t.
I think there is a natural tendency to rally around the flag and to a lesser extent, the president in times of national crisis. I think that there would be more unity around a Republican president in such times, Democrats were far more willing to say “OK George, go get them!” after 9/11 whereas if Gore had been in office, Republicans would have been busy trying to find ways to blame Gore and exploit the situation politically.
I think it is hard to say because an “approval” rating isn’t comparative. A Democrat could think that Bush was doing a hell of a great job right after 9/11 but still think that Gore could have done better.
After Bin Laden was killed, I gave Obama all props for making such a ballsy call. I can think that he is a terrible President for a slew of other reasons, but he handled that one well and made the right call over the objections of others. If a pollster asked me the day after that if I “approved” of Obama’s job performance, I would have probably said “yes” just for the Bin Laden kill. Then soon after, I am looking for a GOP replacement.
Plus, as has been said upthread, there is a natural tendency to rally around the leader after a national event like 9/11. Maybe a person really didn’t like Bush, but he’s the guy that we are looking to for leadership because we are scared of what will happen next. For many people at that time, they would approve of the job of anyone who held the office simply because he was there and providing leadership.