Democrats and Republicans Agree: Bush Re-Election Unlikely in 2005
I think Joe Gandelman and Glenn Reynoldsare reading way too much into a recent poll on Bush and the economy. For one thing, there aren’t any major elections on the horizon, so who cares what a poll says, particularly when that same poll reveals that 40% of the population falsely believed we were in a recession at some point between June 2004 and March 2005 (the higher June 2005 figure is probably wrong too but it’s too early to tell), and 20% believe we’ve been in a state of perpetual recession since at least June 2004, and probably ever since George W. Bush stole the election in 2001. For another, to the extent the poll means anything at all, it means what it says, namely that a lot of Americans are pessimistic about “the economy, stupid.” The only question in the survey that strayed from the economy, local, national or otherwise, was this one:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush handled the Terri Schiavo case, judicial filibusters, various environmental issues, public broadcasting and Karl Rove’s recent insult of MoveOn.org?
Sorry, I goofed, that question wasn’t in the survey after all. Rather, the only question dealing with anything other than the economy was this one:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
On that question, Bush’s “approve” number dropped one whole percentage point, well within the polls 2.6% margin of error, while his “disapprove” number increased by 3%, which is barely outside it. Does this mean, as Gandelman says and Reynolds implies, that between 0.4% and 4.6% of the population is hopping mad at Bush over the Schiavo case, the nuclear option, public broadcasting and/or Karl Rove? Possible, but unlikely. Note that all the other questions on the poll were about the economy, not any of the cultural issues Gandelman and Reynolds are trying to make the poll about. If anything, the numbers suggest that the cultural issues have actually benefited Bush slightly, as this drop on his overall approval rating was significantly less pronounced than his drop on the narrower issue of how he had “handled” the economy over the same period (approval down by 5%, disapproval up by 6%). This may come as good news to liberal-moderates like Gandelman, but it should provide no comfort whatsoever to libertarians like Reynolds, unless he thinks Bush’s 5-6% drop came from Randroids who think Bush doesn’t champion the free market enough.







June 27th, 2005 at 6:45 am
It really is all about the oil. If oil prices were to suddenly slump to $20/barrel and gas prices head down to $1.50/gallon, you’d see Bush’s approval ratings soar.
We saw this with Clinton’s impeachment: the only thing that matters to most voters is their pocketbooks.
June 27th, 2005 at 9:53 am
Just because Bush can’t run for re-election doesn’t mean his approval rating is meaningless. His popularity will be a factor in the 2006 congressional midterms.
And as for 2008, if Bush’s numbers get much lower (say 35-38%) he will likely start to drag down support for the party’s. The effect will be minor if the Republicans picks a nominee with little ties to this administration (Romney, Giuliani) but if the nominee is closely tied to Bush personally (Cheney, Jeb) or the congress (Frist), the drag will be more pronounced, and most likely fatal.
June 27th, 2005 at 10:05 am
But maybe Vinick will win this year.
June 28th, 2005 at 6:29 am
Who believes these polls anyway. They were pretty bad predicting the real election and lets not examine their miserable records in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, or 2004.