Daily Kos

Bush & Election 2004

by Jerome Armstrong

Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 09:31:41 AM PDT

Knowing that at somepoint (it's coming) we will see the crossover, the 'jaws meter' of Gallup polling is endearing:


"The president's approval rating is down to 50%, tying the lowest level of his presidency, at the same time that 68% of Americans approve of Bush "as a person."

But at the same time, it's sort of gagging to see the pre-emptive switcheroo ahead, from job approval to personal approval, that the punditspeak will use-- the public still loves George Bush....  The "as a person" meme will be the strongest to defeat; especially considering the personal attack that the Republicans will wreak upon the Democratic nominee.

  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 163 comments

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (3.00 / 2)

    OK, let's elect him Drinking Buddy, or Golf Buddy, or Fishing Buddy, or just generall all-around Buddy.  Maybe he can get a sitcom called "Everybody Loves George."

    But why do people think (and it seems that a not insignificant number of voters do) that "liking someone [whom you've never met] as a person" should decide whom you support for the presidency?

    By the way, it's been a while since I was single, but isn't, "I like you as a person," one of the cliched ways of dumping someone?  As in, "Well, you're inoffensive in a general way, and reasonably pleasant to be around, but you have no sex appeal for me at all?"  I think the nation should send the same message to Dubya:  he has no presidential appeal for us at all any more.

    Arnold Publius California

    by Publius on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 09:38:39 AM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 1)

    The fact that it looks set to cross over at about Christmas time is ironic, given that it looks so much like a Christmas tree (complete with angel at the top).

    by fraveydank on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 09:42:03 AM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (3.85 / 7)

    In data analysis what generally yeilds more information is not the raw data but the derrivative.  The rate and sign of change.  What is amazing about Bush and probably unique to any American president is that the derrivative of his approval rating has ALWAYS been negative!  With the exception of two what look to be impulse functions one for 9/11 and one for Iraq his approval number is ALWAYS going down.  This clearly illustrates the real reason for the Iraq war.  It also illustrates why it wasn't enough.  The impulse from Iraq was dwarfed by the impulse from 9/11.  The charm is wearing off.  And my guess is that just like the cross-over point mentioned by Kos, the next impulse despite the best laid plans of mice and chicken hawks will be negative in sign.  I think they are toast and they know it.

    by SW on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 09:42:32 AM PDT

    •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

      Does anyone have a chart of the Bush's Approval Prime {BA'(x)}?  (Is that what you'd call it?)  
      [who knew that my calculus would come in handy?]

      McCain?

      by Preston on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 11:00:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

      For reference, a graph of Clinton's popularity according to Gallup:

      http://www.draftclark.com/archives/004650.shtml#004650

      String Quartets #7 & #8

      by Stirling Newberry on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 12:56:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

      Hey Hey Hey, let's not get carried away here with calculus :)

      Anyway, random paths of stochastic processes are usually non-differentiable! The best one can hope for is Lipschitz of some fractional order :(

      by CSTAR on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 02:42:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

        Anyway, random paths of stochastic processes are usually non-differentiable!

        True, but that data is a discrete time realization of a continuous time process.  The derivates exists (to all orders, except   perhaps for a jump  discontinuity for discrete shockslike 9/11), it's only a question being able to estimate those derivatives from the data.

        This kind of data cries out for a kernel estimator with a bandwidthof about a month.. However, this data set is so clear that a  piece-wise linear fit using the obvious breakpointsof 9/11 and Iraq attacke would probably work like a charm.  If someone will tell me where to find the underlying data, I'll do the analysis and post the derivatives.

        courage

        by tylerh on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 04:12:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

      I see plenty of places on that chart where the slope goes up (derivative is positive.) Besides which, the graph represents samples taken at different times (so that the function really isn't continuous as we think of it), so the derivative doesn't apply here.

      I think what you mean to say is that the numbers have trended downward with the exception of a couple of extraordinary events: his election and 9/11. The important point here is that the war, and everything else Bush is doing right now, is about generating another extraordinary event. At this point, it doesn't matter if the event is extraordinarily positive (e.g. Saddam and Osama captured alive, together, in Tikrit) or extraordinarily negative (I refuse to give an example here): either one is likely to give him a huge bump in his approval/disapproval numbers.

      Barring such an event, a Dean innauguration in 2005 looks inevitable.

      We're Doooooooooooomed!

      by maxomai on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 04:53:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

        "I see plenty of places on that chart where the slope goes up (derivative is positive.)"

        Back off!  Literally.  Take a few steps back from the graph.  The upticks are clearly noise.  Most likely within the margin of error of the polls.  You do curve fitting and the areas between the impulse functions (on reflection it looks like there are three of them, each of decreasing magnitude) is an amazingly good fit to a straight line.  Not exponential but linear decay.  So the derrivative is simply the slope of the line.  

        by SW on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 08:46:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

      The question is really why are his poll numbers going down?  He performed very well in most people eyes after 9-11.  He has had passed almost every major piece of legislation he promised during the election.  He has fought and won 2 wars.  He has most of his judicial nominees passed.  He has been stimulating the hell out of the economy. His administration, using Clinton's as a benchmark, has been relatively scandal free. The economy has been his only bad mark and he was handed it as he came in the door and it was recovering when it was hit by 9-11.  If a person is a neutral observer, like most people on this comment thread are not, you would have to say he has done fairly well.

      The thing Bush has not done well is work the media.  Clinton was a master at spinning a story and Bush is a complete klutz in comparsion.  Clinton convinced half the country that getting a blowjob in the Oval Office of the White House by an 21 year old female employee and using government employees to cover it up was his personal business.  Only someone with exceptional media skills can get away with that.   Normal mortals would not be able to do that.

      The media has been pushing anti-Bush stories for 12 months now.  Once 9-11 faded into the background it looked like the media decided to take him down.  Just about every story concerning Bush is either totally negative, has a negative tone, or has a lot of negative content.  For example, how many times have you heard the phrase "Since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in May ....."?  Every Iraq story has that in it.  Or some slight variation of it.  Why?  There are problems in Iraq but the good that has happened there is overwhelming.  Those stories are ignored.  And Bush & Co do not do a good job of spinning them or maybe they do and the media ignores them.  All this negative reporting has taken a toll on Bush's poll numbers.  Just watch the news and see if you think a story is positive or negative for Bush.  The negatives outweigh the positives by 15 to 1 at least.  

      I hate the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

      by Mad Jayhawk on Wed Nov 19, 2003 at 04:27:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

        Mad baby, you got your head way up your ass.
        The media has given Chimpy a pass on almost everything with twits like Peggy Noonan just about giving a virtual blowjob everytime she reports(propagandizes, farts?)

        But way down you already know that.

        You like the otherws of your ilk just love the fact that a self admitted moron can be president.

        It means there.s hope for morons everywhere.

        yourself included.

        Being a Republican is like being pissed on and saying how nice it is to get some rain

        Now with new improved snark !!

        by SnarkyShark on Wed Nov 19, 2003 at 09:49:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

    Check out the approval and disapproval ratings from 14 different pollsters, courtesy of Pollkatz.

    Kos: It would be nice if the height and width attributes of the <img> tag were enabled.  That way, I could easily create thumbnails.

    McCain = Iran War.
    PS: Vote for Playground Politics at ObamaIn30Seconds.com.

    by Michael D on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 10:12:11 AM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (3.50 / 2)

    Following the recent trend, the next drop should be a big one, and then it will stabilize with him in the negatives.  

    What's sad is people think Bush is a strong and decisive leader.  Frankly, I don't know of any politician who shows less leadership characteristics than this man.  People are really stupid.  

    Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

    by Asak on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 10:16:23 AM PDT

    •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (3.50 / 2)

      I not sure this indicates that people are stupid, or that our political cultural is so anemic that there is no concept of leadership outside of action films and crime dramas on television.  

      That is the one thing about Clark's candidacay/speeches that I find very compelling: he takes up the question of leadership head on.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 11:37:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 1)

      I am fairly certain that George lied when asked who his favorite philosopher was. Well, lied is a big word because I don't think he actually knows what a philosopher is. However, taken as a group, Bush/Cheney their favorite philosopher is Ayn Rand.

      Aynd (sorry couldn't resist) the greed is good, get yours first to be considered a success is the image of leadership and success just not actual.

      People, I think, are neither stupid nor deep. They have many balls in the air. They families, professions, homes, addictions. whatever that come first. I don't think most people give politics much thought because there isn't much thought space left. It's my opinion, of course, that the body politic takes a quick look, an expedient look, and make somewhat superficial choices when they vote at all.

      Bush and Club were regarded as experienced and grown up and would bring 'honesty and dignity to the office of the President'. That's enought for a lot of voters right there. It is the Democrats challenge to refute this blah blah with more memorable blah blah of their own. Just like advertising, catch the eye and keep it.

      I think the tide is ebbing on the Bush and Republican popularity, but beware the sneaker wave just beofre the election. Rove isn't going down without a bitter and devisive fight. Nor is another "war" out of the question.

      Obama is the more honorable person.

      by oofer on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 05:24:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

        I also want to point out the ayn Rand is no philosopher, just an articulartor of a position that is attractive to the rich and famous as a rationalization of what they have done to get where they are.

        Obama is the more honorable person.

        by oofer on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 05:36:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  87 bil (none / 0)

    right after airing dean's new iowa commercial the nice lady on fox told me that dean told her he was for spending 87 billion in iraq, contrary to what he said in the ad.

    does anyone know what dean's position on the 87 billion was? and in the ad he said something like he isn't for spending another 87 billion in iraq...did gephardt suggest spending another 87 billion in addition to the last 87 billion?

    damn, i now know why all those fox viewers don't know what the hell is going on in the world, i just clicked through for a minute and i'm all confused.

    by mbc on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 10:16:24 AM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

    Someone told me that the job approval numbers are still above both Bill Clinton in 96 and Reagan in 84.  Does anyone have comparison numbers for incumbent presidents?

    by Damon on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 10:28:01 AM PDT

McCain = Iran War.
PS: Vote for Playground Politics at ObamaIn30Seconds.com.

by Michael D on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 10:36:28 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 1)

    It's the trends, nut the numbers. They know it. They won't say so.

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by DemFromCT on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 10:49:27 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

    I'm too young to remember, but wasn't Carter generally "liked" by people? I mean, I don't think people thought of him as a bad guy, just not very competent for the role he was in (not saying that was true or not, just what people thought).

    Demonstrable incompetence is a pretty big turn-off, electorally speaking.

    disclaimer: I'm John Kerry's Internet Director

    by BriVT on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 10:31:18 AM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 1)

    This kind of reaction by the general public -- viz. not approving of Bush's performance but thinking that he's ok "as a person" is why the pitch to the general public in the general election has to be:

    The guy is a screwup.

    Voters will dump someone they think is well-meaning but incompetent (even while they may hesitate to believe that he's a liar, Mayberry Machiavellian, or tool of the oil industry or PNAC).

    by walden on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 10:43:40 AM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (2.50 / 2)

    Check out John Edwards if you're still not sure about who you want to support. He is such an inspiring man, with an inspiring story, and a message that resonates with real people. I haven't been this excited by a candidate since the Kennedys were young.

    A proud John Edwards Democrat. Support, Contribute to, and Vote For John Kerry.

    by realAmerican on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 10:44:01 AM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 1)

    I don't get why he's liked "as a person" (like your average member of the electorate has had a chance to meet him anyway).  He's always struck me as someone in over his head, who says what he's told to say by his handlers without having any true grasp of what it means (quick, Gore's got me, hit him with the "fuzzy math" phrase Karl told me about.   damn, I've been caught exaggerating the threat from Eye-rack ... pull out a big word, like "revisionist").  

    When he gets pressed on anything, he gets testy [and, while I'm not particularly pro- or contra- Dean, I note this point of comparison for those that say Dean is not electable because of his volatility].  Besides not being of presidential timbre and having retrograde and wrong views on just about everything important, he comes across like a jerk trying to come across like he's a nice guy when the camera's on (e.g. the "major league asshole" gaffe).

    Maybe a lot of people can relate to being in over one's head?  Maybe they buy the "nice guy" act?  In the first case, he sought the highest office in the land.  It should not count as a virtue that he's not really up to the task.  In the second case, please do pay attention.

    herendeth the rant.

    by lazyman on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 10:45:38 AM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 1)

    If anyone can run down "likeability" numbers for past presidents, it would be fun to do a comparison of those over time, and see who get elected (regardless of "approval" numbers).

    My Diary

    by Adam in Mass on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 10:56:14 AM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 1)

    we only have to look as far as Bush 1. He was liked as a person.. everyone thought he was decent and honorable.. He was more liked by Democrats than his son. Yet in the end people voted because they felt he was not up for the job . The job at the time was the economy and the democrats painted him successful as someone who was out of touch with common person. So i think the with Bush Jr you have to go with.. He is a nice fellow and is very strong headed  leader but he is over his head in terms of the challeges and problems that face US.

    by smartone on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 11:08:14 AM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

    I still cannot understand the "he is a nice guy" image.

    This man pretends to be a "down home Texan" but he is really an east cost ellitest (sp).

    He pretends to be a Christian, yet his actions have caused the neadless deaths of hundereds of Americans and thoudands of Iraqis.

    by pf99 on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 11:16:40 AM PDT

  •  Re: "As a person" (3.00 / 2)

    This is probably the main reason they keep Bush under such tight lock and key and so far away from dissent/questions.  If he blows up, or acts petty, he blows the one thing left for him in the polls.

    This, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason we have no accountability or public access to our president.  

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 11:31:36 AM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

    I'm not so scared of that "switch" in themes.  The folks now -- even though they 'like' him -- have shown in poll after poll that much fewer think that he "deserves" a second term.

    John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

    by MRL on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 11:36:48 AM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

    Just a question: why does Gallup have his job approval at 50 percent, and CNN at 49 percent, and yet Washington Post/ABC (for the exact same polling period) has his job approval at 57 percent.  Is the alleged "science" of polling really this screwed up?  Is the Post phoning a different set of people (or during the day on Saturday? or what?)

    by walden on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 11:44:43 AM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

    I, too, have been puzzled by Bush's approval ratings and am aware that they have absolutely nothing to do with his as President.  All I can say is that it would seem the American people are mistaking pity with love.  A common mistake.

    White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 6/07)

    by nolalily on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 12:22:45 PM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

    If a tree or a bush falls in the woods, and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 12:25:14 PM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 1)

    Indeed, we are starting to hear the word "values" more and more from rightwing commentators.  Bush will undoubtedly try to run on his religous aura, as well, making it imperative to attack him over this bogus shtick as well.

    by BobNJ on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 12:27:02 PM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

    By the way, I don't think Bush is unintelligent. But I do believe he doesn't know who he is and has never gotten in touch with the true meaning of common sense except in the most literal of forms - a truly concrete thinker having never progressed to the abstract.  But, his IQ is probably OK.

    White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 6/07)

    by nolalily on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 12:28:10 PM PDT

  •  Arrow pointing at 2004 (none / 0)

    Yup, it's pretty clear.

    This looks like an arrow head, and it's pointed straight at the 2004 election!

    by sodablue on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 12:32:52 PM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

    Most folks don't vote for a candidate because they like that person; they vote against a candidate they DON'T like.  

    That's why negative political advertising is so popular. W. will run lots of "nice guy" ads, but he will also savage his opponents.

    If/when W's DISapproval ratings hit the 60s, and they do seem to be trending that way, then it will be time to rejoice.  

    by Swoosh on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 01:06:00 PM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

    oohhh....it's a graph of a Christmas tree. Where are the presents?

    I'm not going anywhere. I'm standing up, which is how one speaks in opposition in a civilized world. - Ainsley Hayes

    by jillian on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 01:21:23 PM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

    I'll play devil's advocate and suggest that these polls about Bush's apporval ratings should be no surprise to anyone. Presidents have historically had their lowest approval ratings in the 3rd year of their presidency.  

    by WVUDemocrat2 on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 01:26:00 PM PDT

  •  Re: Bush & Election 2004 (none / 0)

    AN INTERESTING CHART

    I look at this poll data in the same manner as any stock chart.  We have a steady downtrend since the 2001 WTC event, except for the 2003 war hysteria.

    What the 9/01 and 4/03 upticks show is the President benefits from being perceived as commander-in-chief.  The people get behind their leader when attacked.

    When the threat fades from memory,  support for the President declines.

    Despite the trend,  this chart does not suggest a "crossover;" i.e., further declining support.  The important reference is the pre-WTC period in 2001.  That was a period of confusion and declining public support for the Bushies.  I would interpret the last pre-WTC attack readings as a support level,  confirmed by the present polls.

    The convergence of recent positives and negatives to values near August, 2001 levels indicates the basic support the public gives this President.

    If that support is broken downward,  there is a good chance the President won't recover.

    On the other hand,  a positive breakout could start an unstoppable rally for the President.

    So, we're at a critical point.  Public opinion is about where it was in the 2000 election.  Since the President's relative positives are above those of other Presidents elected to a 2nd term,  it appears the election is still Bush's to lose.

    The question for the opposition is this:  is there some event or perception in the offing that will shift this chart further against the President?

    It is important for the opposition that this negative event happen soon,  while the chart is still near equilibrium.  A negative event after a rally starts won't have much effect.

    What's needed is research on what the non-Democratic public does not like about Bush;  i.e., what's his weakness as seen by "independents?"

    Walter L Battaglia

    by WalterB on Tue Nov 18, 2003 at 01:30:28 PM PDT