Jump to navigation
What's in an approval rating?
Mike Ahlf
An interesting
item over at CNN today, examining how President Bush's poll numbers presumably fall.
They also link the document, which is itself a very interesting read.
Of course, the CNN spin - and the spin the questions aim for - is that the public are disgusted with Bush, and therefore more likely to vote Democrat in the midterm elections.
However, I don't think that's the whole picture. Bush is a polarizing figure, even more so than Clinton was. For the vast majority of time as President (except for the time just after 9/11 pretty much), his ratings haven't been amazingly high, because no matter what he did, hard-core Democrats would oppose him.
So, how does he get that low? There are two possibilities. One, he can lose moderates. Two, he can lose conservatives. I put forth the option that it's the latter; due to (A) economic problems (outsourcing and his buddy-buddiness with Hu/what/where from China), (B) the immigration debate, and (C) various other minor quibbles, Bush is losing the Republican Party's base.
Does he have Moderates? Well, he's probably losing them too. But in order to drop over 20 points from your election number, you've got to be losing your base. He won with over 50% of the vote in 2004, and he's now down to a 32% approval rating, 60% disapprove, 8% undecided.
At the same time, the national dialogue hasn't much changed. And I've yet to see a good Democrat candidate coming forth to oppose whoever his successor might be (heck, I haven't really seen the Republicans putting forth a possible successor). Which means that when the 2006 elections run, it "might" be a referendum on Bush, or it might be local issues. And when 2008 comes, well, it's anyone's ballgame.
Observations
I mostly agree.
I think it's pretty apparent what's happened. Since 2004 Bush has lost the support of the middle. The reason his support was hovering between 35-40% is because that's the pretty reliable GOP base.
The more recent fall has been almost entirely out of the base since there was little else to lose. Immigration, like you point out. Dubai is another thing. I wish I could say the budget, but I don't think that's played as much a role.
I disagree that the economy is a huge factor. I seriously doubt that Hu's relationship with Bush has really entered the public consciousness. It has much more to do with the perceived failures in Iraq.
>>And when 2008 comes, well, it's anyone's ballgame.<<
It's McCain's ballgame to lose. I don't think he will.
Interestingly, he has been embracing some core Bush positions of late. The politically mindless feel betrayed, since they think he's kowtowing to conservatives and feel abandoned, but McCain was never a liberal (just a grandstanding conservative who got attention by straying from conservatism from time to time).
Regardless, nobody can touch McCain -- and it would be interesting if he embraced Bush Opportunity Society programs as his own (while trumpeting his legitimate anti-pork credentials). And if folks remember, those same evil neocons (Kagan and Kristol) who think Bush isn't aggressive enough were McCain backers in the 2000 primaries, not Bush backers. That makes 2008 all the more interesting, no?
Kevin,
I have my doubts that a McCain that can win the nomination is the same one that will win a national election. I'm also not sure if he has the temperament to withstand what's going to turn in to a very hostile media. Those are my main concerns. I may write about them more in a later post.
On the other hand, I have found it interesting that anti-war liberals continued their kindness towards McCain until more recently. McCain's record as a hawk is much longer and straightforward. I can understand overlooking that in 2000, but 2004 was kinda weird.
>>I have my doubts that a McCain that can win the nomination is the same one that will win a national election.<<
If the field were stronger, I would share that concern.
But who is it likely to include? Romney? Allen? Hagel? Frist?
All of those candidates have serious warts (i.e. worse conservative cred issues, OR lack of popularity/charisma/name ID).
I don't think McCain is going to have to move TOO much to get the nomination. In fact, I think it will be over early (it's his turn). And I think his focus on the budget will play very well in this cycle.
We'll see!
Further to this conversation:
---
Some of the very same men who helped derail Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in 2000 using techniques the Arizona Republican alleged were illegal -- and whom McCain likened to the prairie carnivores -- are now leading financial supporters of his "Straight Talk America" political action committee and possible backers of his anticipated 2008 presidential run.
The news -- from campaign contribution reports and an invitation to a McCain fundraiser obtained by ABC News -- comes a few weeks after the announcement that the self-styled maverick will deliver the commencement address at an evangelical college started by Rev. Jerry Falwell, whom McCain had once dubbed an "agent of intolerance."
The fence-mending can be construed in any number of ways -- maturation, selling out, or the pragmatic political maneuvers of a frontrunner. But however one views it, the moves stand as a stark contrast to McCain's exciting, occasionally reckless underdog campaign from six years ago.
http://abcnews.go.com/Polit...
---
He's going to be the nominee, and the primary races will be over so early that he'll be able to re-consolidate the center with no problem. I'll bet rounds of brews on that prediction with anyone who's interested. :)
publius:
"but McCain was never a liberal (just a grandstanding conservative who got attention by straying from conservatism from time to time)."
Funny, I always thought McCain was more the reverse, the Republican equivalent of Zell Miller; the first guy to run to for a "Republican dissenter" opinion, and about as liberal as you could get and still be in the party. On every major issue, that is. If there's a "bipartisan" bill (by the Democrat definition, e.g. "the Republicans are going along with us") you can expect his name to be on it front and center. Illegal Immigrant Amnesty, "Campaign finance reform" (which wasn't what it said it was) just being two of the big ones.
He could escape the specter of McCain-Feingold because it was decently in the past. McCain-Kennedy, more a betrayal of his base than anything I can think of... sorry. That's going to come back to haunt him. Heck, just their pictures side by side ought to haunt him.
>>Funny, I always thought McCain was more the reverse, the Republican equivalent of Zell Miller; the first guy to run to for a "Republican dissenter" opinion, and about as liberal as you could get and still be in the party. On every major issue, that is.<<
With all due respect, if you thought he was a liberal based on a handful of policy positions, you were mistaken.
McCain has a lifetime ACU rating of 84.
http://www.acuratings.org/2...
That's certainly not the most conservative among active Senators, but it's pretty conservative in my view.
I won't defend McCain on some of his policies. There are reasons I supported Bush over McCain in 2000, and I'm very glad I did.
However, I would point out that Ted Kennedy's name appears on a lot of legislation, not all of it "liberal" even though Kennedy is certainly a liberal. Aside from the obvious jokes about his legacy, Kennedy will enjoy a legacy among political people as a guy who got laws written -- not all of them bad or liberal laws. While I don't support some of the legislation that has McCain's name attached (or Kennedy's), I'm not sure that the simple fact that both men are active lawmakers is, in itself, an indictment of them.
But if you really want to buy beers for me, you can take me up on my bet that McCain will win the Republican nod if he runs. :)
ACU ratings aren't the story. They make for a good statistic, but "lies, damned lies, and statistics."
McCain - as far as his public face and where he stands on actual issues, isn't nearly as conservative as you make him out to be.
Kevin,
My main concern that I have is that it seems to always be the high-profile, media-friendly causes he tends go liberal on. As president, everything he does would become higher profile. The question I have is whether or not he is able to truly stand up to a hostile media. His continued defense of Iraq is a good sign, but I'm not convinced. I'm definitely open to being convinced, though. As far as your bet, does McCain just have to win the primary or the whole election?
Mike,
The ACU has no real incentive to distort McCain's numbers. They keep track of these things on a vote-by-vote basis. Keeping track of votes is pretty straightforward (the vote tally on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is just a statistic, too, but a pretty important one). Like Kevin says, 84% isn't perfect but it's a very, very far cry from being the Zell Miller of the party. Linc Chafee is the Zell Miller of the GOP. John McCain is the Ben Nelson. I have my concerns, of course, but his actual positions on the issues are not among them.
RAW,
The fact that the ACU does things on a "strict vote-by-vote" basis is its own bias, because many simple procedural votes or votes on bills that have no controversy or real need for debate get lumped in.
As you stated, it's the "high profile, media-friendly cases" where he veers liberal - which is precisely the sort of candidate I don't want, because I don't share the standard media biases.
Add to that the fact that he voted for the DMCA and is likely to vote for Lamar Smith's new "fuck the consumers" bill, well... sorry but I don't trust him.
Regardless of what kind of votes he's gone conservative on, he has done so more vastly often than many Republican Senators. That's indicative of too much to completely blow off. Like I said, I have my doubts about the man, but I think you're being far too dismissive.
Regarding the DMCA, who is the anti-DMCA alternative for president?
Regarding the DMCA: regrettably, the entire government's pretty much been bought off.
Kinda what I figured.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
