CNN talking about Bush "Popularity Plunge"

[RevolutionStartsNow]

But their approach is to talk about how Bush can improve his numbers. Gag. Are they on his campaign, or what?

Can't wait for Clark to jump in, because I think they will give him plenty of air time.

[RobertSeattle]

1. Wonder if they'll from "Popular President" to "Unpopular President"

Since the lazy press loves their mindless adjectives.

[Brotherjohn]

3. "Unpopular" has 4 syllables. "Popular" only has 3.

Four is too much for the lazy press when they can use 3.

[LynneSin]

2. Geez, have they ever LOOKED at Bush's numbers

vs. Clinton's?

Clinton's numbers tended to rise and fall like gentle slopes in the Appalacias, in fact most presidents tend to have numbers like that. Some weeks folks loved ya, a few weeks later they hated you.

Bush's numbers ALWAYS go down, except when something really tramatic happens and they jump straight up like a giant-size cliff. But once atop that cliff, his number gently go down over the weeks & months following. People are trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and they lose that trust quickly!

[Brotherjohn]

4. Exactly. THAT's the difference. I have seen Clinton's and Reagan's...

... approval numbers at similar points of their terms (see Pollkatz graphic below, from http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/).

This worried me somewhat, b/c both were in the 40's at this point in their term. I knew Bush's situation was different, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

But looking at the data, you can see that they had both been fairly stable throughout their first term and were on significant upswings starting about halfway through their first term and continuing until election time.

Bush (II), on the other hand, has experienced such a precipitous and consistent decline that, at the least, one can say that his trending is opposite of Clinton and Reagan towards the end of their first terms. Sure, his overall approval has been higher, but chalk that up to 9-11. But the 9-11 bounce is now all but gone. Actually, his latest Gallup number is 52%, which puts him right about where Clinton and Reagan were at this point in their first terms. Except Bush is headed in the opposite direction.

The only presidents who have undergone such precipitous drops in popularity are Nixon and Bush I (see second graph), and possibly Carter. Great company, huh? What must these presidents have done to lose support hand over foot like that?!

[JHB]

5. Hmmm... He most resembles...

...dear old Poppy, who also received a massive boost (due to Operation What-handshake-?)... except *Jr drops more consistently.

[Cocoa]

9. Bush has the numbers of a one-termer

there's a clear break there between the one-termers and two-termers.

"Like father like son, four years and he's done"

[Richardo]

10. Surprisingly, idiot's number look a lot like JFK's (green diamonds)

...looks like JFK's jump came around the time of the Cuban missile crisis (October 1962 = year 1.75).

I was too young - what would have been the cause of Kennedy's decline in approval between late 1962 and his assassination in Nov 1963?

[Brotherjohn]

14. I noticed that, too. Vietnam heating up? (al la Iraq)

Makes you wonder whether he would have been re-elected.

[Richardo]

15. I remember AuH2O saying that he thought he could have beaten JFK in '64...

...but I don't remember why.

Going back to Carville, was it the economy? I don't think Vietnam was high enough on the public's radar in 1963 - massive troop deployments did not go until '65 or so.

[Richardo]

18. Ah - ha. Unemployment 6.7% in 1962

Federal spending: $106.82 billion
Federal debt: $302.9 billion
Inflation: 0.4%
Consumer Price Index: 30.2
Unemployment: 6.7%

Sounds familiar, no?

[hedda_foil]

17. Not Vietnam.

It wasn't even a blip on the public radar screen. Just a few thousand military "advisors" training the brave South Vietnamese soldiers to defend themselves from the commie North.

[Raenelle]

20. Might have been civil rights and loss of support in the South

n/t

[PAMod]

19. Civil Rights, maybe

And he would have certainly been re-elected, in my opinion.

If you analyze the landscape state by state, it's hard to imagine a scenario where JFK loses the election to Goldwater, though had Rockefeller been the Repub nominee you can make a case.

I don't think Vietnam was a big story yet - and most of America was still following the "domino-effect" theory regarding the spread of communism. Besides that, Kennedy was very ambivalent about our role in the effort in Vietnam. America's "history" would have been different had he lived.

I read somewhere were JFK & Goldwater were on friendly terms and talked once about campaigning in tandem around the country.

[NWHarkness]

22. I think you are right

The drop was probably because of the civil rights issue.

If JFK had lived, I doubt the electoral situation would have changed significantly. The issue in 1964 was Goldwater, over and above anything else. Barry would likely have done better in some of the rock rib Republican states, carrying Kansas, Nebraska, etc., but JFK would have still won by a healthy margin.

[RobinA]

21. JFK

was in a bit of trouble towards the end of '63, that's why he was in Dallas in the first place. Don't remember why, just that his approval numbers were not the greatest. I doubt it was Vietnam, which wasn't on the map of the average American at that point.

[tom_paine]

13. Oftimes statistical analysis shows just how badly screwed up the Empire is

Statistical analyses like the analysis of number of Gore invalidated ballots by-county during the Bloodless Coup of 2000.

You'd expect a normal distribution curve if the forces at work were random here.

But of course you get nothing of the sort, much more of a flat line plateauing high and staying there.

These poll numbers and their movements also suggests there is something very very wrong in the Amerikan Empire. Not just 9-11 but the constant pattern of odd steep jumps versus steady downfalls also indicates artificial event stimulation.

You know...LIHOP.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. The loyal few.

Besides the other trends already mentioned it is interesting that even as Nixon was resigning over 20% still approved of his performance as President. That's over 20% willing to follow a leader blatantly exposed as corrupt. But I think it says more about human nature than anything particular to American politics.

[Brotherjohn]

6. Notice also, any president dipping into the 40s by the fourth year...

...of his term is toast. The only presidents who have done this were Bush I and Carter.

Clinton and Reagan were still in the 40s late in their third years, but they were on the upswing, and were both solidly in the 50s throughout the fourth year of their respective terms (climbing to 60% by re-election).

Another reason why I think Bush crossing the 50% threshold so late in his term is so telling for his future.

BTW, isn't it interesting how closely Clinton and Reagan's numbers parallel each other throughout thei two terms?

[diplomats]

12. Yes to your last point

the major difference is, Clinton was actually more popular in his second term than Reagan was in his. Iran-Contra sent Reagan's ratings in the low 50s and occasionally below that while Monicagate actaully increased Clinton's approval.

[glarius]

7. I don't think they will give Clark much time....

They'll try to look like they are being fair, but I don't think we'll see any promoting of Clark on CNN....Now if he was a Republican that would be a different story, they'd be promoting him big time!

[xchrom]

8. cnn is a conservative mouthpiece

and that's the spin they put on all their news stories.

[tom_paine]

11. Naturally the Bushevik Mockingbird contingent certainly is

Remember the Old Days when their influence wasa more subtle that occasionally you didn't notice it?

Now it's as ham-fisted in it's own way as Stalinit Russia or Nazi Germany.

So pervasive as to be "conventional wisdom"

Comrade Stalin* has restored "honor and integrity" to the Kremlin.

Everybody knows that. What are you, some kind of traitor?

[blm]

16. You have to ask? They've been on his campaign team

for 5 years.

[0007]

23. All Rove has to do to get the number back up

is to get Ann Coulter or Linda Tripp to give junior a blow job and have Wolfowitz watch with delight.