After November 2004, President Bush has experienced one of the most dramatic skids in American politics since Richard Nixon. And not since Nixon has a second-term president been so unpopular or so mistrusted.
Bush’s first mistake of his second-term was that he envisioned his reelection as a mandate by the American people. Elections in America are anything but a guide of public opinion. They are measures of how well campaigns can get their message out, of how well campaigns can create an almost static sense of unreality; they are marketing at it’s best. For a president who supposedly doesn’t lead by the polls, he sure took his 51% as a sign that he was a president granted broad powers even if it was by only 21% of the population.
Considering, though, that of Bush’s two presidential elections he has only won by a combined 2,468,355 votes or roughly 1% of the total combined electorate, the smallest plurality in American two-term presidential history, it is remarkable he has hung on this long. In other words, 1% of the combined total of 227 million people who voted in 2000 and 2004 resolved the elections in Bush’s favor.
When compared to past two-term elected presidents since Lincoln, the electoral margin is even more illuming:
Lincoln 10.22%
Grant 8.76%
Cleveland 1.76%
Wilson 8.19%
Eisenhower 13.13%
Nixon 12.26%
Reagan 14.12%
Clinton 6.98%
GW Bush 1.08%
When your total margin of victory is only 1% of the total combined vote, then you don’t have a lot of wiggle room to do too many things that aren’t popular, or for that matter to institute policy that is even vaguely liked by the public. Does anyone recall anything of matter from Grover Cleveland? Bush’s 1 percent is either the least persuadable candidate in history or the luckiest.
But Bush’s 1% is wearing thin. Not since the invasion of Iraq has his administration been able to produce anything of political substance particularly on the domestic front. His hugely unpopular Social Security privatization is over by all accounts. He has increased government spending by 30% since taking office in 2001. He has created the largest federal deficit in the history of this country. He has increased the size and role of the federal government at levels not seen since FDR. Bush is also yet to use his veto power, making him the only two-term president in history to never veto legislation; a conservative government is certainly not what he’s administering.
Even more recently, more and more Bush insiders are going public with their discontent for the administration, all mainly geared at the neocon foreign policy. Brent Scowcroft, former national security advisor to Bush 41, and Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, both in the last week are the newest members of Bush buddies to have leveled very heavy complaints towards Bush’s big incompetent government. Stories about both accounts can be found here.
All this goes without mentioning the extreme backlash from conservatives about the Miers nomination, which actually brought the dissatisfaction with the Bush administration to that 1% base that Bush has desperately needed all along. In all actuality 1% is about 1.3 million votes which is about half of Bush’s total margin of victory. And that 1% is surely wearing thinner by the day.
Two things are very certain after the last five Bush years, 51% is not a mandate and 1% is not even a referendum.
Tags:
politics, Bush, Scowcroft, Wilkerson, Now They Tell Us
10.25.2005
Bush's 1% is Wearing Thin
Posted by Chris at 7:47 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I am only 26, I don't know much about politics, I watch the daily show for news, and I am pretty much oblivious to the world. It sounds like to me that you on the contrary know what your talking about. I can't believe someone with as many facts as you would agree with my blog which is basically an opinion. Yours is more like concrete reasons than opinions. I am planning to read all of your blog, repsond when I feel necessary, and follow your links because your obviously a smart guy. Thanks for all the great info.
When will electing a president stop being some kind of marketing game is what I want to know.
The fact he is even in office with those numbers show a very large fault somewhere in this system and or with the American people.
blog girl is right at least some of his bag of tricks is hopefully due for indictment.
thoughtfully written as always mj.
I do not want to sound calvalier but that is because his base is not all that smart, and he knows that- knew that all long.
This is a sick sad situation for this presidency. How low can you go?
Powerline recently published a round up of opinion poll numbers of Presidential second terms.
Johnson: 35%
Nixon: 24%
Ford: 37%
Carter: 28%
Reagan: 35%
Bush I: 29%
Clinton: 37%
President Bush's approval rating currently stands at 41.7%, which is considerably better than all those other Presidents at the low points of their terms.
Sapp, I'm 27 and really don't consider myself all that smart. I know way more about sports than politics. I do have a lot of opinions on my blog as well. I read a lot, and usually my days are filled with political stuff. So I suppose it comes with the territory. But thanks for the kind words and thanks for reading.
girl, it does appear that maybe they have run their course. But never count a good neocon out. They do have the best attack machine available, both militarily and political. Thanks for reading.
Alice, it probably will never end. I don't see it ending. Marketing a candidate is the name of the game. The only way it will end is if the people demand a change. Sometimes I think we the people forget that we are the people. If we leave it up to the politicians to change how they conduct business it will never happen. We are the change. Of course it will take an extreme marketing adventure to convince the people of this :)
Graham, I couldn't agree with you more. My second or third paragraph eludes to how, amazingly, Bush has pulled what he has with the squeaky elections he has won. I also agree that Clinton probably never really had a base. He has more of a base now that he is out of office than he ever did while in office. Bush has proven one thing in American politics: it's very possible to move as far right as imaginable and still win elections, while it's very difficult to take one step towards the center and win. Thanks for reading; you a very good.
Businessman, probably as long as the people will allow it. Bush has an extreme base, a solid one at that. He can't abandon them for very long. In the next few weeks he will have to pander to them like never before. Thanks for reading.
Kent, I would love a link to those numbers that you post. For one, they are very skewed. They are not second-term numbers at all. For starters, Ford, Carter and Bush 41 never had a second-term. So right off the bat the numbers don't add up.
Secondly, Clinton's 37% that you mention is a first term number, 1993 I believe. His second-term numbers are higher than anything of Bush's second-term. I agree that you are posting presidential low points, but for the purpose of comparison it's hard to do.
And besides, my post isn't about current approval ratings at all. It's about electoral margins, which has nothing to do with current polling. So to post current numbers really takes my whole post out of context. Thanks for reading and commenting though. I owe you some visits.
I don't get how Bush can still be so cocky even though it appears that his base is slowly, but surely, erroding.
i am anxious to see what happens to the bush administration after the delay trial. i wonder if any secrets will become public.
looking forward to reading your comments on miers pulling out
First, I mistakenly wrote 'second term.' So, in the case of Bush I, Ford and Carter, their approval numbers were taken late in their only terms. Obviously.
Second, these numbers were an average, an aggregate, of approval ratings of each President as crunched by Powerline.
The point of this exercise was to highlight the fact that Bush's poll numbers aren't as bad, comparatively speaking, as the msm has been breathlessly portraying it.
As we all know and understand, just as there are a million polls and a million polling methodologies, there are also a million interpretations.
MJ, if you need a link, consult the Powerline archives.
Graham, it is obviously true that the straight analysis is Clinton's second term numbers are better than Bush's. There's a simple reason for the disparity.
The status quo is easy and popular. Clinton did nothing of any consequence in his second term. He didn't shake anything up. He didn't propose any radical reforms. He didn't take any risks. Everything he did (with the exception of Monica) was antiseptic and safe. Hence the higher approval numbers.
By sharp contrast, Bush has been hit with one disaster after another since '01. He's had to make some difficult decisions and just about everything he's done in five years has been risky. Change and uncertainty is hard and controversial, hence the lower numbers.
JT, I'm not sure it's eroding. They are angry at him, but they revere him as a great leader. Scares me too. But there is a saying in politics: He might be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch. So very true for Bush. Bush's base probably isn't going anywhere. His base is some of the most loyal around. Thanks for reading.
Smink, the DeLay trial might be a ways off. I don't look forward to any of it. As for Miers, well, I knew it would happen. I'm not sure I will do a post about her removal. I might wait until after the next nominee is announced and then just combine the two. The one thing I can say is that there was no way in hell Miers was going to be confirmed. After two weeks in Washington, I left convinced of that. Thanks for reading. Let me know how your manuscript is coming.
Kent, it's understandable about the misprint. No biggie. But I do have to contend that those numbers are not averages either. For instance, Reagan's approval average was not 35%. And just to argue one more point, Bush's current approval ratings are lower than any second-term president since Nixon; so to say that Bush's numbers aren't all that bad when compared to past presidents isn't entirely accurate. Currently the only comparison that fits when looking at poll numbers are Nixons, because Nixon is the only other second-term president (besides Bush) with such poor approval ratings. Again, though, I have to maintain that my main page post is not about current poll numbers, which like you I agree can be interpreted a million different ways.
I could argue your thesis that Clinton did nothing during his second term, but since it's directed towards Graham I'll let him. Thanks for checking back and thanks for reading.
Very thoughtful post. You now have a front-page link at Progressive Politics, Populist Voices and a companion link to the forums for discussion.
I actually teach political science, so I think I'll field a bit of the fuss over the approval numbers.
The numbers can't possibly be both "averages" and indicate anything about a "low point". The two are mutually exclusive. In fact, you average them to get rid of the low point numbers.
Generally speaking, if you want to quote someone else's numbers, then you need to be able to refer your readers to the exact point you got them. Simply saying "look at Powerline" is just a way of dodging responsibility. Surely you knew how to find them when you posted them, it shouldn't be difficult to come up with the link when challenged. Otherwise, you're just side-stepping the issue.
Just for the sake of explaining, here's the link to the post -
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011936.php#011936
The numbers are "Real Clear Politics averages". What Real Clear Politics does (apparently) is to add up all of the polls taken and average them out. There is no indication if they take into account the Margin of Error, though.
There is also a problem that the linked page doesn't provide the info that it should - like the averages for the other Presidents. In fact, Real Clear Politics doesn't even mention the other Presidents. There is no "Real Clear Politics average" for anyone but President GW Bush.
You have to follow the other link to find where the other numbers come from. They come from an article written by James Pfiffner for "White House Studies". What they are showing for the other Presidents is their lowest polling rate - not an average at all.
If you compare them against the average given by "Real Clear Politics", then President Bush's number is lower than every other President since - well, they go back as far as Eisenhower and no one is lower. The lowest average was Carter with 45%, which is almost 4% higher than President Bush's average.
If you want to compare low points, President Bush's low point (so far) was 37% in the CBS poll of 10/3-10/5. So, scratch Clinton off that list, as they exactly match each other at their low point.
The interpretation? President Bush's low, to this point, has not been any lower than other President's - which means that not everyone thought he was a bum at once. However, his average approval rating (which could still go up or down) is lower than every other President that we have data on.
Gee, no wonder you didn't want to expose yourself as badly misinformed and provide a link to that post.
As to the approval numbers, I teach my students that 34% seems to be the floor for approval in politics (obviously, one-time peaks DO occur, but they are statistical outliers). For example, no Presidential candidate (since we have run on a Party-basis) has taken less than 34% of the popular vote (You can check my data at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Presidential_election ). In short, 34% of people will stick with someone no matter what.
XT
MJ said...
"JT, I'm not sure it's eroding."
You're totally killing my buzz.
XT,
Like most Liberals, you seek to marginalize me by calling me names--'misinformed,' and a 'side-stepper'--instead of simply giving your opinion.
BTW, I did a quick drive by on your blog and saw a post entitled 'Kerry thinks the election was stolen.'
Wow. You really are informed and progressive. In your mind, anyway. Good for you!
Graham. There is no denying that the world today would be a vastly different place without 9/11. Many have opinied that a domestic Bush agenda would have only yielded one term. I tend to believe that Bush would have been a two-term President, regardless, due to a booming economy via tax cuts and other stimuli.
That can be debated.
What cannot be debated, from my perspective, is the culpability of Democrats in the poisonous political climate in which we've lived the past five years. Bush came into office with his 'change the tone' mantra. He's bent over backwards to work with Dems, to be bi-partisan--I hear you laughing, MJ--look what he did as his first act as President. He invited Ted Kennedy over to the White House for a BBQ and worked with the Senator on education reform.
Kennedy is one of the President's more outspoken critics.
The day after the '04 elections what was his first act of the day? He called Harry Reid to congratulate him on being the new Minority leader.
What's Bush gotten in return? He's been called an 'idiot,' 'a moron,' 'a liar,' etc. But he's kept up his policy of trying to 'change the tone,' which is why, I think, that he hasn't used his veto power.
My point is that he's not the one to blame for 'dividing the nation.' Democrats are the ones dividing us. One need only read the words of people from your party, from Kerry, to Hillary, Edwards, Gore, Clinton himself, who all agreed that Iraq had WMD.
Now, playing expedient politics, these same people criticize Bush because no WMD have been found. BTW, I wrote last week @ R.F.L. about WMD found in Iraq.
Democrats continue to want to have it both ways, and because of a Left-leaning press corps, they never have to explain their flip flops.
Additionally, Graham, I disagree with you about the 'mess of planning the aftermath' in Iraq. Do you think any war is predictable? War is far from predictable. War is fluid. It changes. There are ebbs and flows. Good days and bad.
I would remind anyone who thinks that war should be fast, easy and casualty free to study the American Civil War. War is messy, ugly, hard and unpredictable.
Leaders lead. If Bill Clinton, Mr. Status Quo, was the leader that you believe him to be, then he, would have removed Saddam from power. If Clinton was the leader that you claim him to be, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
The truth about Clinton is that he was a feckless President. And some more truth for you: George W. Bush is going to go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents.
Now Kent, let's be realistic here.
A Liberal telling ME to 'be realistic'?
That's rich.
:)
I'm not a liberal.
Post a Comment