Jewish World Review May 25, 2004 /5 Sivan, 5764
What do Bush's sagging approval ratings really mean for November?
Most voters don't care a fig about polls on the presidential race, and it is obvious why, since the only poll that really matters is the one taken on Election Day.
Even so, polling on the year's biggest race is a big and growing business.
Matthew Dowd, the president's pollster, says there are twice as many publicly reported polls on the race this year as there were on Bush vs. Gore in 2000 and four times as many as there were when Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984 against Walter Mondale.
The people who tend to pay a lot of attention to poll results are found in (where else?) politics and in the press.
Candidates for office have been known to tack this way or that in response to what their pollsters think they have discerned about the electorate.
Those covering campaigns know that and know, too, that a poll can furnish a peg for a story that is useful when better pegs are lacking.
Because we have an incumbent running for re-election, the polls drawing the most notice this year are those reporting how many Americans approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is doing his job.
Every poll on that question taken so far this month six months from the election reports approval ratings ranging from 49 percent (Rasmussen) down to 42 percent (Newsweek).
The question is what those under-50 numbers portend.
One answer, embraced (as you would expect) by the Kerry campaign, is that Mr. Bush is headed for defeat.
That answer draws on the past. Starting with Harry Truman in 1948, the four incumbents winning on Election Day had approval ratings of at least 52 percent in the Gallup Poll taken in May, while the three incumbents who lost had ratings no higher than 47 percent.
Mr. Dowd (as you also would expect) has a different answer. He agrees that "approvals" predict the ballot outcomes. But he says it isn't the May rating but the one in October that matters.
Mr. Dowd thinks the president will win if his last approval rating is above 50 percent and surely will lose if it is below 40 percent. He thinks a downward shift below 40 percent is unlikely because of the solid level of support Mr. Bush has among Republican voters.
Though Mr. Bush's approval ratings have declined in recent weeks, John Kerry hasn't been able to move ahead in the horse-race polls.
Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press says voters aren't focusing on Mr. Kerry but on Mr. Bush, who as a war president dominates the news (much of which has been negative for him).
"There is no reason to expect a one-to-one relationship between public disaffection with the incumbent and an immediate surge in public support for his challenger," Mr. Kohut writes.
But a later surge could occur. Again, there is history:
Jimmy Carter, notwithstanding his dismal approval rating in May 1980, still led Mr. Reagan at that same point in the race by 12 percentage points. Only in the last two weeks of the campaign did Mr. Reagan begin to gain in the head-to-head polls a sign that he had become a viable alternative.
Almost everything the Kerry campaign now is doing is designed to ensure that the candidate acquires that status.
Both campaigns think the race will be close. Yet "the hot new theory that has the chattering class all abuzz," writes JWR contributing columnist Roger Simon, isn't a close race but a blow-out, by Mr. Kerry or by Mr. Bush.
If the latter happens, the political pros will have to ask what it was about this election year that made the May approval ratings no basis for predicting the final outcome.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington
and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Terry Eastland is is publisher of The Weekly Standard.Comment by clicking here.
05/17/04: We must make distinctions between Berg, Abu Ghraib
05/11/04: College costs rise with students' expectations
04/30/04: A country's declining birthrate into oblivion
04/26/04: Dems escalate the judicial war
04/09/04: Bush was right to permit Rice to testify on 9-11
03/25/04: Colleges doing away with their racially exclusive programs
03/02/04: What does a conservative beat mean for The New York Times?
12/31/03: America is right to press for religious freedom worldwide
10/22/03: Case involving pledge should be easy for justices to decide
10/15/03: Dean places political considerations ahead of national security
08/28/03: Colleges creating policies that discourage intellectual exchange
08/14/03: Progressive reform could end up limiting government
07/30/03: Congressman, please consult Miss Manners
07/23/03:Words reveal much about Bush: Maybe there is a reason he won't retract sentence
07/08/03: Justices also said affirmative action must end
06/25/03: Court's law school ruling isn't persuasive
06/24/03: Whatever the Lynch story, everyone wants it
06/18/03: A judge shows he can set aside his strong views
06/04/03: Boston church becomes politically important again
05/28/03: YWCA names culture warrior as its new head
05/23/03: Washington steps in to help teach history
05/13/03: It may take another election to change filibuster rules
05/07/03: Paige works to improve education from inside out
04/30/03: Iraqis have choice to make regarding religious freedom
04/16/03: Is it acceptable for an education secretary to state a personal preference for religious schooling?
04/08/03: University officials must put academics ahead of athletics
04/02/03: Support for our soldiers means support for their orders
03/27/03: 'Free Iraqi Forces' underscore Bush's sincerity
03/18/03: Dems misunderstand judge's job
03/13/03: Justices show right restraint in ruling on anti-crime measures
03/05/03: America's imperial intentions
02/25/03: The weakness of Dems' stated reason for their filibuster makes you wonder whether it is the real reason
02/19/03: Administration fine-tunes religious rights in public education
02/12/03: France and Germany need to be reminded of the necessity of a strong, even predominant America
02/06/03: Judiciary's 'balance' -- or lack of it -- is our doing
01/29/03: The child who almost wasn't
01/21/03: President decides to punt on affirmative action case
01/14/03: Bush's faith has influenced his conduct in public office
01/07/03: Dems need ideas, not more microphones
12/17/02: Gray Lady should learn that times have changed
12/10/02: Will High Court be guilty of activism?
12/03/02: The missing facts in news accounts of Saudi Princess Haifa's putative 'charity'
11/26/02: Americans don't have to be worried about Big Brother
11/19/02: Texas' reputation for flamboyance may be revised
11/11/02: Bush now can repair confirmation system
11/05/02: Dems shouldn't believe too strongly in history
10/30/02: Snipers had lots of motives
10/23/02: No one should be shut out of marketplace of ideas
10/15/02: Open hearings that could imperil the nation
10/08/02: Debating the clear and present danger
10/01/02: A great awakening in China?
09/25/02: Abortion, again? The settled but still unsettling law of Roe v. Wade
09/18/02: A relevant presidency--and irrelevant U.N?
09/10/02: Ashcroft's obtuse judicial statement
09/04/02: The Education Gadfly stings again
08/28/02: So then let the president declare war
08/21/02: Will Bush finally 'fix' affirmative action once and for all?
08/06/02: President must take up cause of Egyptian democracy warrior
07/31/02: With each war, civil liberties are curtailed less
© 2004, Terry Eastland