Last Tuesday, a
CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll showed Bush’s approval rating slipping
to the critical point of 50%. CNN ran three stories on it,
including an interview with Bill Schneider headlined “Bush is
sinking; Clark is surging.” Schneider opined that the cause of the
slippage “is all men…men are getting very angry with Bush
because they supported the tax cut policy, but they don’t see the
payoff in terms of the job generation that was promised.” Holy
panic attack, Batman!
At first glance, the poll seemed suspect. Forty-eight percent of
the respondents identified themselves as either Democrats or “lean
Democrat.” Andrew Sullivan noted, “It seems pretty loaded.” Well,
no, it isn’t. The results have nothing to do with any bias at
Gallup, and everything to do with the method Gallup uses to
conducts its poll — a method that is practiced among many polling
outfits. The Gallup poll treats party preference as a variable, not
a constant. In other words, party preference is not a fixed
characteristic, but can shift with changes in the political
landscape. According to Frank Newport of Gallup, “party preference
fluctuates with the circumstances. If President Bush’s popularity
rises, more people will likely identify themselves as either
Republican or leaning Republican. If his popularity drops, more
people will likely identify themselves as Democrat or leaning
Democrat.” Since Bush has been having trouble with Iraq and the
unemployment rate isn’t dropping, the argument goes, more people
are inclined to side with the Democrats.
Other polls, like those done by John Zogby, treat party
preference as a constant. That is, they assume that party
identification does not change much, at least over the short term.
Thus, they “weight” their samples so that they have a percentage of
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents roughly equal to the
percentage in the actual population. Not all polling outfits weight
the same way. According to Zogby, his poll weights “based on party
registration, party turnout in previous elections, and the current
landscape.” There is considerable debate among professional
pollsters and academics over these methods, and the debate is not
settled over which method is more accurate.
While the Gallup Poll may indeed have bad news for Bush, it has
more interesting implications for Democrat-come-lately Wesley
Clark. The Gallup Poll shows that Clark is leading the race with
21%; his closest rival, Howard Dean, is at 13%. However, those who
lean Democrat are not actually registered Democrats, and
they constitute just over 30% of those who expressed a preference
for a Democratic candidate. Indeed, the influx of leaning Democrats
is boosting Clark’s poll numbers. Clark draws about 21% of those
who lean Democrat, almost twice as many as Dean. Given that the
Gallup poll coincided almost exactly with Clark entering the race,
the General is more flavor of the week than one who is deeply
admired among the party faithful. This does not bode well for Clark
because in the first three weeks of primary voting, most states
have closed primaries in which only registered Democrats can
vote.
While the Gallup poll is registering false strength for Clark,
it (along with new polls by FoxNews and Newsweek) is
registering some weakness for Bush. So how weak is Bush? Not
very.
There seems to be three factors which are currently driving the
president’s numbers lower. The first is Iraq. An absolute avalanche
of negative press coverage combined with Bush’s request for $87
billion to reconstruct Iraq (foreign aid is never popular with the
public) has taken its toll. Yet neither of these problems is
intractable. Internet stories about troops reporting back home on
how well things are going in Iraq are becoming legion. Furthermore,
the public can come to accept the new expenditure on Iraq if the
Bush camp repeatedly emphasizes how it is an essential part of the
War on Terrorism. The President needs to put far more effort into
that and into highlighting a lot of the good news from Iraq.
Second, if Bill Schneider is right that it is a “jobs issue,”
then a dropping jobless rate will turn Bush’s numbers around. We
are likely on the cusp of that happening. According to Don Luskin
of TrendMacrolytics, “job growth requires economic growth, and with
the tax cuts we’re getting more economic growth.” While increased
productivity is slowing job growth right now, “increased
productivity is a precursor to the next round of job creation,”
says Luskin.
Finally, some of the Democrats’ attacks are likely hitting their
mark. Unfortunately, Bush is in a position where he can’t really
fire back. Professor George C. Edwards III, a presidential scholar
at Texas A&M University, states: “If the President responds to
the criticism of the Democratic candidates, he will draw more
attention to the criticism. At this point, most incumbent
presidents act as though they are above the political fray, going
about the people’s business.” It can be grinding to watch, as there
is so much Bush could say in response. But not to worry: Once the
dust settles and a Democratic nominee emerges by early next year,
the presidential gloves will come off.
Ultimately, the current opinion polls are not necessarily
inaccurate, or the product of liberal bias in the media. But
neither are they much for Bush backers to worry about.
