Finally, there’s always the chance the past few months have been a fluke — a case of lingering denial by voters who don’t want to accept just how badly Bush has fucked up.
Back to Main
June 21, 2005
Invisible Means of Support
Comments
Dubya could always count on about 35% to 38% of the electorate for 100% solid support – the super-wealthy, the religious right, and the militarists. He’s not likely to sink below that number on personal popularity, because he gives that constituency what it needs – an identifiable leader. They’ve never really given a damn about the war and, if Dubya were to abandon the war tomorrow, they would cut’n’run in a heartbeat because they never really supported the war anyway except as a political tool against the hated libruls.
Dubya’s popularity is now decaying to its logical base. The drops won’t be significant, only a point or two here and there for the next year of so. Then they’ll flatline at something like 36% until he gets removed from office. His Republican Congress colleagues unfortunately don’t have the luxury of not running again and Dubya acts like a perfectly good anvil around their sad little necks as they sink beneath the political waves.
Posted by: PrahaPartizan | Jun 21 2005 10:36 utc | 1
The Baghdad Boogie won him lots of support.
After American planes are attacked without provocation by Iranian forces bent on world conquest, and we have no choice but to rid the world of their Evil, too, the Tehran Tango will boost Bush’s approval ratings into the ’90’s again.
Which will last until that adventure doesn’t go so well, either, but at that point the Psychos in Syria will launch an unexpected sneak attack on 3 or 4 Marines in a shit-filled ditch on Iraqi border, leaving us no option but to liberate the hell out of them, and the Syrian Sashay will boost those polls again.
Polls, schmolls. This is a line dance. Ya bomb em to the left, ya bomb em to the right . . .
Posted by: Antifa | Jun 21 2005 11:28 utc | 2
Billmon wrote, he doesn’t understand the reason for the disconnect. I think I do.
Check the numbers on whether the original US decision to go to war was correct. Those are significantly higher than for the question billmon focused on, whether the war was ‘worth it’. I think this means: for some, the war wasn’t worth it, but could still turn out to be.
You should also consider the questions that, one way or the other, ask about continuing this war. It turns out some additional people aren’t ready to admit that the troops there ain’t improving anything, and indeed make things worse (“we have to stay to prevent civil war”).
Supporter of the esteemable football club near the shores of the Moldava, I’m as yet sceptical about Bush’s popularity melting down to the fanatics’ 36%. Bush had popularities this low already, always bounced back: the pliant media and the short memory of “moderates” allowed that. (Same goes for the poll numbers on the two Iraq issues I focused on above.) I will believe it happens only if some of the four most important numbers (the above two, War on Terror job approval, overall job approval) skirt 40%.
On second thought, maybe I should quote numbers. June 10-15 CBS/NYT poll, whether original decision was right: 45% say yes, 51% say no, the exact same as July 2004. Same issue, June 8-12 Pew poll, 47% yes 45% no, October had lower support and last month higher opposition.
Same Pew poll, what about the troops: 50% want them to stay, 46% want pullout. Both records, tough within the statistical margin of error with last July. (In this poll, 47% also say yes to the claim that the US will accomplish its goals.) June 6-8 Gallup poll: send more troops 10%, keep level 26%, withdraw some 31%, withdraw all 28%. The last number was the same last April and one percent higher in last May.
Latest Presidential job approvals: June 16-19 Gallup poll, overall: 47% approve 51% don’t, it was worse early last May (46% vs. 51%)
A final bit on my scepticism: let’s look at some less good-looking numbers on terror.
June 14-15 FOX News poll, on whether Guantanamo detainees are treated according to standards: 43% say yes, only 33% say no, rest unsure. Only 22% say this extralegal abomination should be closed, a full 59% don’t flee behind the “unsure” copout and say it shouldn’t. (This poll also has depressing numbers on the PATRIOT Act.)
Don’t trust FOX News? In the June 8-12 Pew poll, only 34% believe ‘mistreatment’ at Guantanamo is part of a wider pattern, 54% clutch to the bad-apples theory. And only 24% believe there is too little reported on the issue.
I think the resolution of the paradox is simple, and it goes back to September 11 and 12. It boils down to four words. We only have one President. That is what saved Bush on the 12 of September, when Democratic leaders whom the people actually knew and trusted came to his side, and calmed the nation. We were all in that state, whether we thought Bush was up to the job or not. And recall that the evidence of his incompetence, though out there for anyone with a mind, was not as obvious as it subsequently became.
The President is both the actual and symbolic leader of our country. To go against the President in a time of stress and perceived national danger is to many, perhaps most, people, tantamount to troops running away from the field of battle, leaving their general in the lurch.
I think it is feelings like this, rather than any residual affection for the man, that holds his approval above 40 percent. What is going to bring it down, and it surely will, is the growing realization that the general is not protecting his people or his troops, that he is, what he always was, a fraud. When this sense of betrayal, which is festering, grows like a huge boil of pus and finally pops, it will be horrible to see. One of the reasons it hasn’t is that there are no obvious alternative leaders to reassure the American public that everything will be o.k. if they just offer their trust.
Bush is going down, but it will be a long, slow, and excrutiatingly painful process for all of us.
Posted by: Knut Wicksell | Jun 21 2005 12:21 utc | 7
I agree with Knut. The numbers haven’t gone down because to turn on Bush is to admit that our country has done something terrible. And this wasn’t some covert operation that we were unaware of, we chose this man and his policy. To look clearly at what is being done in Iraq and Guantanamo would be to see ourselves as the bad guys. And, for the numbers to drop, I think we don’t need a leader to assure us that everything will be okay but someone who will offer up another narrative that will let us back away from these destructive policies while still retaining our “goodness”.
Posted by: sgiff | Jun 21 2005 12:49 utc | 8
I think the discrepancy is an effect of our two party system. Maybe people don’t trust Bush, but they also don’t trust the Dems either. The old “devil you know…”deal.
Posted by: ed | Jun 21 2005 13:34 utc | 9
I can’t believe Bush has a solid base of support at the 45% to 48% level.
I think/hope we are starting to see the push back from mainstream America.
It’s not just a war that has no resemblance to what Bush promoted, it’s Terri Schivio, Social Security, deficit spending, Tom DeLay, all of these will continue to add drag to the conservative agenda.
Despite the attacks from corporate lobbyist, political spinmeisters, and the piss poor press democracy still works, albeit slowly.
Bush and the neo-cons have over-reached, unless Carl Rove has some rabbits left to pull out, Bush’s support will continue to erode.
Posted by: folgers | Jun 21 2005 13:49 utc | 10
Here’s what the decoupling says to me: President Bush now has a significant portion of his supporters thinking that the IraqWar™ was a mistake. It stands to reason they are expecting him to make up for that mistake somehow. It remains to be seen what consensus will emerge among Bush supporters for what would be the appropriate resolution to this issue. All I know is that a good number of Bush supporters are now looking to see what he will do about a situation they are unhappy about.
And what is Bush doing to respond to their concerns? The same thing he did when his plan to privatize Social Security fell on deaf ears. The same thing every ineffectual corporate CEO does when his business plans are collapsing around him and employee morale is plummeting like a stone. He’s trying to rally his base of support by the sheer force of his personality without actually making the one change that could do any good: resigning from office and letting the board of directors hire a new executive.
Posted by: s9 | Jun 21 2005 15:04 utc | 11
the disconnect could be related to the very real fact that our societal obsession w/ polling – being representative of how democracy is supposed to be measured – plays as much of a role, perhaps larger than we care to admit, in shaping how we think and act as it does in reflecting how feel. that is, they’re fudging the numbers as much as they can. in this climate where every day we hear of doctored studies, staged presidential townhall meetings, rigged elections, VNR’s, etc, surely polls are not exempt from such outright manipulation at some level too.
Posted by: b real | Jun 21 2005 15:05 utc | 12
I believe the numbers about how well he is doing on terrorism is 52% – that could explain it.
Posted by: VAdem | Jun 21 2005 15:37 utc | 13
You are seeing the difference of a folksy personality, vs bad policy decisions that don’t have as direct effect on the decision maker.
Bush has not been personally and publically villified. He has been belittled, mocked gently, but not villified as say Newt Gingrch was. His policies have been collosal failures, but he personally has not been attacked. The cult of bush is really a 7-12% cult if that high. Don’t over estimate the man’s core constituency. The remaining numbers stem from the positive marketing of his folksiness. Bush’s personal approval rating have nowhere to go but down. They will drop as he alienates more and more of his based as he continues to overpromise, over step, and under deliver.
Unlike everyone else in the world, Bush is not the subject to endless sniping, and malicious slander present at every level of the talking head media. If Bush received the Gore media treatment for any length of time he would be at his true level of approval which is probably single digits. Just compare a truely popular president, “Clinton”, to a propagandized media image, “Bush”. Clinton can pack the house and be thronged with admirers anywhere in the world. Bush needs to close down the city and screen the people in his “crowds”. Compare the large pass even the Washington Post gave the Bush Twins, and the relentless hammering the tabloids did on Chelsea. Or the free pass the current first lady gets, vs the continuous nasty attacks hillary constantly recieves.
Don’t fool yourselves, the Bush’s have never been popular. Nothing about them can exist without constant maintanence, and an army of people constantly attacking others to make them look good by comparison. It remains a mystery to us how elements of the press can have such poor judgement and obvously low self worth, as they continue to cover for and coddle the Bush’s when truly excellent politicians remain rhetorical kick balls.
Posted by: patience | Jun 21 2005 16:09 utc | 14
I’m with Knut, I think there is an effect of whether you’re asking if people support The President vs. agreeing with things he’s doing. There is a certain core of people who believe you have to support The President even if they don’t like what he’s doing, and to do otherwise would be somehow disloyal. It doesn’t transfer to his party, though, so I don’t expect it to be a factor in 2008.
Patience is both an astute observer and difficult advice to heed.
Posted by: CK Dexter Haven | Jun 21 2005 18:48 utc | 17
Does anyone know if this phenomenon of Bush’s approval decline lagging the war support showed up with Nixon and Vietnam as well?
I think it can often be easier to let go of an abstract idea like support for war than it is to let go of a wrong personal choice like a presidential candidate. This reflects much more on th eperson, especially when they have internally vilified the opposing candidate…
Posted by: BushBGone | Jun 21 2005 20:52 utc | 18
i have never believed he has the support they say he has. i’m one of the ultras who believe diebold carried him. its an illusion of the press he’s so popular. emporer w/ no clothes.
Posted by: annie | Jun 21 2005 21:34 utc | 19
patience, I think you are right on.
The shrub’s approval rating has, from the very beginning been the product of highly saturated and effective PR. And as Knut points toward, after 911 he got a free pass even though:
It happened on his watch.
All the normal time-proven defense Standard Operating Procedures had been rescinded or circumvented.
And then, all the post answers were pre-canned propaganda scripted by the administration and their PR flacks.
Remember that his approval rating was dropping just before 911. Many Americans had started to realize what a fraud, charlatan and con man he was.
A deluge of overwhelming facts eventually seeps into the still un-drenched synapses of our neurons. Keep the flood inundating the Washington gangsters and soon they will all drown in the slime of their falsehoods and malignancy.
Posted by: Juannie | Jun 21 2005 22:24 utc | 20
I strongly suspect that the tendency even in evidence on these pages has a lot to do with the divergence between BushCo support and support for the Iraq invasion.
Time and time again we see that the indoctrination that US citizens receive from an early age convinces otherwise rational people that they need one person in charge; a leader to guide their country forward.
I reckon this translates into the way that voters can then seperate policy from the person ie there are two obvious options with the Iraq invasion to either stay the course or to withdraw. Things are not so clear-cut when it comes to the Presidency though. There’s BushCo and there’s…..who?
It strikes me as highly unlikely that voters will abandon BushCo until an alternative is obvious.
This won’t happen as long as dems and any other options adhere to conventional political thinking.
Sticking your head above the parapet now flies in the face of accepted political wisdom. You will ‘burn out’ ‘over-expose’ set yourself up as a target to be knocked over before there’s a glint in the eye of the New Hampshire primary.
So unless there is a truly inspired pol out there prepared to risk it all we can expect BushCo support to go into stasis in the late 30’s early 40’s.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 22 2005 0:11 utc | 21
So unless there is a truly inspired pol out there prepared to risk it all we can expect BushCo support to go into stasis in the late 30’s early 40’s.
One Credible democrat could do it, but a democrat who will “risk” being credible rather than a special interest (or, core value) hack, is yet to be seen.
Posted by: razor | Jun 22 2005 4:45 utc | 22
Possible reasons for the disconnect: Republican congressmen and senators questioning the war makes it okay for Republicans to be against it. People are waking up to the idea that the money spent on the war could’ve been better spent. People believe Rumsfeld and Cheney call the shots about the war.
Posted by: aflounder | Jun 23 2005 21:37 utc | 23