Josh Marshall's great piece on why Bush's polls are in free-fall

[diplomats]

Presidents can do a lot worse than 49% approval a year before they face reelection -- as NBC is reporting for President Bush tonight.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the last two presidents who won second terms were doing worse a year out. But the key here is that the president's numbers seem to be in something close to free-fall.

Even with all the context which may be fairly provided, the president's rapid descent is undeniable. And it's not clear he's hit bottom.

I'm hearing many conservatives say now that the White House political office is off their game. But I see no real evidence of this. The problem is more fundamental. For quite some time this White House has functioned like a heavily leveraged business, an overextended investor that suddenly gets a margin call. To extend the business metaphor, the White House has been surviving not on profits but expectations of future profits or, in other words, credibility. The White House has been able to get the public to sit tight with a lot of objectively poor news on the basis of trust.

But a combination of the manifest incompetence of the planning for post-war Iraq and the dishonesty of the build-up for the war have become increasingly difficult to defend or deny. And that's struck a grave blow against the president's credibility.

Credibility of course is unitary. And the erosion has ricocheted from foreign policy to domestic policy and back again in escalating fashion.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com

[E_Zapata]

1. I am surprised it has taken this long to get under 50%

I am incredulous that the American public actually considers trying to buy into the Bush nightmare.

People should be raging in the streets. Anything short of that boggles my feeble mind.

[dbt]

2. Polls are as cooked these days as the "facts" are on Fochs Noose N/T

[Cappurr]

3. I agree with Josh's analysis

But what I don't understand, and will never understand, is why Bush was ever credible to anyone? Particuarly on Iraq. From the beginning it was obvious that he wanted nothing to do with inspections, wanted nothing to do with the UN, and just went through the motions for public perception.

[diplomats]

6. I can't figure that out, either

We knew Bush was full of s*** months, even years, before everyone else began to wake up.

[OrdinaryTa]

4. Bush Has Disappointed Conservatives

Bush hasn't delivered on his main promise, small government. Conservatives can tolerate a president's mistakes, but they really balk at paying for them. There is no way that Bush can reduce government revenue and pay for Iraq at the same time. That's a fantasy, and conservatives know it.

[wtmusic]

7. That's what it comes down to

Conservatives have not shifted in their position; but it's obvious by any standard that * is not effectual.

[reachout]

5. Caesarism

Caesarism

(n.) A system of government in which unrestricted power is exercised by a single person, to whom, as Caesar or emperor, it has been committed by the popular will; imperialism; also, advocacy or support of such a system of government.



I think it is something our country has been descending into for some time in regards to the office of the president. The Costitutional framers envisioned exactly this kind of problem arising within the executive and did their best to prevent it, but you can't legislate around human nature. We still seem to have this warped desire for kings and the presidency has more and more turned into just that. Even those who disagree with the president are loathe to voice their disapproval of him. The "Office" has been invested with this mystical aura where the president becomes the embodiment of AMERICA, rather than simply a public servant keeping the seat warm...because that seat really belongs to US.

[KoKo]

10. Good Point: Ceasarism....has been creeping and became full blown with the

rush to Invade Iraq......have not learned from Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.....the rush to Invade Iraq....sealed the Imperial Presidency.....and over-road reluctance that had appeared after Nixon and Johnson to give the President such overwhelming Power.

[Frances]

8. Credibility

is the key, as Josh Marshall points out.

If Bush is seen by the public as an incompetent braggart, then Bush is toast.

Bush and the right wing did not get their power from persuading the people that they were right on the issues. They got their power by attacking their opponents personally:

Clinton became an object of ridicule because he lied about Monica;

Gore was a liar because he forgot the name of some functionary in Texas;

McCain was the victim of a whisper campaign saying he was mentally unstable and the father of a black child;

Max Cleland morphed into Osama bin Ladin in attack ads in Georgia.

Now the Wall Street Journal has published an article by Rush Limbaugh tring to making Clark a figure of ridicule.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. He Missed The Central Point

First, the last 2 presidents were NOT below 49% a year before the election. Secondly, one of them (41) lost! So, even if his premise were true, his conclusion is drawn on a 50:50 probability. Not smart.

Secondly, he's been in free fall for 4 months, so where's Josh been?

Thirdly, the reason for the fall in approval is the middle. There is huge group of centrist voters who stay only semi-informed. They will approve of a president for no other reason than the fact that his approval is high already. IOW, they hear 60% and assume he must be doing ok, so they approve as well. The numbers go up!

When the numbers slide, the opposite happens. These semi-informed people have now stopped waving their flags long enough to pay a little attention. They don't like some of the things they see, and then they hear his approval ratings have fallen from 70% to 52%. They begin to think that maybe there's something he's doing wrong they missed, and they pay even a little more attention.

Finally, once in free fall, those that still aren't really paying attention yet, begin to disapprove only because so many folks now disapprove.

This is referred to in sociology as the Bandwagon Effect. It's a well known phenomenon and reflects in almost every presidential approval poll since the 50's.
The Professor

[KoKo]

11. Yes....I've seen alot of pundits trying to "qualify" Bush's falling poll

numbers.....and it's annoying that Marshall does it....but he again has to keep his readers which aren't all Dems.....he's respected by many Repugs (non PNAC/Fundies). So he does appear sometimes to "cloak" his comments. Also he was for the Iraq Invasion. Alot of folks are really trying to "cover butt" for that one........just to keep credibility.

Your comments about "bandwagon" effect are good to keep in mind. And, the "Middle" which is finally awakening from it's deep sleep.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Thanks KoKo

The Professor

[diplomats]

14. He was actually talking about the last two presidents

who won reelection. But you do make some good points!

[DemNoir]

13. Every doom and gloom DU'er

Should print that out and and put it on their refrigerator. Its the perfect synopsis of what is happening.
In the end they are going to have to run on their record, that will be fatal.