Yesterday, DR reported on data from the December 30-January 1 Time/CNN poll that suggest Bush’s bounce from the capture of Saddam may already be evaporating. This should come as no surprise since the rate at which US and allied forces are suffering casualties has not declined since Saddam’s capture. If anything, it has gone up. This is not exactly what the public had in mind.
Actually, signs of public unease with the effect of Saddam’s capture on the Iraq situation and on the war on terror had already emerged before Christmas, according to the CBS News/New York Times poll. For example, right after Saddam’s capture, those saying his capture would decrease attacks against US troops in Iraq outnumbered those saying his capture would increase such attacks by 24 percent to 19 percent. By December 21-22, those numbers had reversed: by 25 percent to 20 percent, the public felt attacks against US troops were more likely to increase than decrease. More dramatically, right after Saddam’s capture, the number saying his capture would increase the threat against terrorism was about equal to the number saying his capture would decrease that threat. But, only a week later, twice as many were saying Saddam’s capture would increase, not decrease, the terrorist threat (31 percent to 15 percent). And, intriguingly, by a wide margin the public said US priorities should be to focus on finding Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda members, rather than focus on dealing with Saddam and Iraq (61 percent to 24 percent).
Finally, other data from the Time/CNN poll suggest some of Bush’s key vulnerabilities outside of Iraq continue unabated. For example, 57 percent of the public agree Bush is “out of touch with the problems people like you face in their daily lives”, compared to 40 percent who say he is in touch (this indicator is more lop-sided among political independents: 60 percent to 37 percent). In addition, 57 percent believe Bush “pays too much attention to big business”, compared to 35 percent who don’t (63 percent to 29 percent among independents). And the majority of the public, for the first time, says Bush “hasn’t paid enough attention to the country’s most important problems” (52 percent), while 45 percent say he has the right priorities (54 percent to 42 percent among independents).
Perhaps the punditocracy was a bit premature in declaring Bush’s re-election assured after Saddam’s capture.

Hard to say until we see a few more polls, but it is interesting to note that the just-released Time/CNN poll, which was conducted December 30-January 1, has his approval rating at just 54 percent, only a couple of points over their mid-November poll. This poll be one of the first to reflect the public’s realization that the capture of Saddam Hussein did not, in fact, end the war in Iraq, nor even appreciably reduce the amount of violence directed at US troops.
DR was also intrigued by the results of their re-elect question, which were closer than results on similar questions in earlier post-Saddam capture polls: 51 percent said they were very or somewhat likely to vote for Bush’s re-election, compared to 46 percent who said they were very or somewhat unlikely to vote for him, with very unlikely (38 percent) being 5 points higher than very likely (33 percent). And, significantly, among independents, where Bush had been picking up some ground since the capture, those saying they are unlikely to vote for Bush’s re-election (52 percent) now outnumber those who say they are likely to vote for him (46 percent). The former figure includes an astonishing 42 percent of independents who say they are very unlikely to support Bush’s re-election, far higher than the 26 percent of independents who say their support is very likely.

Bush’s tumble in the polls has been widely-observed and documented. But one thing that has not received as much attention as it should is how very poorly Bush is doing with independent voters. And without fairly strong support from independent voters, he is unlikely to prevail in November, 2004.
Consider these data from the latest CBS/New York Times poll. This poll has Bush’s approval rating at just 51 percent (pretty much identical with his rating in August, 2001, just before the September 11 terrorist attacks) But among independents, it’s considerably worse: 43 percent approval and 45 percent disapproval. Same story on handling foreign affairs (44 percent approval overall, but 38 percent approval/48 percent disapproval among independents) and on handling the Iraq situation (47 percent approval overall, but 40 percent approval/52 percent disapproval among independents). And on handling the economy, where Bush generally does the worst, his overall rating is an anemic 37 percent, but among independents, it’s a staggeringly bad 28 percent approval with 63 percent disapproval.
There are a number of other examples: today just 41 percent of the public thinks Bush has the same priorities as they do, which is pretty bad as is. But among independents, the figures are notably lop-sided: a mere 30 percent think he shares their priorities, 65 percent think he does not. Similarly, an unimpressive 40 percent overall have confidence in Bush’s ability to make the right decisions about the economy, but among independents, only a truly dismal 31 percent have such confidence, with 65 percent professing lack of confidence. Finally, 41 percent overall still believe the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs, but among independents, this falls to 33 percent who believe the result was worth the costs, with 60 percent believing the contrary.
These are remarkable figures. Which leads DR to ask: given the political importance generally attached to independent voters, why isn’t Bush’s strikingly bad image among them a bigger story?

Bush has been tanking in the national polls lately, as DR has been delighted to document. But, as the 2000 election so vividly illustrated, it’s not enough to beat Bush nationally in the popular vote; you need to beat him state by state and gain a majority of the electoral votes to defeat him.
That’s why it’s so significant that Bush’s poll numbers have recently been tanking in one important state after another.
AZ: 34 percent say they would vote to re-elect Bush; 44 percent say they would vote for somebody else
CA: Bush overall job rating at 46 percent, on Iraq at 40 percent and below 40 on the economy, environment, health care, reducing unemployment and the budget deficit.
CO: 42 percent would vote to re-elect Bush; 35 percent to replace him
IO: 41 percent say they would vote to re-elect Bush; 41 percent say they would vote for the Democrat
MI: 44 percent say they would vote to re-elect Bush; 49 percent say they would vote for somone else
NM: 40 percent say they would vote to re-elect Bush; 43 percent would vote for another candidate
The Democrats look to be in good shape to hold their blue states from 2000 and, critically, pickup some of the red states where underlying trends are making Democrats competitive. And, if that happens, it’s bye-bye, W.

But what if the economy picks up and, say, we have pretty good economic growth by the middle of next year? Don’t the election forecasting models say that if GDP growth or, even better, growth in per capita disposable income is strong, then Bush more or less has a lock on the election?
Just like Al Gore did in 2000, I guess, a very recent election that most of the economy-driven election forecasting models missed egregiously. And let’s not forget 1992, when such models also performed poorly, because, by the middle of 1992 the economy was, according to most indicators, picking up a good deal of steam. So George H.W. Bush should have won. But he didn’t.
There’s a lesson here. Sure the economy in 1992 was picking up and, perhaps reasonably, the forecasting models assumed this would be a big deal to voters–but, both then and now, these are simple models based on a very small number of elections that simply can’t capture unusual, but critical, aspects of an upcoming election. (DR strongly recommends Jay Greene’s critique of election forecasting models that was published back in 1993 in The American Prospect). In the 1992 case, the unusual aspect was the persistence of relatively high unemployment, even as growth picked up. That made voters cranky who were expecting better and they took it out on the incumbent.
What’s happening today? Well, growth may be picking up and it could be pretty good by the middle of next year. Like 1992. But most projections expect unemployment to remain high through next year, even with the growth pickup. Like 1992. And right now 48 percent of voters in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll say that unemployment is the most important economic issue facing the country–far outdistancing any other particular economic issue. That’s also just like 1992, when 46 percent of Americans said unemployment was the most important economic issue.
So, throw those forecasting models in the circular file. And. with any luck, we’ll have an election result just like 1992, too.

Well, not exactly fresh, but the VNS consortium has now released a public use file of the national (though not state) data from the 2002 election. There’s a lot of interesting stuff here and DR’s crack research team will release results from these data as their analysis of the public use file proceeds.
Of course, we’ll do this analysis carefully and make sure we get it right. Others may perhaps be less careful. An early example of this is a column by pollster David Winston in Roll Call that claimed, among other things, that the VNS data show that it is a myth that “Republicans can’t attract minority voters in significant numbers”.
Well, not really. In fact, the VNS 2002 data are completely consistent with that so-called myth. Republicans are still having huge difficulties attracting minority voters and the 2002 election was not an exception. Where the GOP did do exceptionally well was among white voters, where they received 60 percent of the white vote. That’s up from 57 percent in 1998, the last off-year election and the best point of comparison, and also from 2000, where they received 56 percent of the white vote.
Winton claims, however, that the GOP had a breakthrough year among Hispanics. He cites as evidence a drop in Hispanic support for Congressional Democrats and rise in support for Republicans between 2000 and 2002. While Winston’s data for ‘02 are wrong and exaggerate this change, it is true that the Hispanic two party House vote was 65 percent Democratic/35 percent Republican in ‘00 and did fall modestly to 62 percent/38 percent in ‘02. However, Hispanic support for House Democrats traditionally falls at least several points from a Presidential to an off-year election, so this says little about a real trend toward the Republicans. The more pertinent comparison is to 1998, the last off-year election, where Hispanics supported Democrats by 63 percent to 37 percent. So, basically, we have a shift in off-year Democratic support from 63/37 to 62/38. If that’s a trend, DR will eat his calculator.
Well, what about the Senate races? These were the most significant races of ‘02 and perhaps a pro-GOP surge can be detected here. Nope, the Senate two party vote among Hispanics was 67 percent Democratic/33 percent Republican. Governors, then? Not here, either–Democratic support among Hispanics was a healthy 65 percent to 35 percent.
What about other minorities? Not much luck here either for the GOP. In fact, blacks and asians both appear to have increased their support for the Democrats. The two party black vote for the House went from 89 percent Democrat/11 percent Republican in both 1998 and 2000 to a 91 percent/9 percent split in 2002. And Asians increased their support dramatically for House Democrats going from 56 percent Democratic/44 percent Republican in 1998 to 60 percent/40 percent in 2000 to 66 percent/34 percent in 2002!
Much more “progress” like this among minority voters and the GOP–aka “the white people’s party”–will have a very limited future indeed.

The just-released NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has Bush’s approval rating at just 49 percent, with 45 percent disapproval.  This is the first major public poll to break the 50 percent barrier.
The poll also shows that more people now believe the policies of the Bush administration (25 percent) are resonsible for the recession and economic downturn we are experiencing than believe the effects of 9/11 and the war on terrorism (22 percent) are responsible.  That’s a huge turnaround from October of 2002 when 34 percent blamed 9/11 for economic problems and only 12 percent blamed Bush administration policies.
More on this very interesting poll tomorrow.

The honor of the second sub-50 Bush approval rating goes to the just-released American Research Group (ARG) poll which has our steadily-less-beloved president at just 47 percent approval with 48 percent disapproval–in other words, a net negative job rating. Just a month ago, ARG had Bush’s approval rating at a net +15 (54 percent approval/39 percent disapproval).
Breathing right down ARG’s neck is the latest Gallup poll, which has Bush’s approval rating at 50 percent approval/47 percent disapproval. That’s even lower than the approval rating Gallup measured for Bush right before 9/11, when Bush was at 52 percent approval but only 39 percent disapproval–8 points less than Bush’s current disapproval rating. In other words, Bush has now not only lost every point in approval rating he gained post-9/11, he is actually in substantially worse shape, because so many more people disapprove of the job he is doing.
Could it get worse? Let’s hope so. Here’s one indication that it might. Gallup has been asking a question for awhile about whether “the situation in Iraq was worth going to war about or not”. In contrast to other questions about this issue which have asked respondents to weigh the costs of the war against its results, and have tended to elicit split or negative judgements for several months, this question has yielded quite positive judgements until very recently. Just last month, in fact, 63 percent of the public said the Iraq situation was worth going to war about, with just 35 percent saying it wasn’t; now the public is about evenly split, with 50 percent saying the Iraq situation was worth going to war, and 48 percent saying it wasn’t. Moreover, the numbers of men and women who think Iraq was worth going to war are now about the same, erasing the gender gap in war support that had helped shore up Bush’s position up to and through the invasion of Iraq.
But the public still has a personal bond with Bush, right, as a result of his leadership after 9/11? Not so much anymore. Gallup asked whether Bush “has the personality and leadership qualities a president should have?”. Right now, 59 percent still agree with this statement, but that’s down from 64 percent in late June and about the same as his rating on this question just prior to 9/11. And 51 percent today say they disagree with Bush on the issues that matter most to them, compared to 42 percent who said they disagreed with Bush on these issues prior to 9/11.
Once again, weaker than before 9/11.
That helps explain why Bush is starting to run so poorly against individual Democrats in prospective 2004 matchups. Until recently, he won most of these matchups pretty easily. No more. In fact, Wesley Clark, who just entered the presidential race, now actually beats Bush by 3 points in such a matchup (49 percent to 46 percent among registered voters) and Kerry beats him by a point (48 percent to 47 percent). Other Democrats also do well, just barely losing to Bush–Lieberman by a point, Gephardt by 2 and Dean by 3.
With these kind of numbers, even the most adamant members of the punditocracy have got to start admitting this is one vulnerable president. But tell ‘em you saw it here first.

Well, General Clark’s campaign got off to, how shall we say this, a less than completely optimal start last week, what with the tepid announcement speech and then the embarrassing free association session with top national political reporters. At least he didn’t say, “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘never’ is”. For a good and rather amusing run-down of Clark’s bad day, see Joan Walsh’s article in Salon.com.
But, what the heck, he’s just getting started and apparently Democrats around the nation were not unduly disturbed by his early stumbles. In the Newsweek poll that was released this weekend, he leads the other declared Democratic candidates, albeit modestly, among registered Democrats and Democratic leaners, with 14 percent support, to 12 percent for Lieberman and Dean, 10 percent for Kerry and 8 percent for Gephardt.
Moreover, he does quite well against Bush in a direct matchup, only losing by 4 points, 47 percent to 43 percent (typically, specific Democrats do less well against Bush than an unnamed or generic Democrat, where we have seen a number of very close results lately). Significantly, Clark beats Bush in the south (47 percent to 45 percent), among young voters (48 percent to 44 percent) and among independents (44 percent to 42 percent). He also runs only a 4 point gender gap in support (45 percent among women and 41 support among men), another heartening sign for Democrats worried about their candidate’s ability to be competitive outside the Democratic base.
Kerry also fares well in a matchup with Bush, losing by just 48 percent to 43 percent, but Dean does not, running a 14 point deficit (52 percent to 38 percent) against the incumbent. This result, combined with Clark’s relatively good showing against Bush, both generally and among voter groups Democrats have been trouble with, can only reinforce doubts about Dean’s electoral viability and promote interest in a strong alternative.

DR doesn’t think so either. So feast your peepers on these, fresh from the same Newsweek poll cited above.
First, Bush’s overall approval rating is down to 51 percent, heading for the sub-50 territory first reached by the Winston Group poll reported last week. And we have a bit of a milestone in terms of his re-elect number in this poll. For the first time, we have 50 percent saying they would not like to see Bush re-elected to another term as president (44 percent say they would).
Then, consider his approval ratings in other areas. He gets a dreadful 38 percent approval on the economy, with 57 percent disapproval. Incredibly, his rating on taxes is not all that much better, with 42 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval. Imagine that, on taxes!
His rating on health care is also abysmal, with 37 percent approval and 51 percent disapproval. And his ratings on education and the environment, two domestic issues where his ratings have been at least mediocre are heading into in the danger zone. His education rating is 46 percent approval with 43 percent disapproval, for only a +3 margin, down from +14 in late July. And his environmental rating now has higher disapproval (44 percent) than approval (43 percent). Yet in late July, approval of his job on the environment was still running 9 points ahead of disapproval.
And then there’s foreign policy. Consistent with recent polls, his rating in this area in general is now just 48 percent and his rating on Iraq in particular is now net negative with 46 percent approval and 47 percent disapproval.
Not that Bush still doesn’t have areas of strength, of course. His rating on “policies to prevent and minimize terrorism at home” is still a robust 66 percent and hasn’t fallen much since late July. Considering how little the Bush administration has actually done on the homeland security front, a rating this high is pretty amazing–and indicates an area where Democrats need to get to work and develop a critique that bites out of the abundant raw material.