Bush: Galluping into the History Books?

Everyone seems to enjoy slumping poll results for pols (except the pols themselves), so here's some more on Bush's badass ratings. This is from Gallup and it refers to how prezzes were doing in their 26th quarter in office (a relatively small club):

Bush joins Truman (30.7%) as presidents with very poor approval averages during their 26th quarters in office, after essentially 6 1/2 years in the White House. But not all presidents who served that long suffered low approval ratings. Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton had averages near 60% during their 26th quarters in office, and Ronald Reagan's was just below 50%.

Twenty-Sixth Quarter Averages of Other Presidents
President	Dates of 26th quarter	Average approval rating	No. of measure- ments during quarter
		%
Truman	July 20-Oct 19, 1951	30.7	3
Eisenhower	Apr 20-Jul 19, 1959	62.0	3
Reagan	Apr 20-Jul 19, 1987	49.7	3
Clinton	Apr 20-Jul 19, 1999	58.6	9
G. W. Bush	Apr 20-Jul 19, 2007	31.8	6

To date, Bush is averaging 39.9% approval in his second term in office, which began on January 20, 2005. Only Nixon and Truman have ever averaged below 40% for a presidential term in office -- both in their second terms. Bush averaged 62% approval during his first term in office, and is following the paths of Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Nixon, who were much less popular in their second terms than in their first, as a result of prolonged wars, scandals, or both.

My first reaction? Any president who gets a 26th quarter is doing pretty well. Though the Bushistas may be taking a dimmer view. My second reaction? Those Clinton numbers are pretty damn impressive.

More results here.

Comments

Russ R | July 19, 2007, 12:34pm | #

"Those Clinton numbers are pretty damn impressive."

So were his achievements in the Oval Oriface.

Mike G | July 19, 2007, 12:34pm | #

So attempted impeachment would be the best thing that could happen to Bush, apparently.

Russ R | July 19, 2007, 12:35pm | #

As impressive as my spelling.

joe | July 19, 2007, 12:38pm | #

Mike G,

It sure worked for Nixon.

Maybe there was some important difference between Nixon's impeachment and Clinton's. Maybe the effect of impeachment on Bush's popularity would depend on whether it was more like Nixon's impeachment, or more like Clinton's, in this sense.

Andrew G. | July 19, 2007, 12:48pm | #

joe,

It probably depends on what they try an impeach Bush for. With Clinton, the only people really upset about the charges were those who already disliked him. Everyone else pretty much considered it an embarrassing personal matter.

joe | July 19, 2007, 12:50pm | #

Andrew G.,

I think the quality of the charge only has to pass a low bar - it it credible? If Clinton had had Bush's poll numbers when impeachment started, he probably would have been removed from office.

Tim | July 19, 2007, 12:56pm | #

Wow, if one were to believe Republican revisionist history about the popularity of Reagan, one would be shocked to see he was less popular than Clinton after this period of time in office. Maybe Reagan was knee deep in Alzheimers at this point, but it is still telling.

joe | July 19, 2007, 12:59pm | #

Not even Republicans believe their revisionist history about Reagan.

Why do you think they felt the need for such a full-court press to name stuff after him when his disease and death made him temporarily sympathetic?

John | July 19, 2007, 1:03pm | #

Clinton was wildly popular when left office, I guess that is why his boring side kick for 8 years won in a landslide to replace him as President unlike Reagan whose boring sidekick managed to loose to a governor with no national political experience. Oh thats right, it was the opposite.

The Truman example is instructive. His Presidency is certainly held in much higher regard today than it was when he left office. He was certainly proven right in opposing communism and firing McArther before he startd a nuclear war. I don't know that you could find a more popular President in office than Roosevelt, but although his war record certainly holds up, his record in dealing with the Soviets at Yalta and his handling of the economy in the 1930s looks worse with every passing year. In the end the polls don't mean much to history.

John | July 19, 2007, 1:06pm | #

Scoreboard Joe. Scoreboard. Reagan won two landslide victories, indexed income taxes and completely changed the political landscape in this country forever. Before Reagan, it looked to be inevitable that the US would slide into a European welfare and tax state. After Reagan it was unthinkable. You can put him down all you want but the fact remains 30 years later most of the things you believe in are not a reality thanks to Reagan. That may be a good reason for you to hate him, but you can't deny his popularity and effect. It would be like someone denying Roosevelt or Johnson's effect and popularity. Debeate he wisdom all you want, but you can't deny the force of nature that was Reagan.

Ivan | July 19, 2007, 1:06pm | #

"Clinton was wildly popular when left office, I guess that is why his boring side kick for 8 years won in a landslide to replace him as President unlike Reagan whose boring sidekick managed to loose to a governor with no national political experience. Oh thats right, it was the opposite."

Actually, Gore's mistake was that he ran away from Clinton when he was campaigning. Had Gore done the smart thing and latched onto Clinton's wild popularity, he might be president today.

John | July 19, 2007, 1:14pm | #

"Actually, Gore's mistake was that he ran away from Clinton when he was campaigning. Had Gore done the smart thing and latched onto Clinton's wild popularity, he might be president today."

Maybe so but bottomline is he lost and Clinton was deprived of a big legacy. It was basically a Presidency about nothing, which fit the times pretty well. Clinton is going to end up a lot like those 19th Century Presidents after Grant like Arther and Clevland, completely forgotten because the times were driven by business and technology rather than governement. A hundred years from now people will still be writing biographies of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs just like they write bios of Rockafeller and Vanderbilt now. Clinton will be a footnote, that other guy that got impeached along with Johnson. Which when you think about it, is the most fitting historical fate I could imagine for an attention whore like Clinton.

Tim | July 19, 2007, 1:15pm | #

Scoreboard, John? We're looking at polls take at the same period of time during each of their presidencies, and Clinton was objectively more popular than Reagan during that period. You are simply proving my point about revisionist history.

TrickyVic | July 19, 2007, 1:21pm | #

Reagan knew how to work a room.

Why don't the Republicans take a page from the Reagan playbook and pay off Iran?

Ken Shultz | July 19, 2007, 1:24pm | #

"My second reaction? Those Clinton numbers are pretty damn impressive."

Maybe if Bush had an intern do what Clinton had his intern do, maybe if Bush lied about it and managed to get Congress to impeach him for it, maybe then he could get himself up there in the fifties or so.

58.6 minus 31.8--one in four Americans wish it was all about sex, at least.

joe | July 19, 2007, 1:25pm | #

Clinton's sidekick, who side-kicked him to the curb throughout the campaign, still won the election by well over five hundred thousand votes, John.

Why are you flailing about for proxies, when we have the actual data right in front of us?

Clinton was more popular than Reagan at the end of his term. Deal with it.

And WTF does "scoreboard" mean?

TrickyVic | July 19, 2007, 1:27pm | #

It's so easy for someone to forget the problems of their team and the success of the other.

TrickyVic | July 19, 2007, 1:29pm | #

"""Clinton's sidekick, who side-kicked him to the curb throughout the campaign, still won the election by well over five hundred thousand votes, John.""""

Source that one Joe. Bush won all recounts that I know of. Besides, the only count that matters is the one certified by the state.

we're number one | July 19, 2007, 1:37pm | #

only 31%? Come on, we can do better than that! Let's make it 29% and secure our place in history as having THE WORST president in history!

Come on! We're number one! We're number one!

joe | July 19, 2007, 1:39pm | #

OK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000#National_results

Al Gore: 51,003,926
George W. Bush: 50,460,110

Gore's margin of victory was 543,816 votes.

joe | July 19, 2007, 1:42pm | #

See, TrickyVic, the subject of this thread is popularity. John threw out Gore's "defeat" - the one where he won the ballotting by well over half a million votes - as evidence of Clinton's lack of popularity.

Hence, the popular vote is the relevant figure to look at. That people named Bush, or appointed by people named Bush, were able to get Florida's electoral votes to be given to Dubya isn't really relevant to the question of popularity.

John | July 19, 2007, 1:42pm | #

Joe thinks that elections are decided by popular vote rather than electoral vote, unless of course that works against him, then it doesn't. Bush won the 2000 election and Gore lost despite five years of prosperity, an economy on the top of a bubble and generally peace in our time. Had it not been for the Clintons being such crooks Gore would have won in an landslide just like Bush I did.

Regardless, Clinton goes down as probably the least memorable and least important elected President of the last half of the 20th Century. Ford might be more irrelevent but he was never elected. It is really funny when you think about it. I think that is half the reason he wants his wife to win so bad, so at least he will be remembered for something. If it has to be as the husband of the first woman President, so be it.

Doug | July 19, 2007, 1:44pm | #

What the hell are you quoting wikipedia for something like that? Nice Try!!!

de stijl | July 19, 2007, 1:44pm | #

Actually, in 2000 it came down to one vote. 5 - 4.

Doug | July 19, 2007, 1:45pm | #

Gore as president for those 4 years!!! Your country would be in horrible shape. IMAGINE THE ECONOMY! LOL!

brian | July 19, 2007, 1:53pm | #

TrickyVic
"""Clinton's sidekick, who side-kicked him to the curb throughout the campaign, still won the election by well over five hundred thousand votes, John.""""

Source that one Joe. Bush won all recounts that I know of. Besides, the only count that matters is the one certified by the state.


Here's the source--the FEC. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm

Gore: 50,999,897 votes = 48.38% of popular vote
Bush: 50,456,002 votes = 47.87% of popular vote.


Gore got 543,895 more votes than Bush. QED

VM | July 19, 2007, 1:53pm | #

is the "meletary loier" really such a freakin tard as "he"'s showing?

wow. At least Abdul is intentionally funny on his posts. He is, isn't he?

brian | July 19, 2007, 1:55pm | #

John--the issue isn't who won the election. We're discussing Clinton and Gore's popularity. Gore was more popular than Bush, as he got more votes.

joe | July 19, 2007, 1:56pm | #

Sorry you can't follow the discussion, John. Yup, I just done never heared of that that 'lectral collidge! Yup, that's what's going on. You totally aren't throwing up chaff to cover for being pwned.

Regardless, Clinton goes down as probably the least memorable and least important elected President of the last half of the 20th Century. Show of hands - who wishes we'd had an unmemorable, unimportant president for thte past seven years?

brian | July 19, 2007, 1:57pm | #

joe
Show of hands - who wishes we'd had an unmemorable, unimportant president for thte past seven years?

Definitely me. Although, I'd prefer a welfare-reformer/free-trader/budget-balancer like Billy Boy to an unmemorable, unimportant president.

John | July 19, 2007, 2:00pm | #

But Joe,

I thought Bush was hitler. I thought he was the worst President in memory. The focus of evil in the modern world. How could he be unimportant? History works in strange ways. Who knows what it will say about Bush. Maybe he will be another Truman and get better with age. Maybe no. I don't know and neither do you. But one thing is for sure, he will be remembered and will be important for better or worse. Clinton in contrast will be a non-entity before the first half of this Century is over.

joe | July 19, 2007, 2:00pm | #

Doug,

Look up the numbers yourself, then. You'll get exactly the same totals. Do you know why?

Because George Bush got 543,985 fewer votes than Al Gore. But hey, that's just me carefully studying reality and drawing conclusions from it. By all means, feel free to create your own.

Gore as president for those 4 years!!! Your country would be in horrible shape. IMAGINE THE ECONOMY! LOL! Uh, yeah, it would have been the 90s all over again.

Just kidding! There probably would have been a recession or something, and the debt would have skyrocketted!

I wonder why brian and I got different vote totals, but the same margin of victory?

John | July 19, 2007, 2:03pm | #

"I'd prefer a welfare-reformer/free-trader/budget-balancer like Billy Boy to an unmemorable, unimportant president."

You mean Newt Gingrich was President? All that happened, sans NAFTA after the Dems lost Congress in 1994. Had the Republicans not taken over, none of those things would have happened and NAFTA wouldn't have happened without Republican support. Had Clinton had a big enough majority in Congress, his legacy would be socialized medicine. I doubt you would have liked that too much. Further, the Democrats today are about as far away from those things as one can get, as evidenced by their killing of free trade with Columbia.

brian | July 19, 2007, 2:04pm | #

I wonder why brian and I got different vote totals, but the same margin of victory?

Our margins were different by 79 votes. I don't know why they're so close though. Probably due to the margin of error involved with the vote counting process or something?

John

I thought he was the worst President in memory. The focus of evil in the modern world. How could he be unimportant?

Who said he'd be unimportant? Joe is just saying that he's unpopular. Just because someone is unpopular doesn't mean he's unimportant. Look at Johnson and Vietnam--he was unpopular, but hardly unimportant to the path of history. Same with Truman.

TrickyVic | July 19, 2007, 2:05pm | #

"""Hence, the popular vote is the relevant figure to look at."""

The popular vote is never relevant to look at in determing who won the election. The quote I was responding to clearly states Gore won the election, which is false. Let's review.

""""""Clinton's sidekick, who side-kicked him to the curb throughout the campaign, still won the election by well over five hundred thousand votes, John.""""

Yeah, that says "won", not "most popular".

Someone show me the count where Gore won the election.

VM | July 19, 2007, 2:05pm | #

UFC KARATE STANCE POSE!

clintonclintonclinton humperdink humperdink.

froth froth froth.

the internet tough guys are still dry humping their penis-shaped pillows every night until their headgear gets stuck in the National Review cardboard subscription inset, they obsess about the clintons so much!

joe | July 19, 2007, 2:05pm | #

John,

You got a case of the stupids today?

I didn't call Bush unimportant and unmemorable, you tool, I offered that as an alternative to Bush.

Read gooder, melitry lawur.

Anyway, I think the contrast between your emphasis on importance and my own lack of concern about such things, as a measure of the quality of a president, speaks volumes about our ideas of government.

Bill Clinton sure was less important in the lives of women married to servicemen than Bush was - there are a couple thousand widows who will tell you that.

John | July 19, 2007, 2:06pm | #

Joe,

If Gore had won, things would be about the same as they are now. Hell, he made a better case for invading Iraq in 1998 than Bush ever did. He certainly would have invaded Afghanistan, we would be in that war for sure. Even if he hadn't gone into Iraq, we would still have 1000s of troops sitting in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait containing him. Iran would still be building Nukes. So would North Korea, although the protection money seems to be working lately. The only difference would have been no tax cuts in 2003 and probably a more Clintonian level of unemployment of 6% and maybe growth of 2 rather than what we have right now. Other than the Supreme Court, these elections just don't change that much.

joe | July 19, 2007, 2:08pm | #

TrickyVic, try to keep up. This is a discussion about politicians' populairty; hence, noting that Gore's greater popularity didn't deliver the Electoral College to him, as incredibly important as that fact seems to be in your mind, isn't really relevant.

John | July 19, 2007, 2:08pm | #

"Bill Clinton sure was less important in the lives of women married to servicemen than Bush was - there are a couple thousand widows who will tell you that."

I am sure you were so broken up about those killed in Somalia and during Clinton's adventures. Stop insulting people's intelligence. You dont' give a shit one way or another unless it furthers you political agenda. For bottom feeders like you, the death of a soldier is only good if it serves a purpose.

VM | July 19, 2007, 2:12pm | #

*bubbles from the Formula 409 drown out the rest of the twaddlenockery*

brian | July 19, 2007, 2:12pm | #

john
All that happened, sans NAFTA after the Dems lost Congress in 1994. Had the Republicans not taken over, none of those things would have happened

So Clinton didn't run on the pledge to "end welfare as we know it?" He didn't push for government spending controls to balance the budget?

I'm not saying the Democrats were all for this back then, but Bill was.

joe | July 19, 2007, 2:14pm | #

There was a better case for invading Iraq in 1998 than when Bush was president. Iraq had a WMD program in 1998.

Even if he hadn't gone into Iraq, we would still have 1000s of troops sitting in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait containing him.

This is what John considers "not much of a difference." 3500 dead Americans. 100,000-200,000 dead Iraqis. bin Laden still at large. Losing in Afghanistan. Spreading Iranian hegemony. Nope, no difference at all.

Funny, five years ago, the difference between wanting to invade Iraq and not was the difference between wanting Iraqis to be free vs. wanting them fed into plastic shredders.

Anyway, the vision of Republicans desperately working to blur the distinctions they've spent six years drawing is delicious.

Though I'm left to wonder - do you think John honestly forgot Al Gore's proposed $600 billion tax cut, or do you think he managed never to know about it in the first place? John's very good at not knowing things. "Highly but selectively informed" is a term I once saw for his type - the purposely deluded.

brian | July 19, 2007, 2:16pm | #

For bottom feeders like you, the death of a soldier is only good if it serves a purpose.

The opposite being that the death of a soldier is good when it doesn't serve a purpose? Or that no purpose is worth dying for? I don't understand your sentence.

joe | July 19, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Hands up - who wishes we could trade the Iraq War for another Somalia?

Stop digging, John. You keep unearthing arguments that help me.

For bottom feeders like you, the death of a soldier is only good if it serves a purpose.

And if I thought the death of soldiers for no purpose was good, that would make me, what? Oh, right: an Iraq hawk.

Warty | July 19, 2007, 2:18pm | #

TrickyVic, try to keep up.

That's not very nice, joe.

For bottom feeders like you, the death of a soldier is only good if it serves a purpose.

Dammit John, stop making joe look polite.

Warty | July 19, 2007, 2:20pm | #

Wait a minute, I just read that sentence again. Isn't the only possible way that a soldier's death could ever be good is if it serves a purpose?

John | July 19, 2007, 2:22pm | #

"Though I'm left to wonder - do you think John honestly forgot Al Gore's proposed $600 billion tax cut, or do you think he managed never to know about it in the first place? John's very good at not knowing things. "Highly but selectively informed" is a term I once saw for his type - the purposely deluded."

You kill me Joe. I guess that means you won't be bitching about Republican tax cuts anymore because you are a tax cutter. You are a regular Reaganite.

The point about the soldiers is that you don't give a shit about them in any other context, have never served and never will serve, so leave them out of the discussion. You want to object to Iraq, fine. But don't appeal to the hardship of people you don't know and don't care about under any other circumstances.

Timothy | July 19, 2007, 2:26pm | #

Joe: I like that you're taking it to John, man, but we both know that the total popular vote doesn't constitute winning an election.

brian | July 19, 2007, 2:28pm | #

John

You kill me Joe. I guess that means you won't be bitching about Republican tax cuts anymore because you are a tax cutter. You are a regular Reaganite.

Tax cuts without spending cuts are not real tax cuts. They are tax shifts--to the future and our kids. All government spending must be paid for by taxpayers at some point, whether it be now or in the future. Milton Friedman said, "To spend is to tax." Therefore, Bush increased taxes in the future both by increasing spending and cutting taxes today.

The point about the soldiers is that you don't give a shit about them in any other context, have never served and never will serve, so leave them out of the discussion. You want to object to Iraq, fine. But don't appeal to the hardship of people you don't know and don't care about under any other circumstances.

How do you know that he hasn't served or that he will not serve? How do you know he doesn't have friends or family in Iraq? How do you know he doesn't care about soldiers? Answer these and I'll concede your point.

brian | July 19, 2007, 2:29pm | #

Timothy | July 19, 2007, 2:26pm | #

Joe: I like that you're taking it to John, man, but we both know that the total popular vote doesn't constitute winning an election.

I don't think he meant to say that the popular vote decides the election. He used it to show that Gore was more popular than Bush among voters, even though Bush won the electoral college.

joe | July 19, 2007, 2:32pm | #

Well, John, if there is another tax cut proposal, I would consider whether it was an appropriate policy given the current situation.

That's the thing with us liberals - we actually change our positions on policy questions depending on what's going on in the real world. This leads to such unfathomable outcomes as supporting a tax cut when there is a huge surplus, and opposing it when there is a huge deficit.

I know, that's not the way you do things. You believe the same thing on Wednesday you believed on Monday, and it doesn't matter what happened on Tuesday.

joe | July 19, 2007, 2:35pm | #

Timothy, I didn't claim Gore won the election, just that he won the vote. In a discussion about popularity, the vote totals are relevant, regadless of the EC.

John,

Not giving a shit about you doesn't not equate to not giving a shit about soldiers in general. You've just convinced yourself that only people who agree with you about politics care about soldiers.

SugarFree | July 19, 2007, 2:36pm | #

joe,

have never served and never will serve

Trans: You've never been in the military, so your opinion doesn't count; we might not let you vote next time around either.

How long has John thought he lives in Starship Troopers?

Cartman | July 19, 2007, 2:37pm | #

I'm not following something here. How do you average 62% in your 1st term and 39.9% in your 2nd and average 31.8% overall?

brian | July 19, 2007, 2:43pm | #

Cartman:

It's an average of 31.8% from the 26th quarter. Just the past few months.

S.A. Miller | July 19, 2007, 2:48pm | #

Clinton was objectively more popular than Reagan during that period.

That is why Reagan won two landslides, and Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote.

Rattlesnake Jake | July 19, 2007, 2:49pm | #

"Tax cuts without spending cuts are not real tax cuts. They are tax shifts--to the future and our kids."

Unless they stimulate the economy enough to increase revenue enough to outpace increased spending.

VikingMoose | July 19, 2007, 2:49pm | #

pic of the "meletary loier" hier dressed up all tuff 'n' all

hier when on parade. SASSY!

SugarFree | July 19, 2007, 2:55pm | #

As a purely off-topic note: Any one else ever read the C.A.D.S. series by John Sievert? Russians invade after surprise nuke attack and soldiers use armored suits to wage guerrilla war. Think Starship Troopers wadded in ball with Red Dawn. They are as bad as you imagine.

Rattlesnake Jake | July 19, 2007, 3:00pm | #

Let's face it, both Clinton and Bush are turds in their own way..

joe | July 19, 2007, 3:01pm | #

That is why Reagan won two landslides, and Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote.

No, the presence of third-party candidates is why Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.

We don't need all of these proxies to figure out their popularity, Repubicans. We have the approval ratings. We have the poll numbers.

Rattlesnake Jake | July 19, 2007, 3:04pm | #

"No, the presence of third-party candidates is why Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote."

But would he have won without Perot in there?

Gilbert Martin | July 19, 2007, 3:06pm | #

The Democrat Congres's approval ratings are lower than Bush's is.

Of course the liberal press doesn't like to talk about that.

VM | July 19, 2007, 3:07pm | #

landslide catalyst: Walter Mondale.

he was as overmatched in that election as the meletary loier is against joe.

Tim | July 19, 2007, 3:07pm | #

S.A. Miller-

Approval ratings during the 26th quarter of their presidencies: Clinton 58.6; Reagan 49.7 (also see above)

Yes, Clinton was objectively more popular during that period.

brian | July 19, 2007, 3:12pm | #

Rattlesnake Jake
"Tax cuts without spending cuts are not real tax cuts. They are tax shifts--to the future and our kids."

Unless they stimulate the economy enough to increase revenue enough to outpace increased spending.

Which they don't: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V76-4J8K5VF-1&_user=10&_handle=V-WA-A-W-WY-MsSAYVW-UUA-U-AACUWDBCVW-AAVDYCVBVW-YZECAWVWD-WY-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=02%2F15%2F2006&_rdoc=13&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235834%239999%23999999999%2399999!&_cdi=5834&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8391d808449a05b05f1090799867f334

de stijl | July 19, 2007, 3:17pm | #

Longest. URL. EVAR.

TrickyVic | July 19, 2007, 3:18pm | #

""""TrickyVic, try to keep up. This is a discussion about politicians' populairty; hence, noting that Gore's greater popularity didn't deliver the Electoral College to him, as incredibly important as that fact seems to be in your mind, isn't really relevant.""""

Keep up with yourself. Your the one that said Gore won the election. Which is false

joe | July 19, 2007, 3:28pm | #

Rattlesnake Jake,

The info I've seen indicates that Perot voters would have split roughly evenly between Clinton and Old Bush. I guess there's no way to say for sure.

thoreau | July 19, 2007, 3:29pm | #

joe, you know I think you're awesome, but...

All this dueling with John has got to stop.

Seriously, you two. Just get a room. Or move to MA and say your vows. Something.

joe | July 19, 2007, 3:30pm | #

Vic,

You're going on like this because I wrote "...won the election by over 500,000 votes..." rather than "...won the ballotting by over 500,000 votes?"

Seriously?

OK, Captian Pedant. You got me. Mission Accomplished.

TrickyVic | July 19, 2007, 3:57pm | #

You said election, that made it fair game. I'm just pointing out that your statement as written by you was false.

If you would have corrected that earlier instead of defending it and telling me to "keep up", I wouldn't have made a second post.

joe | July 19, 2007, 4:06pm | #

No, it still wasn't false, because "won the election by over five hundered thousand votes" clearly refers to vote totals.

PFM | July 19, 2007, 4:28pm | #

Aren't Gallup Polls based on typically 1,000 respondants or so?

Aren't most US Presidential elections based on tens of millions of votes?

Based on sample size alone, wouldn't that make elections a much better gauge of "popularity" than polls

If Clinton's "popularity" were truly over 60%, the 2000 election would not have been even close. Sure the Gore campaign didn't utilize him as well as they might, but Clinton still did a lot of campaigning in the closing days. Wouldn't 60%+ popularity translate into a win.

If Reagan's popularity were so low at the end of his term, would his VP have won in landslide? Old-man Bush's campaign wasn't the most dynamic ever run.

For a good illustration of how irrelevant and inaccurate these polls can be - take a look at Bush's approval rating in mid-Oct to mid-Nov of 2004. He was in the low 40s for every poll during this period, yet won an election with over 50% of the vote. I believe that Gallup released a poll immediately after the election showing an approval rating of over 50% in a effort to maintain/regain some credibility.

joe | July 19, 2007, 4:51pm | #

Elections only give up comparative popularity, PFM. The 1984 election tells us that Reagan was much more popular than Mondale. The 2004 election tells us that Bush was barely more popular than John Kerry.

Approval ratings give us actual popularity.

If Clinton's "popularity" were truly over 60%, the 2000 election would not have been even close. Sure the Gore campaign didn't utilize him as well as they might, but Clinton still did a lot of campaigning in the closing days. Wouldn't 60%+ popularity translate into a win.

If Reagan's popularity were so low at the end of his term, would his VP have won in landslide? Old-man Bush's campaign wasn't the most dynamic ever run.

I don't think presidential popularity translates to the Vice President. Think of Ike and Nixon.

TrickyVic | July 19, 2007, 5:05pm | #

"""No, it still wasn't false, because "won the election by over five hundered thousand votes" clearly refers to vote totals."""

No Joe, it clearly refers to the winner of the election.

See you're still defending it.

Chris S. | July 19, 2007, 5:11pm | #

The "Gore lost, so Clinton must have been unpopular" is borderline ridiculous. Look, I voted for Bush in 2000 (talk about buyer's remorse...) and I liked Clinton at that point -- certainly more than I liked either Bush or Gore. Gore was no Clinton, and during 2000, a vote for Bush appeared to be a vote for a weak executive and a split congress. They were numerous reasons to bet on this outcome, most of which had nothing to do with Clinton's popularity or lack thereof.

Tell me, in 2004, would Cheney have won? How about now? Does anyone think that matters?

joe | July 19, 2007, 5:12pm | #

Yup, because it was a true statement. Gore won the election. By well over 500,000 votes. If you want to get hyper-technical, there are two elections - one among the public, and another among the EC.

As we were discussing popularity, the one among the public was the relevant election.

Why is this so terribly important to you? Are you made that uncomfortable by statements that cast Bush's legitimacy into doubt? Most people would be happy to see the back of him at this point.

Chris S. | July 19, 2007, 5:12pm | #

That should have read: The "Gore lost, so Clinton must have been unpopular" line is borderline ridiculous...

Chris S. | July 19, 2007, 5:13pm | #

Oh, and "they" should be "there." I really need an editor.

Robert | July 19, 2007, 5:13pm | #

"Milton Friedman said, `To spend is to tax.'"

Yes, but he was always in favor of lower taxes for any given amount of spending. He didn't let the threat of an increased deficit deter him from wanting to cut taxes at any opp'ty.

Pro Libertate | July 19, 2007, 5:38pm | #

We've always had the Electoral College. This 2000 nonsense is nonsense. Bush won the race in the only way that has ever mattered. It's like saying that someone won a Senate seat because the legislature in his state liked him.

I think Gore wouldn't have been as bad as Bush, but I also think he's become a bit of a dunderhead in the last eight years. He might've been a lousy president, too. We'll never know. Frankly, most of the fools we have had as candidates and as presidents in recent years would've screwed up the response to 9/11, one way or the other.

highnumber | July 19, 2007, 7:32pm | #

This was so great I blogged it!

joshua corning | July 19, 2007, 7:36pm | #

Yup, because it was a true statement. Gore won the election. By well over 500,000 votes.

and Nixon won the election against Kennedy.

Kennedy fucked up our country more then Bush did...hard to say if gore would have fucked it up more or less.

TrickyVic | July 19, 2007, 8:53pm | #

"""Yup, because it was a true statement. Gore won the election."""

I think that speaks for its self.

joe | July 19, 2007, 11:16pm | #

No, joshua, Richard Nixon got fewer votes than John F. Kennedy. That doesn't make any sense at all.

thoreau | July 20, 2007, 12:18am | #

Actually, joe, because of the voting method used in Alabama (in which people could legally vote for electors for more than one candidate, and some did take that option) it's rather difficult to figure out vote totals for 1960.

Read here for details.

(I didn't believe it either until I read it.)

brian | July 20, 2007, 10:31am | #

Robert

"Milton Friedman said, `To spend is to tax.'"

Yes, but he was always in favor of lower taxes for any given amount of spending. He didn't let the threat of an increased deficit deter him from wanting to cut taxes at any opp'ty.

Yeah that always confused me about Friedman. He said he was in favor of every tax cut under any circumstance (paraphrasing there), but he also argued that the government needed to perform things such as protecting property rights, which require the government to tax.

Those things seem paradoxical. If he's in favor of every tax cut under every circumstance, that suggests he wants taxes to be zero, but he still wants government to spend money on a few certain things. You can't be in favor for the government to spend and not tax--it's just illogical. That would be like me ramping up credit card debt but refusing to ever pay for it, and instead making my kids pay for it 20 years down the line.

Pro Libertate | July 20, 2007, 11:43am | #

Actually, counting dead people, LBJ won the 1960 election. That's why he had to kill JFK and arrange RMN's removal from office from BEYOND THE GRAVE.

highnumber | July 20, 2007, 12:29pm | #

ProGLib,

You're making more work for me. Stop it!

Pro Libertate | July 20, 2007, 5:52pm | #

So it would be wrong of me to urge everyone to watch Sulu dance?

highnumber | July 22, 2007, 5:41pm | #

Aaaarrrrggghhhh!

Not here!

Pro Libertate | July 24, 2007, 11:22am | #

I assume it's okay to reference Monkey Tuesday, at least.

highnumber | July 25, 2007, 10:39am | #

Aaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!

Pro Libertate | July 26, 2007, 5:35pm | #

Oh, I get it. So I should stop posting.

Pro Libertate | July 26, 2007, 5:35pm | #

Sometime soon.

briantw | July 30, 2007, 7:54pm | #

Is this forum moderated? Because, despite the differing opinions, it seems to remain reasonably intelligent and civilised. That's refreshing for an Internet forum.