GOP Pollster: A Bad Year For Bush

Lombardo:

"There is really no other way to interpret this political year as anything other than a failure for the Bush administration. Politically, the President took a beating and his end of year numbers reflect that. While a few recent polls show some improvement -- taking the communications offensive on Iraq has helped team Bush stop the hemorrhaging -- the President finds himself with some of the worst 2nd term approval ratings in the last 30 years."

When you compare the approval ratings of the two most recent two-term Presidents - -- Clinton and Reagan -- we see how dismal Bush's numbers are. We took a look at the Gallup approval ratings of each President after their inaugural and at the end of their first year of the second term. In January of 1997 61% approved of Clinton's performance and 26% disapproved. By the end of the year he had an approval/disapproval rating 56/36 -- some decline but not significant. In January of 1985, 59% of Americans approved of Reagan's job performance and 31% disapproved. By the end of the year he actually improved his numbers to a job rating of 63/27. Bush started the year with 57% approval and 40% disapproval. According to the latest national poll by ABC News/Washington Post he has a rating of 47/52. That is a net change of 22%. Other surveys have shown his approval rating in the 35-39% range. While the President may have "bottomed-out" he clearly has still not regained the kind of electoral support necessary for his legislative agenda or his policies.

These numbers are being driven by continuing disapproval of the President's job performance on Iraq and the economy. Iraq is particularly problematic because of the depth and intensity of the dissatisfaction and the unlikelihood of a major change in the operating environment that would improve public opinion.

In the latest ABC News/Washington Post survey, 52% say the war was "not worth fighting" which is identical to 52% who say it was a "mistake" in CNN/USA Today/Gallup. There is a consistent and deep pessimism that has crept into the public mood on the war. Other than temporary improvements in public opinion over the capture of Saddam, the transfer of sovereignty and both Iraqi elections, the overall trend in the public's opinion has been downward.

Particularly disconcerting for the President's team has to be the speed with which this war has become intolerable. A comparative analysis of Gallup Poll data from the 1960's during Vietnam and now for Iraq illustrates the problem. The first time a majority of the public reached the "I think the war is a mistake" point in Vietnam was in 1968 after the Tet Offensive (3 years after the start of the war) and nearly 20,000 dead; while in Iraq, it was in 2004 -- one year after the start of the war with less than 1,000 dead.

In a recent issues of Foreign Affairs, political scientist John Mueller suggest that public support for the Iraq war has collapsed more quickly than it did in Vietnam, and that because we view the number of U.S. casualties as unacceptable, support is unlikely to rebound significantly -- regardless. Mueller's argument is summed up in this example: "If you buy a car for twice what it's worth, even if you come to like the car, you'll still consider the deal to be a mistake."

Two Duke political scientists Chris Gelpi and Peter Feaver (who is now working for the NSA) think that the public will tolerate increased casualties as long as they believe the war is "winnable." They cite their own research that shows even if people believe that the justifications for going to war are wrong ... they will support increased casualties if they believe victory is in sight. This may explain some of Bush's rebound. His recent speeches on the war -- combined with the elections -- have stemmed the tide. Clearly it suggests that the President continue to take the offensive in communicating the importance of being in Iraq and what we are doing to "win."

Looking at the generic congressional ballot and related issues, we continue to see some Democratic strength. We have seen three consecutive national polls showing a 9-12 point lead for Democrats on the generic congressional ballot. These are enough data points to suggest that a very real gap has emerged. As recently as two years ago, it was anywhere from a 4-point Democrat lead or even. However, this is not translating to the belief that Democrats are necessarily better on all issues. In a recent CBS/NYT poll Democrats were believed to "better" on only two of seven issues (Medicare by a large margin and the economy by a small one). Republicans only led on one -- terrorism -- by 29 points. On the other 4 issues the parties were at parity or within the statistical margin of error. This means that while voters may prefer Democrats (generic not real races) that does not necessarily mean that they think they are better at handling issues.