I went walking with a friend last night and we got to talking about Obama’s polling numbers and the general uselessness of trying to project forward to 2012 and his political fortunes. So I went looking.
John Woolley and Gerhard Peters have an excellent site where they publish their work on The American Presidency Project. It’s an absolute treasure trove. To the subject of approval ratings, we find that Obama’s numbers have moved from a high of 69 points early in his administration to the mid 40s 19 months in (currently 44%).
And what of W? He entered office with much lower approval numbers, due in large part to the legal fracas surrounding his losing the popular vote but winning the Supreme Court vote: 9/11 handed him a popularity coup sending his approval ratings soaring to 89%. 19 months in his approval ratings had settled back to 68% and by the mid-term elections were closer to Obama’s current numbers at 48%. At the end, only 34% approved of Bush’s performance.
Clinton, despite his manifest personal troubles entered office with a 58% approval rating and left with a 66% rating, astonishing given the rise of the conservative attack machine during his administration. Only Reagan and Bush the Elder managed the same trick. 19 months in his approval rating had also dropped, oddly to 42%, essentially the same as Obama’s. At the time of his re-election, his approval ratings stood at 58%.
Bush Senior’s popularity curve looks like a roller coaster. He entered office at 51% and left at 56%. As was true with his son, his ratings soared to 82% during Desert Storm, seemingly proving that America loves a tough guy, at least for awhile.
And what of the Lion of the Right? Reagan took over from a President suffering 34% approval ratings, due to many things not the least of which was the Iranian Hostage Debacle. Despite the fact that Reagan won the electoral vote going away, he entered office with an approval rating of 51%. At the 19 month mark his approval ratings stood EXACTLY where Obama’s do, 44%. At his re-election, his popularity stood at 61%, roughly the same as Clinton’s.
Conclusions? The first is what investment prospectuses always tell you: Past performance is not indication of future performance. This has to be one of the most common, most insidious decision-faults going: looking at data about the past (data, by definition is always about the past) and using it to project the future. Project is actually an apt descriptor, as it is an exercise in projecting our hopes, dreams, fears, fobias, and preconceptions on the future based on what we see in the past.
A second possible conclusion is the lesson of Bill Clinton: It’s the economy stupid.
{ 3 trackbacks }