Lander,
Are you feeling OK? That was a surprisingly sensible answer. What you said actually makes sense. If the Bush administration WERE deceitful enough to plant WMD, they would have done it in September when Bush experienced his first big dropoff in the polls, maybe even earlier when the post-war casualties started to mount.
Are you feeling OK? That was a surprisingly sensible answer. What you said actually makes sense. If the Bush administration WERE deceitful enough to plant WMD, they would have done it in September when Bush experienced his first big dropoff in the polls, maybe even earlier when the post-war casualties started to mount.
February 11, 2004
THE POLLSTERS
Dr. David Hill
Jobs are a Bush challenge
The best polling concept of this election cycle, at least in theory, is the National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES). NAES is based on a rolling c****-section sample design that surveys a representative slice of American adults every day, from last November to the forthcoming November election. The idea behind this bold research project is to be able to gauge the impact of daily events on opinion formation and change.
The daily tracking through January and into the first days of this month are crucial because they might presumably provide some insight into the reasons for President Bush’s recent decline in the polls.
This decline was captured in snapshots by several polls. A Gallup poll taken Jan. 29 through Feb. 1 had Bush trailing Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) by 7 percentage points and Bush’s approval rating at 49 percent, the lowest since he took office. A Newsweek poll taken Feb. 5-6 showed Bush trailing Kerry by 5 points with a job approval rating of just 48 percent. The NAES survey showed Bush’s job approval dropping weekly through January, ending at 54 percent, and then turning up slightly to 56 percent in the first five days of February.
No matter how we spin these numbers, the same big-picture conclusion is inescapable: perceptions of Bush’s performance and his re-election prospects are polling lower than they were late last year.
Adam Clymer’s official release for NAES points to former weapons inspector David Kay, not Kerry, as the culprit in Bush’s numbers. Following his nightly tracking, Clymer observes that President Bush’s poll numbers improved after his State of the Union address but then declined after Kay testified before Congress about the failure of U.S. forces to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is no quibbling that Clymer’s interpretation is consistent with the trend lines, but that doesn’t validate his view that Kay’s remarks alone were causal. Other numbers in the NAES poll and the other late-January to early-February polls lead me to believe that lagging opinions about the economy were as big a problem for the president as either Kerry or Kay. NAES showed the president’s approval ratings for handling the economy declined from 50 percent in early January to 44 percent at month’s end, a six-point slide. During the same period, Bush’s approval rating for handling of Iraq declined eight points, from 54 percent to 46 percent. Both job ratings, for the economy and Iraq, rose three points in early February. So the NAES polling shows that Bush’s ratings for handling the economy and Iraq followed roughly same trend lines over time, but that his ratings for the economy were slightly lower.
Similarly, the Gallup poll shows Bush with an approval rating of 43 percent for handling the economy and 46 percent for handling the situation in Iraq. Again, the economic rating is lower. And the economic rating is Bush’s lowest since October of last year, whereas the Iraq rating is stable. Gallup’s comparison between Kerry and Bush also proves the greater importance of economic matters. Bush edges Kerry by six percentage points, 50 percent to 44 percent, on doing a “better job handling Iraq,” whereas Kerry outright clobbers Bush on “protecting your family’s economic interests” (+12 points for Kerry) and “making sure that jobs are available to all Americans” (+20 for Kerry).
Polling on consumer confidence continues to confirm that the public has mixed views on the recovery. The most recent AP-Ipsos polling of consumers saw its index drop dramatically after reaching an 18-month high in January. The Conference Board’s index of consumer confidence rose in January, but fell below expectations. And questions about jobs showed weaknesses. Somehow, this recovery is not firmly implanted in voters’ minds yet, and some blame Bush, especially for his perceived slow job creation.
On Monday, Bush campaigned on jobs with small-business operators in Missouri while Kerry railed on missing weapons of mass destruction. It was a better day for Bush. More like that need to come.
Dr. David Hill is director of Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based firm that has polled for Republican candidates and causes since 1988.
THE POLLSTERS
Dr. David Hill
Jobs are a Bush challenge
The best polling concept of this election cycle, at least in theory, is the National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES). NAES is based on a rolling c****-section sample design that surveys a representative slice of American adults every day, from last November to the forthcoming November election. The idea behind this bold research project is to be able to gauge the impact of daily events on opinion formation and change.
The daily tracking through January and into the first days of this month are crucial because they might presumably provide some insight into the reasons for President Bush’s recent decline in the polls.
This decline was captured in snapshots by several polls. A Gallup poll taken Jan. 29 through Feb. 1 had Bush trailing Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) by 7 percentage points and Bush’s approval rating at 49 percent, the lowest since he took office. A Newsweek poll taken Feb. 5-6 showed Bush trailing Kerry by 5 points with a job approval rating of just 48 percent. The NAES survey showed Bush’s job approval dropping weekly through January, ending at 54 percent, and then turning up slightly to 56 percent in the first five days of February.
No matter how we spin these numbers, the same big-picture conclusion is inescapable: perceptions of Bush’s performance and his re-election prospects are polling lower than they were late last year.
Adam Clymer’s official release for NAES points to former weapons inspector David Kay, not Kerry, as the culprit in Bush’s numbers. Following his nightly tracking, Clymer observes that President Bush’s poll numbers improved after his State of the Union address but then declined after Kay testified before Congress about the failure of U.S. forces to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is no quibbling that Clymer’s interpretation is consistent with the trend lines, but that doesn’t validate his view that Kay’s remarks alone were causal. Other numbers in the NAES poll and the other late-January to early-February polls lead me to believe that lagging opinions about the economy were as big a problem for the president as either Kerry or Kay. NAES showed the president’s approval ratings for handling the economy declined from 50 percent in early January to 44 percent at month’s end, a six-point slide. During the same period, Bush’s approval rating for handling of Iraq declined eight points, from 54 percent to 46 percent. Both job ratings, for the economy and Iraq, rose three points in early February. So the NAES polling shows that Bush’s ratings for handling the economy and Iraq followed roughly same trend lines over time, but that his ratings for the economy were slightly lower.
Similarly, the Gallup poll shows Bush with an approval rating of 43 percent for handling the economy and 46 percent for handling the situation in Iraq. Again, the economic rating is lower. And the economic rating is Bush’s lowest since October of last year, whereas the Iraq rating is stable. Gallup’s comparison between Kerry and Bush also proves the greater importance of economic matters. Bush edges Kerry by six percentage points, 50 percent to 44 percent, on doing a “better job handling Iraq,” whereas Kerry outright clobbers Bush on “protecting your family’s economic interests” (+12 points for Kerry) and “making sure that jobs are available to all Americans” (+20 for Kerry).
Polling on consumer confidence continues to confirm that the public has mixed views on the recovery. The most recent AP-Ipsos polling of consumers saw its index drop dramatically after reaching an 18-month high in January. The Conference Board’s index of consumer confidence rose in January, but fell below expectations. And questions about jobs showed weaknesses. Somehow, this recovery is not firmly implanted in voters’ minds yet, and some blame Bush, especially for his perceived slow job creation.
On Monday, Bush campaigned on jobs with small-business operators in Missouri while Kerry railed on missing weapons of mass destruction. It was a better day for Bush. More like that need to come.
Dr. David Hill is director of Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based firm that has polled for Republican candidates and causes since 1988.
