Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
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 quarterAverage
approval
ratingNo. 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.
|7.19.07 @ 12:34PM|#
"Those Clinton numbers are pretty damn
impressive."
So were his achievements in the Oval Oriface.
|7.19.07 @ 12:34PM|#
So attempted impeachment would be the best thing that could happen to Bush, apparently.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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?
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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?
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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?
|7.19.07 @ 1:27PM|#
It's so easy for someone to forget the problems of their team and the success of the other.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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!
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 1:44PM|#
What the hell are you quoting wikipedia for something like that? Nice Try!!!
Doug|7.19.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Gore as president for those 4 years!!! Your country would be in horrible shape. IMAGINE THE ECONOMY! LOL!
brian|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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?
|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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!
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
brian|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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?
|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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?
|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Cartman:
It's an average of 31.8% from the 26th quarter. Just the past few
months.
S.A. Miller|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 2:49PM|#
pic of the "meletary loier"
hier dressed up all tuff 'n' all
hier when
on parade. SASSY!
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 3:07PM|#
landslide catalyst: Walter Mondale.
he was as overmatched in that election as the meletary loier is
against joe.
Tim|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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
|7.19.07 @ 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
|7.19.07 @ 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|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 4:06PM|#
No, it still wasn't false, because "won the election by over five hundered thousand votes" clearly refers to vote totals.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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?
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 5:12PM|#
That should have read: The "Gore lost, so Clinton must have been unpopular" line is borderline ridiculous...
Robert|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 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.
|7.19.07 @ 8:53PM|#
"""Yup, because it was a true statement. Gore won the
election."""
I think that speaks for its self.
|7.19.07 @ 11:16PM|#
No, joshua, Richard Nixon got fewer votes than John F. Kennedy. That doesn't make any sense at all.
thoreau|7.20.07 @ 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|7.20.07 @ 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.
|7.20.07 @ 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.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245