Unnamed Democrat beats Bush in Polls

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Note the high disapproval.

Yet the approval is greater than Clinton's.

Dubya is a definite polarizer. Look at how few people had no opinion...

Plus, among those with an opinion, Bush has the lowest positive feedback rate.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Verto


I'm sure you could have your travel expenses fully funded through Apolyton.

Who said we'd take him?

[Verto]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Who said we'd take him?

[Ramo]

Yet the approval is greater than Clinton's.

Disapproval is a more important number as it represents actual opposition to a president's policies and so tends to be relatively static, while approval ratings vary more as centrists move in and out of the "I don't know" category - which is 5% in Shrub's case in contrast to 13% in Clinton's case.

A high disapproval didn't stop Clinton from getting elected. Unless something weird happens... it will still come down to the economy. If it's doing good, it will be very difficult for a Dem to knock Bush off. If the economy drops again, all the Dems need is somebody who most Dems can vote for.

I don't know if I'd call the current economy "damn good." I agree that it'll probably come down to the economy, but in particular it'll come down to jobs. And I don't think that the economy's doing well enough to make up for job losses. Particularly in the vital steel states like Ohio and West Virginia where people are pissed that Shrub ended the same tariffs that he created.

And disapproval is still a bit higher than Clinton's.

[Shi Huangdi]

Un-named candidates often poll better then named candidates. Again, bear in mind that at this point Clinton and Reagan both had much worse poll numbers at this point in their first term, and won by decisive margins. At this point, in the '88 election year, Dukakis held a big lead over Bush, and for '02 Bush had a large lead over Gore that would eventually disappear.

[KrazyHorse]

Better to compare to reelection numbers.

A lot of different dynamics when neither is incumbent.

I agree that "unnamed" candidates are a bad judge, but so are named candidates until somebody is a winner in the primaries, since by then party loyalty will start to kick in.

Bush should be very worried about his high disapproval rating. He's obviously pissing a lot of people off, and if you piss people off enough they're a lot more likely to go vote than your soft supporters are.

[KrazyHorse]

A year ago I would have said Bush was a shoe-in. Not so sure any more.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And disapproval is still a bit higher than Clinton's.

And Clinton's diapproval was a more than a bit higher than Carter's .

[Ramo]

The election occured a year after the Iranian Hostage Crisis started - and it was unresolved at the time of election. I'd bet that Carter's disapproval was quite a bit higher a few months later.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well his disapproval was also higher than 41's four years back... and are you saying there are certain things that can increase/reduce a disapproval rating.

[KrazyHorse]

Well, no matter how much you ask we aren't going to pull your chestnuts out of the fire this time.

[Ramo]

Tends to be relatively static.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So then, there is little point in analyzing approval/disapproval ratings this early in the year, yes?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So then, there is little point in analyzing approval/disapproval ratings this early in the year, yes?

There is definitely a point to it, Imran.

It's not a crystal ball, but it certainly tells you something about the way people feel.

I was surprised to see such a high disapproval rating.

[Ming]

From US News and World Report

So who's going to win the November election?
Current political punditry calls for a Bush Dean matchup, with the incumbent the victor. "Bush has a lot going for him with the economy right now," says Nigel Gault, U.S. economic research director at Global Insight. "That puts him in a similar position to Nixon and Reagan in 1972 and 1984, both of whom won overwhelming victories."

But Gault and other rely on more than the shifting political winds to make their predictions. Gault's analysis of the the 14 presidential elections since WWII found that the two key economic factors matter most in determining winners and losers. The first is the growth rate in the real per capita disposable income in the year preceding a presidential election. The second factor is the direction of the unemployment rate in the year before the election. Plugging in his firm's forecase of a 2.4 percent income growth rate in 2004 with a jobless rate of 5.7 percent gives Bush 56.7 percent of the the vote in 2004. (in 2000, the model had Al Gore winning with 51.8% of the two party vote, pretty close to Gore's actual 50.3% share)

Lower the assumptions and the margin of victory shrinks. With income growth of only 1.4 percent and a jobless rate of 6.2 percent, Bush's vote tally falls to 54.3 percent. So how could Bush lose? Combine weak GDP growth with robust productivity increases resulting in less than 1 percent income growth and an umemployment rate of 7.9%. Then Bush loses narrowly, with 49.4 percent of the vote.

Yale University Prof. Ray Fair also counts on a Bush win. He looks at a combiniation of income growth rate, inflation, and the number of quarters of rapid income growth in the first 15 quarters of a president's term. Fair sees Bush garnering 58.3 % of the two party vote.

Out of all predictive models, economic based ones are the most acurate for predicting presidential elections.
These two models, and every other one I've seen shows Bush winning easily no matter who the Dems put up. The economy has to go into the tank (and nobody, even the traditional doom sayers are predicting that) or something really weird has to happen to keep Bush from getting re-elected