I wonder how they determine who is in which category. Do they ask something like

"How do you describe yourself politically?"

or is it more like

"Which label out of this list do you most closely identify with?"

Especially with the latter method, I can see people who might have chosen "Republican" several years ago now choosing "Conservative", in a mental attempt to distance themselves from the fuckupiness of this administration.

Those who still strongly identify themselves as "Republican" might thus contain a higher percentage of dead-enders.

I don't know (and I haven't tried to find out), maybe 68% approval from your own party is historically low for a sitting president, but it just seems insanely high to me, given the track record of this president.

I'm not saying no-one sane could support him, I can see people thinking he's better than some other alternative, or supporting his goals. But to actually "approve" of his performance? I don't understand, unless it's a tribal "my team right or wrong" type of sentiment.

Typically, these polls are divided into groups based on registration records. That is, they call up registered democrats, republicans, and independants in proportion to the total registered number of dems, reps, and indys. I believe they then ask each respondant, regardless of registration, if they consider themselves conservative, moderate, or liberal.

What's more surprising to me is that 7% of people who identify themselves as liberal approve. I mean, come on.

What's more surprising to me is that 7% of people who identify themselves as liberal approve. I mean, come on.

Schadenfreude.

So here's my question. (Oh, wait... first: Woot!)

Why are his approval ratings dropping? I understand why they're finally low (Katrina, Dubai, Iraq, etc.) but why are they still dropping now? What is in the news now that's draining support away from the president?

Is it gas prices?

I think now that he is perceived to be out of favor, a lot of people who thought they approved of him when he was popular ar realizing they don't actually think he's a good president -- hence his falling ratings. I expect and hope they will continue to fall as more people catch on. Of course I am not real happy about this mechanism, whereby instead of making up their own minds about the world in light of the events happening around them, people wait to see what the crowd is telling them to think, and think it. But, that's how it goes.

Quite right, TMK. I suspect it's the same mechanism by which polls repeatedly show, the day after an election, a higher percentage of people saying they voted for the winner than actually voted for the winning candidate.

No. It's high gas prices. He sets them, doesn't he? Fucker.

I wonder how many respondents to this poll, whether they approved of Bush or not, could actually name and accurately describe, oh, let's say three current Bush policy initiatives besides things related to the War on Terror.

Low approval ratings for Bush now don't mean, "Americans have carefully evaluated Bush's performance as President and found it lacking", they mean, "Americans expect their wars to wrap up on schedule, are blaming Bush for one of the biggest hurricanes in history, and by the way, he talks real funny, too."

TMK was right to identify a high school popularity element in polls like this, but he didn't go far enough.

Didn't the Dubai Ports World thing and the current immigration stalemate finally crack the base as well? That part's new.

The key is gas prices - people pay more attention to how things affect their pocket than anything else.

Low approval ratings for Bush now don't mean, "Americans have carefully evaluated Bush's performance as President and found it lacking"

Nor did his once high ratings mean people had carefully evaluated his policies and supported them. In fact, polling on issues (without a candidate's name attached) consistently show this is decidedly not the case.

Are we counting the war in Iraq as related to the War on Terror or not?

Are we counting the war in Iraq as related to the War on Terror or not?

They're related via Kevin Bacon.

Typically, these polls are divided into groups based on registration records.

Not so. Very few polls do this, and basically no national polls. For one thing, about half the states don't have registration by party, so the division you're talking about is not even possible.

This has led to some interesting debates among pollsters about whether it's appropriate to weight by party ID. The general consensus seems to be no -- that party should not be thought of as a demographic characteristic, but as a function of political views.

IOW, M/tch M/lls is right: Bush's high score among Republicans tells us at least as much about how your views of Bush affect your political self-identification as the reverse.

M/tch M/lls is right

I agree with lemuel.

Low approval ratings for Bush now don't mean, "Americans have carefully evaluated Bush's performance as President and found it lacking", they mean, "Americans expect their wars to wrap up on schedule, are blaming Bush for one of the biggest hurricanes in history, and by the way, he talks real funny, too."

See, I had the idea that people -- even Americans -- were capable of making some rational assessment of their income, employment situation, and so on. And that tax cuts for the rich, a f**ked-up Medicare drug benefit, a frozen minimum wage might contribute in some noticeable way to people's sense of economic insecurity. Thanks, Gaijin, for pointing out that Americans are too stupid to notice such things. (Only, I thought that was the Left's schtick...)

I also appreciate GB's reminder that any criticism of the federal response to Katrina is equivalent to blaming Bush for the hurricane. I mean, it's not like FEMA was run any better when Democrats were in office, or anything.

My father is someone who has come full circle on Bush. He voted for him in 2000, then watched very closely the Medicare drug "benefit" come to life. That, the war in Iraq (not how it's been conducted, though that didn't help, but that we went at all - my dad was in the Navy and has pretty strenuous standards for what makes a war worthwhile) and Bush's general arrogance and obvious insincerity (the eternal smirk - my father refers to him as 'that smirky so-and-so' and my mother has called him 'President Smirk') all had him voting for Kerry in 2004.

However, I suspect he has done better, financially, under Bush.

So, yes, some Americans are capable of examining and assessing Bush's policies and deciding that they disagree with and distrust him. But I still think there's a lot of herd mentality in those numbers.

And as fun as I think they are, I don't see in them a guarantee that people are going to flock to my "side" in the next election. That people hate Bush does not mean that they necessarily love anyone else. My dad held his nose and voted for Kerry in '04 because he thinks it's a sin not to vote (seriously). I am not willing to bet the farm (or, in this case, control of Congress) on everyone thinking the same way, however.

Ditto to what sphx.ofu said. Who are these "liberals"?

Mickey Kaus? Joe Klein??

Who are these "liberals"?

Well, there was no "libertarian" category.

Data point: After the dot-com bust of Spring 2000 (i.e., on Clinton's watch) and the devastating blow of Sept. 11, the Dow has increased 50% since we invaded Iraq. It is now just about at an all-time high — a high that, when it was reached in 2000, was widely regarded as excessive and a sign of an overheated bull market.

A 50% gain in the Dow over 3 years is amazing. Does Bush get any credit for this, or is he only eligible for blame?

I also think it's funny to hear dems/libs criticize Bush for market-driven high gas prices, because these same people would probably welcome a huge tax on gas to stop global warming.

Does Bush get any credit for this

Well, he's back to where he started after five and a half years, if that's to be considered an accomplishment. But presidents don't have much to do with stock market returns, as we both are well aware.

hear dems/libs criticize Bush for market-driven high gas prices

Um, who would that be, exactly? Certainly not on this site.

A big tax on gas (which, granted, is arguably NOT a particularly good solution) to stop global warming would as its main point create revenue to... stop global warming. Or at least try some public endeavor to address it. Huge market driven increases to the cost of gas create revenue to... um...

Huge market driven increases to the cost of gas create revenue to... um...

It's not so much that they create revenue, it's that they push down demand for gasoline, reducing miles driven and, hence, greenhouse gas emissions.

I wrote:

hear dems/libs criticize Bush for market-driven high gas prices

Apostropher wrote:

Um, who would that be, exactly? Certainly not on this site.

And earlier, Tokyo Tom wrote:

The key is gas prices - people pay more attention to how things affect their pocket than anything else.

TT may be just referring to other people's criticisms, not his own, but there are people who link high gas prices to Bush's "performance" as President.

I think Tokyo Tom was referring to the erstwhile Bush supporters who don't like him anymore. Dem/liberals don't make up a big part of this group.

It's not so much that they create revenue

It is exactly that (if you are dvocating the view that froz is describing, though not endorsing). Some advocates of taxing behavior that the government is incurring expenses to regulate are ALSO anit-personal income tax. I'd think a libertarian like yourself would be in there like swim wear...

Well, the observation that people vote based on economic conditions that are nevertheless largely beyond the control of the government is separate from any partisan leaning. The ones proposing imaginary solutions to gas prices are mostly over on the GOP side (Drill ANWR! Punish price gougers! Give everybody a C-note!).

And by the way, Bush's performance vis a vis gas prices, was to deepen dependency on fossil fuels by propping up the supply-side-oil-economy. And he has cut research money for all renewable energy programs across the board. So, yes, Bush has not done anything to offer an alternative to a commodity with a finite supply facing skyrocketing demand. Maybe he doesn't actually go to the gas stations and change the prices, but I think you can pretty well say he decidedered this is where we should be.

Who are these "liberals"?

Dean Esmay, for one, I suppose. But putting quotes around "liberal" is completely appropriate in that case.

Sterling,

I meant it's not so much that market forces create revenue.

Taxes, of course, do create tax revenue, although often not as much as hoped for, since they also depress demand.

I would be remiss if I failed to point out that one way to cut gasoline usage without reducing miles travelled would be for more people to start riding motorcycles.

In fact, market forces are spurring just such a trend.

these same people would probably welcome a huge tax on gas

Actually, a huge tax on gas would most hurt the most poor, as each real penny added to the price per gallon is a larger relative slice of their overall income. The guy with the tricked-out Hummer doesn't care nearly as much if gas goes up 10 or 20 or 70 cents. The one with the beater and the minimum-wage job, however, cares very much. As most of us bleeding-heart four-wheelers at least try to say we're helping the worst-off, no, we are (or at least I am) not at all in favor of a whopping big tax on gas. It wouldn't stop people from driving because it wouldn't eliminate their need to get places. It would simply make it more expensive to get there, taking funds away from other, more important aspects of their lives.

And either way, Bush is still a pretty wretched President.

My point was that Bush is losing support (from those who supported him) as a result of higher gas prices that are hitting them in the pocket. While I agree in part with GB that Bush should not get all of the blame - as prices at the pump are definitely affected by things such as Katrina not under the Administration's control, such as increased demand from China and India - I am happy to see the Administration and Republicans pay a political cost and would like to see them chased out ASAP. Certainly the Administration cannot be absolved of all responsibility, as a huge piece of high global oil prices - which have more than doubled since the Iraq invasion - are a result of market uncertainties over war and terror, which the Administration has either exacerbated or directly contributed to. Oil companies have profitted terrifically from the higher international prices, and while I don't believe there is any gouging going on, it is perfectly legitimate for voters to be unhappy and to go after the Republicans and Bush, based on the fair perception that the Administration has been in the pocket of big oil.

I was in favor of higher gas taxes (actually, higher taxes on imported fuels), but in exchange for decreased income taxes - in which I am joined by many conservative economists and others on the right (Cheney himself proposed one, and so did the head of Bush's CEA). Such taxes are actually needed now to help fill budget gaps and can be used to permanently reduce income taxes, but the chief effects would be to increase our energy security and to increase our energy efficiency, while reducing the justifications for expensive and counterproductive adventures in foreign lands, and partially offsetting the market-skewing effects of environmental externalities and subsidization of road-building.

I also separately favor taxes on greenhouse gas production (that could be offset by credits for sequestration) so that climate change is no longer subsidized by allowing free use of the atmosphere, at the cost of all.

With moderate tax increases a few years back, we would have had greater efficiency and a better economy, and a healthier domestic auto industry, and could have avoided the even higher prices we face now. Some of my thoughts on energy are set out with links here.

I regret that post-9/11 Bush chose not to exercise real leadership on energy and foreign policy through taxes (and now bash Dems for supporting such responsible policies). Instead, Bush avoided the political costs of such taxes, while embarking on costly military adventures and seeking more giveaways to big oil and coal. He and the Republicans richly deserve to pay a political price as a result.

It's not so much that they create revenue, it's that they push down demand for gasoline, reducing miles driven and, hence, greenhouse gas emissions.

Only in your secret tax-n-spend liberal dreams, GB. That's a horrible reason to instigate a tax. It's the epitome of sucking money out of the economy for no good reason. Stop subsidizing gasoline consumption first, and we'll all be riding solar powered motorcycles.

There's no way around it. This transition is going to be traumatic but I, for one, am glad that George W. Idiot is the fall guy.

Life's so unfair.

I was talking about market forces, TT.

MARKET FORCES push down demand for gasoline, reducing miles driven and, hence, greenhouse gas emissions. A TAX ON GAS would generate tax revenue, while also having the side effect of pushing down demand for gasoline.

Whoops, that last comment should have been directed to froz gobo, not TT.

MARKET FORCES push down demand...

Right, right. Got turned around for a bit. That did seem rather a surprising take for you.

"It wouldn't stop people from driving because it wouldn't eliminate their need to get places. It would simply make it more expensive to get there, taking funds away from other, more important aspects of their lives."

Well, it might stop them from driving so much. Or it might motivate them to take public transport. Or cycle. Or walk.
Hmm?

Let us not forget that for the last decade, due to the SUV phenomenon, Americans have been trying really hard to see how much gas they can use to go a mile. The fuel efficiency of the average vehicle on US roads has been declining.
"Hmm.. Well, we've got 2 kids, we absolutely NEED a 6000 pound V-8 behemoth to go to the grocery store. There's no way we could fit our fat asses in anything smaller!"

Back in the 1980s 23 MPG on the highway was considered really crappy mileage, now it's considered average-to-pretty good.

Or cycle. Or walk. Hmm?

I don't know where you live, but around here that's some very nice pipe-talk that really doesn't apply. Most of the people in this town don't have a lot of options for getting to work that don't involve the interstate and I think that's probably true for a lot of the medium-sized urban areas that think themselves too small for a great public transit system but too large to bike everywhere. Note I said think themselves too small for a great public transit system. If the bus came through my neighborhood, went by my work, and ran late enough for me to take it home at night (I work 2nd shift), I'd ride it in a second. As it stands now, that is not an option. In the town I used to live in, right next door, the public transit system was orders of magnitude better. So yes, to some degree it's a question of will, but even if the city decided tomorrow that they were going to build a dream of a transit system, it would take months or years to implement. In the meantime, I'll be single-passengering it up the interstate to work and back every day.

"There's no way we could fit our fat asses in anything smaller!"

Actually, with obesity on the rise, this may be true.

Obseity's an interesting topic; it's much rarer but still seems to be on the rise in Japan. The convential wisdom is that diet and exercise are they key; I lost 40 pounds since I arrived in Japan five years ago, simply as a result of the greater amount of walking one does in this town, since public transportation is great and having a car is insane (I'd probably lard back up if I got a bike like GB).

But that's just the conventional thinking; the real reason may be that there is a plague of adenoviruses that is causes much of Western obesity, and the virus has not yet spread that much in Japan. I heard of this theory three years back; it seems to be catching on as a research topic.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/virus-blamed-for-obesity-epidemic/2006/03/17/1142582520876.html

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/contagious_obesity_identifying_the_human_adenoviruses_that_may_make_us_fat_9901

Are we past the days when medicine had removed us from nasty microbes, and that we're slipping back into a Stephen King world of uncertainty, fear, plagues, and Armageddon?