The polls are effectively showing Bush in freefall right now. I’m almost surprised the extent to which the bottom has fallen out. If only it were October.
A new CBS News poll, for example, has nothing but bad news for the incumbent.
President Bush’s overall approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, 44 percent, in the latest CBS News poll, reflecting the weight of instability in Iraq on public opinion, despite signs of improvement in the economy.
Two weeks ago, 46 percent of Americans approved of the job President Bush was doing. On April 9, his approval rating was 51 percent.
American’s opinion of Mr. Bush’s handling of the economy is also at an all-time low, 34 percent, while 60 percent disapprove, also a high of the Bush presidency. Increasing employment is seemingly not affecting Americans’ view of Mr. Bush’s economic policy.
Just as startling, the poll finds that for the first time a clear majority of Americans disapprove of Mr. Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, believe the United States is not in control of the country and think U.S. troops should turn over power to Iraq as soon as possible, even if the country is unstable.
Was there any good news for Bush in the CBS poll? Actually, no. Nearly two in three Americans no longer believe the war in Iraq has been the worth the cost and less than a third believe we’re “winning” the war.
Also yesterday, the Pew Research Center published a similar survey with similar results, including an identical approval rating.
Public satisfaction with national conditions has fallen to 33%, its lowest level in eight years, in the wake of revelations of prisoner abuse committed by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. President Bush’s overall job approval rating also has dropped into negative territory: 44% approve of his job performance, while 48% disapprove.
While the CBS poll didn’t consider the Bush-Kerry match-up, the Pew poll showed Kerry in the lead.
President Bush has lost some ground in the presidential race, though voter opinion remains closely divided. Sen. John Kerry holds a 50%-45% lead over Bush in a two-way race, and his lead narrows to 46%-43% when Ralph Nader is included. Most of the president’s supporters say they consider their vote as a choice for the president. By contrast, Kerry’s supporters by roughly two-to-one (32%-15%) view their vote as one against Bush.
On specific issues, Kerry looks very strong.
[C]onfidence in Bush relative to Kerry has eroded on major issues like Iraq and the economy. Bush holds a slight 44%-41% edge as the candidate better able to make wise decisions in Iraq policy; in late March, he held a 12-point advantage (49%-37%). At the same time, Kerry has opened up double-digit leads on both the economy and jobs. Kerry’s advantage on the key domestic issue of health care is even larger. Currently, 51% say Kerry would be better able to improve the health care system, while just 29% say that about Bush.
The poll showed similar leads for Kerry over Bush on improving education and creating more jobs.
And speaking of Kerry, I know many of you continue to worry. If Bush is in freefall, you’re thinking, then why doesn’t Kerry have an enormous lead?
Yesterday, I noted Andrew Kohut’s very persuasive theory:
The real reason that Mr. Kerry is making so little progress is that voters are now focused almost exclusively on the president. This is typical: as an election approaches, voters first decide whether the incumbent deserves re-election; only later do they think about whether it is worth taking a chance on the challenger. There is no reason to expect a one-to-one relationship between public disaffection with the incumbent and an immediate surge in public support for his challenger.
And today I’d like to recommend the historical perspective pollster Mark Mellman offered in The Hill. He not only believes Kerry’s in great shape; he says Kerry’s support is “better than any challenger in modern times has ever been doing at this point in this race.”
In the latest Gallup poll, John Kerry leads George Bush by five points among registered voters when Nader is included, and by 6 when he is not. How do we know just how strong a showing that is for Kerry?
Looking at the history of presidential races is one approach. No challenger has ever done as well against an elected incumbent at this point in the cycle. Every incumbent who won re-election had a double-digit lead over his challenger at this stage. Lyndon Johnson led Barry Goldwater by 59 points in the spring of ’64. Bill Clinton led Bob Dole by 14 points, Ronald Reagan led Walter Mondale by 17 and Richard Nixon was ahead of George McGovern by 11.
Of course, some incumbents who went on to lose were doing better than Bush is today. The president’s father led Clinton by six points at this stage but was beaten anyway.
Thus, Kerry’s margin is 11 points better than was Bill Clinton’s at a similar point in time against Bush I. What, you haven’t seen that “Kerry stronger than Clinton” headline?
In other words, all of you who are worried just need to relax. It’s better than you think.