President George W. Bush's job approval rating is at 59% in this past weekend's CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll -- down three points from our July 7-9 poll, but still within the range of what would be predicted given the events of the last six months.
Bush's job approval was tightly constrained to the 57% to 58% range in four polls conducted between Feb. 17 and March 15, just before the war with Iraq. His rating shot to 71% within a matter of days after the war began on March 19, and stayed in the 70% range though April 22-23.
On May 1, Bush declared the major fighting over. From that point on, his approval rating began to erode, sliding through the 60s in May and June until reaching its current level of 59%.
As I've pointed out before, the classic bell-shaped curve of Bush's job approval between February 2003 and today is generally predictable. Before the war, most pollsters would have predicted that Bush's job approval rating would jump once the United States went to war against Iraq, and go down again once the major fighting was over. That, of course, is exactly what has happened.
That's not to say that the current barrage of negative news concerning continuing casualties in Iraq, the absence of WMD, the disputed 16 words in Bush's State of the Union address, the rising deficit, and the stubborn persistence of joblessness is not affecting Bush's approval rating. But just as it is difficult to disentangle the impact of environment versus genetics in human behavior, it is very difficult to determine the precise causes of the current trend in presidential approval ratings. The bottom line, however: Some decline from a rally-induced jump is almost inevitable.
Iraq
Much attention has been focused on Bush's problems relating to Iraq. It is indeed clear that Americans pay attention to the news and are aware that the U.S. and coalition forces are having trouble in that country at the moment. Forty-five percent of Americans now say that things are not going well in Iraq, which is way up from the 13% who felt that way in early May. Little has changed from the end of June, when 42% said things were going badly.
At the same time, there's been little deterioration in two other measures of the public's views on the Iraq situation over the last several weeks.
Bush's job approval rating on Iraq is 57%, almost the same as what we measured earlier in July. That's also similar to his rating on Iraq earlier this year, prior to the beginning of the war. (During the war, Bush's approval rating on Iraq soared to a high point of 76%.)
There's also been little change in the percentage of Americans who say that the Iraqi situation was worth going to war over. About 6 in 10 Americans feel that way now. That percentage is actually up slightly from several weeks ago, but -- as is true for all other Iraq measures -- down from the weeks during and immediately after the fighting.
At this point, relatively few Americans advocate cutting U.S. losses and getting out of Iraq. Only 27% say it was a mistake to get involved, and a number of polls indicate that a significant majority of Americans believe that U.S. and coalition forces should remain in Iraq.
The issue of what Bush knew or didn't know about uranium and weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to the war continues to dominate news coverage. Polling shows that many Americans assume that Bush exaggerated or provided inaccurate information about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction before the war began, but less than a majority believe that Bush lied or deliberately misled the public.
According to our weekend poll, 39% say that Bush deliberately misled the public on the issue, up just two points from late last month. Both of these readings are up from 31% in early June and late May, but still not near a majority.
2004 Presidential Campaign
Although the 2004 presidential election is more than a year away, it's hard to avoid speculation about the impact of current events on Bush's re-election chances, in part because the Democratic contenders continue to hammer away at the slightest indication of a Bush weakness or miscue.
The basic re-elect numbers for Bush don't look as good as they have in recent months. Forty-six percent of registered voters say they would vote for Bush next year, and 42% would vote for the Democratic candidate. In June, Bush had a larger 51% to 39% advantage. The current numbers are quite similar to those immediately before the war in March, suggesting that Bush's re-election probabilities are essentially tied to his job approval rating.
Bush political adviser Karl Rove's re-election strategy for Bush begins with a base of foreign policy/fighting terrorism expertise, coupled with evidence that Bush has done something about the economy (tax cuts) and is involved with other domestic issues to the extent necessary (prescription drugs).
Thus, if Bush's perceived strength on international issues begins to wither, the centerpiece for the entire re-election campaign falters. This possibility is undoubtedly of great concern to the Bush re-election team at this point.
But we aren't seeing major problems yet. Bush approval on foreign affairs is below his overall job approval rating by just five points, and his approval on handling Iraq is just two points below his overall approval rating.
I believe the sleeper issue in all of this is the economy, on which Bush may end up being most vulnerable. Our new poll shows that Bush's rating on handling the economy is at 45%, 14 points below his overall job approval rating.
And, perhaps more ominously for Bush, the Democrats now have a substantial lead over the Republicans in terms of the public's perception of which party can better handle the economy and the deficit.
The Economy
As I've noted in previous weeks, Gallup Polls continue to show that the economy is perceived as the nation's No. 1 problem and that the public persists in believing the economy is not in very good shape.
Now, there's a new problem for the Bush administration -- the deficit. Last week's newly announced projections that the federal budget deficit may reach $455 billion in 2003 generated headlines and gave the Democrats new campaign fodder to use against Bush.
We asked the public over the weekend to describe their perceptions of the impact of the deficit, and 77% said that it was either a major problem or a crisis for the country.
One of the key questions relating to the deficit has been, logically enough, what to do about it. The Bush administration claims that its newly enacted tax-cut plan will, in the long run, help reduce the deficit by stimulating the economy. Democrats have stressed that cutting taxes reduces revenue and therefore increases the deficit.
It's going to be hard, it appears, to convince a majority of voters that tax cuts are good for the deficit. The weekend Gallup Poll included two questions on the topic. One asked, without elaboration, if the tax cuts will increase or decrease the deficit. Responses indicate a 20-point margin in favor of the Democrats' position: 54% of Americans said the tax cuts will increase the deficit, while 34% said they will reduce the deficit.
The other question attempted to go beyond the obvious and provide respondents with both the pros and cons on the impact of tax cuts on the deficit. Respondents were told that some people say the tax cuts might reduce the deficit in the long run (the tax cuts "will stimulate the economy and bring in more money for the government") and that other people argue that the tax cuts will hurt the deficit because " . . . the government will take in a lot less money that it won't be able to recover." The public divided evenly in response to these two arguments, with 46% agreeing with the "make worse" position, and 48% agreeing with the "make better" position.
That's an improvement for the administration position on the deficit issue, but hardly evidence of wholesale public acceptance of the "tax cuts lead to reduced deficit" chain of logic.
Fast Food
Fast food is back in the news again. A few weeks ago, Fortune magazine published a cover story on the increasing probability that the fast-food industry may be liable to lawsuits filed on behalf of overweight and unhealthy customers who blame the establishments for their conditions. On the other hand, last week Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., introduced legislation designed to protect the fast-food industry from these types of lawsuits.
Our data clearly show that Americans don't have much sympathy for the plaintiffs in this type of situation. Nearly 9 in 10 Americans oppose holding the fast-food industry legally liable for the unhealthy condition of customers, and 66% say that fast-food restaurants are not responsible for the problems of those who eat there. These attitudes are not surprising. Poll data also show that Americans tend to blame smokers rather than the tobacco industry for the problems engendered by that practice.
That's not to say that Americans don't recognize that most fast food isn't particularly healthy. The poll shows that 76% say that fast food is not good for you. Indeed, a majority of those who eat at fast-food restaurants at least once a month say they would choose healthier menu options at fast-food restaurants if they were made available.
One additional finding from Gallup's poll questions on fast food: Those who are overweight and report being in fair or poor health are not much more likely than others to eat fast food.
Elderly Drivers
The tragic accident in Santa Monica, Calif., last week, in which an 86-year-old man plowed through an open air market with his car and killed 10 people, has brought attention back to the issue of the driving risks posed by elderly drivers.
One proposed solution is to require those over a certain age to periodically renew their drivers' licenses through eye tests and driving tests. The public overwhelmingly supports this idea. We asked people if they would favor mandatory re-licensing for those over 65 and those over 75 and found little difference between the two age limits. About 9 in 10 Americans support the idea of re-licensing in both situations.
There is, however, little sentiment for a law that would force all elderly drivers off of the road permanently after a certain age. Besides, the majority of Americans appear to be more worried about teenagers than they are about senior citizens. Sixty-three percent say teens are worse drivers than those over 75, and 71% say teens are worse drivers than those over 65.