August 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

Members


PPBW Sponsors


Archives

Recent Entries

Recent Comments



Notification

Enter e-mail to subscribe:
Powered by
Movable Type 4.12

Syndicate this site (XML)

« Lawless talk: cancelled due to snow | Main | Shapiro on foreign policy polarization today »

6 December 2005

Bounds on Presidential Approval

One of the things that polarization does is limit the size of the political playing field. Having hard cores of Democrats and Republicans at opposite ends of the ideological continuum effectively limits the action to the center. As long as the bases remain loyal, swings in all kinds of political indicators will be dampened. I suspect that this is one overlooked factor limiting congressional turnover. The last four cycles have seen remarkably little turnover (the lowest of the postwar era aside from the mid-1980s). More immediately, polarization also keeps presidential approval from dipping below about 35% as of late. As Charles Franklin pointed out in a response to my question, the strong support of the Republican base has kept Bush affloat. As as long as the conservative base remains in tact -- still an open question -- we shouldn't expect the president's ratings to drop any further.

Posted by Barry Burden at December 6, 2005 10:00 AM

Comments

What do you make of past presidential approval? Doesn't it suggest that this bound has existed longer than polarization has been a political fact? Carter, H.W. Bush, and Johnson all had some pretty dark days, and it appears their support bottomed out at around (or slightly lower than) W. Bush. If polarization was really driving this then wouldn't we expect Bush's approval to bottom out at a higher level than past presidents (or past presidents to have a lower minimum than W. Bush)?

Posted by: Andrew Reeves at December 6, 2005 11:48 PM

I think Andrew's comments is actually consistent with my hypothesis. With less polarization in the past, the ceiling and floor on presidential approval should have been softer. Clinton is the most recent past president and his lowest point was about the same as W's. Bush I, Carter, and Ford all dropped into the 20s.

Posted by: Barry Burden at December 8, 2005 1:44 PM

Bush's stratospheric approval ratings after 9/11 indicate that this effect may serve more as a ceiling than as a floor on approval -- or else that polarization limits swings in approval all else equal, and that an attack on the nation (or something else of such magnutude) simply swamps ordinary politics.

Posted by: Schloz at December 8, 2005 8:34 PM

I had the same thought...but you mean "more of a floor than a ceiling," right?

Posted by: Barry Burden at December 8, 2005 9:22 PM

While I agree that the effect of loyalty to partisan identification on perception of presidential peformance offers a great deal of constraint in these figures, I have to wonder if the political staff at the White House has reached the same conclusion. If Bush's approval numbers are being kept up by the Republican base, it is curious that he would adopt as his next major policy initiative a proposal that divides the party: a guest worker approach to immigration reform. The White House seems now to be making a bid to reclaim moderates in a way that could jeopardize their support from the base.

Posted by: Kevin at December 10, 2005 11:17 PM

Yes, of course. A floor, indeed.

Posted by: Schloz at December 11, 2005 12:48 PM