Table XII -- Some Significant Events in the Bush Presidency (Public Perspective 90-92)
Month Approval Rating Significant Event
4/91 80 Thomas Nomination
5/91 81
6/91 74
9/91 71 Thomas Hearings
10/91 65 Perot Candidacy Anticipated
11/91 51 Quota Bill Signed
Dow/Jones Plummets
12/91 51 Last US Hostages Released
Yeltsin Summit
Sununu Resigns
Buchanan Challenge
1/92 48 Bush Illness in Japan
2/92 42-40 Big Auto Losses
New Hampshire Primary
(Bush -- 53%)
3/92 41 Perot Seeks Presidency
4/92 39 Rubbergate
5/92 35 LA Riots
Murphy Brown Flap
6/92 34 Bush Panama Speech
7/92 37-41 Democrat Convention
Perot 'Withdraws"
8/92 38 GOP Convention
9/92 41 Campaign, Debates
10/92 37 Perot Re-Enters Race
While the choice of 'Significant Events' may be questioned and arguable, the proximity
of these to changes in approval scores may suggest some relationship.
Significantly, a trend can be noticed in the approval ratings for Bush which seems to
suggest that the Desert Storm rally was an aberration. Dating from the 1989 Budget Deal,
a decline in Bush's approval continues on a rather constant slope from 1/1/90 until it
bottoms out in July of 1992 and a recovery begins. Unfortunately for Bush, that boost
was inadequate or too late to win a second term, but it can be seen as tracking along with
a somewhat moderating economic picture.
Even with such factors possibly impacting, there would seem to be some substantive
erosion of Bush's popularity collateral with 'significant events' identified here. For
example, in late 1991, Bush approval dropped dramatically in association with the hype
and rumors about the potential Perot candidacy, and while it was less severe, approval of
Bush fell once more when Perot actually announced he would run. As the 'coincidence' of
the Perot/Clinton shuffle might suggest, these changes cannot be viewed in a vacuum, but
there seems to be some evidence of a relationship.
It may be, however, quite the opposite of what some commentary on the 1992
campaign has suggested. In both Abramson, Aldrich, Paolino, and Rohde (1995) and in
Gold (1995), the inference seems to be that the declining Bush position motivated or was
independent of Perot's entrance into the contest. This is important for a number of
reasons. For example, correctly understanding the direction of such causality permits
much more useful interpretation of what was actually going on in the campaign, with
implications for that election and others.
Other things could obviously intervene, as well. The release of US hostages held in
Lebanon could have provided wind for Bush's sails, for example, and it is necessary not to
jump to conclusions about the implications of certain events. It might, for instance, be
argued by some that the decline Bush suffered around the time of the Thomas hearings
could stem from popular reaction against him due to the Hill allegations. Such is
sometimes given as the reason for the Illinois Senate race success of Carol Mosely Brown,
among others. Recalling, however, that Brown's initial victory was in a three candidate
field could significantly alter such conclusions. While it is not a flattering thought, though,
one might see in any drop associated with the Thomas controversy, the possibility of a
white backlash against Bush in response to the nomination. What appears to have taken
place is a plateau of sorts at both of these junctures in the President's approval ratings,
even against a backdrop of the downward slope overall, perhaps in conjunction with the
declining economic picture and in continued response to the 1989 Budget Deal. The
decline in approval which Bush had experienced throughout 1991 did level off late in the
year even though he signed the 'quota' bill -- a move many took to represent political
double talk and back-tracking by Bush -- as well as with the Camp David Summit with
Yeltsin in December. That was followed by another drop with the launching of Buchanan's
challenge and a rather precipitous plummet following the President's illness while in Japan.
Admittedly, the Japanese flu episode did experience a media heyday in coverage, the
event being depicted as representative of the 'sickness' of the American economy
(Groeling and Kernell, 1995), if not an utterly embarrassing display of Bush ineptitude. It
also looks as if the 53% vote Bush garnered in New Hampshire in February put the brakes
on the falling rating (even though it was hardly a resounding vote and one portrayed in the
media as a virtual 'defeat') that lasted until Perot entered the foray. Actually, the manner in
which the media handled reporting of such significant events is undoubtedly one major
variable in their impact. The House Check Cashing scandal may have stoked the fires of
discontent against incumbents enough to have hurt Bush further in the spring, but the
rioting in Los Angeles (an other cities) at the end of April and the embarrassing display of
demonstrators during the Bush speech in Panama in June coincide with apparently falling
approval levels for the President.
Table XIV -- CBS/NYT Approval Polls
(Public Perspective 1990-92)
1990 1991 1992
Date Rating Date Rating Date Rating
1/1 77 1/4 67 mid-Jan 45
4/1 72 early Jan 87 2/1 43
June 69 late Jan 79 late March 40
August 66 2/1 78 4/1 41
Sept 77 mid Feb 83 mid Apr 39
10/1 61 3/1 88 5/1 39
mid Oct 52 4/1 80 mid May 35
11/1 58 5/1 81 6/1 34
mid Nov. 56 6/1 75 7/1 36
12/1 61 8/1 71 mid July 31
12/31 62 mid Aug 73 8/1 38
9/1 70 9/1 42
10/1 64 10/1 37
12/1 51 11/1 35
12/30 48 12/1 50
Perhaps curiously for many who have hyped the two party conventions during the
summer as indicative of a resurgent Democrat camp and a mean-spirited Republican
display, Bush began to rally impressively in the wake of each, a trend which looks as if it
was boosted by at least the early campaign -- until Perot re-emerged. The conclusion that
might well be drawn from that could be as to the drain on the Bush vote caused by Perot's
presence.
It should be reiterated that such coincidence does not necessarily establish causality,
and the measure taken here is a rather blunt macro view. And the inverse economic
correlation discussed above must serve to mediate reading too much into the vacillations
hypothetically linked to other events. The declines in both January (after Japan) and May
(after LA) also proceed with rising levels of unemployment. And yet, it is difficult to
dismiss, even if it seems to have been largely overlooked, the possibility of these other
influences on approval, and especially that of Perot.
Continue
