While Republicans Rant About Benghazi and IRS, Public Mostly Yawns

National Journal ^ | 05/14/2013 | Charles Cooke

[SeekAndFind]

President Obama and his administration now find themselves in the middle of not one but two tough situations: the tragic killing of four Americans at a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, and the Internal Revenue Service’s scrutiny of tea-party and other conservative groups. At best, they are cases of bad mishandling and embarrassment; at worst, they rise to the level of legitimate and consequential scandals.

At this point, the significance of each is more in the eye of the beholder. Liberals and Democrats tend to de-emphasize both affairs, while many conservatives and Republicans think that each rises to the level of impeachment. It will take time to know which end of this ridiculously broad spectrum of assessments proves to be more accurate.

Whether the White House is in Democratic or Republican hands, we have to put up with a degree of selective outrage from one side and the turning of a blind eye from the other. Democrats who were quick to pounce on any possible transgression during George W. Bush’s presidency are noticeably quiet these days. At the same time, one wonders whether the same Republicans who are frothing over Benghazi would have been quite as vigilant had they been in Congress after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, which killed 220 U.S. Marines, 18 sailors, and three Army soldiers in the largest single-day loss of American military since Vietnam and the largest number of Marine Corps fatalities since the Battle of Iwo Jima. By the end of December 1983, hearings and investigations were complete, reports had been issued, and the tragic episode soon became history (other than to the families and friends of those lost). In today’s political culture, such sad events have considerably longer shelf lives.

Those with a more historical bent immediately understand that presidential second terms amount to a political Bermuda Triangle. Scandals, wars, and recessions have been the scourge of post-World War II presidents from Dwight Eisenhower through George W. Bush, and if it wasn’t one of those three problems, it was two.

If Yogi Berra were a political commentator, he might say that “it’s like déjá vu, all over again,” but it seems a little early to pronounce that just yet.

Perhaps the best way to determine whether either (or both) of these stories is starting to resonate with the American people is to simply watch Obama’s daily and weekly Gallup job-approval ratings. After all, this is the first presidency that will be covered from start to finish with daily public-opinion samplings. Since the beginning of March, the president’s approval ratings each week have been between 47 and 51 percent, and between 48 and 50 percent for all but two weeks. For the week of May 6-12, with the last interviewing being conducted Sunday night, Obama’s approval rating was at 49 percent, down a point from the previous week, and his disapproval was at 44 percent, the same as the week before.

According to the Gallup Organization, the average job-approval rating for presidents in their 18th quarter in office, covering the post-World War II period, was 51.3 percent. That’s a little over a point higher than where Obama is right now. Bill Clinton had the highest job-approval rating at this point in his presidency over the past 50 years, with 57 percent. Ronald Reagan was at 55 percent, George W. Bush at 46 percent, and Richard Nixon at 45 percent. Nixon had been above 50 percent until early April, and then he began his gradual decline, never to recover.

If Obama were a stock, you could say he has a very narrow trading range; indeed, one can argue that he has had a higher floor and lower ceiling in terms of job approval than any other modern president. His bedrock support—particularly among minorities, youth, and liberals—keeps him from dropping below a certain level in all but the worst weeks. But the equally vehement opposition among conservatives and older white men puts a ceiling on how high Obama can go in even a great week.

The most objective way to ascertain whether either or both of these stories have “legs” and are beginning to get traction with the public is to watch every Monday afternoon for the release of the Gallup approval rating for the previous week, ending the night before. Although you can look at the Gallup three-day moving average, those have a smaller sample size than the full week of interviewing and tend to be somewhat volatile.

As long as Obama’s job approval remains in that 47-to-51-percent range, particularly between 48 and 50 percent, it’s safe to say that neither story is hurting him significantly, at least with the public. If you are going to look at other polls, take a gander at that poll’s “trading range” for Obama over March and April, and see whether it drops below that range. Each pollster’s methodology is a bit different, and each has its own idiosyncrasies, making comparisons between polls a little more iffy. It’s always better to compare each poll with previous numbers from that specific pollster.

Other than the cost in terms of job-approval ratings, the other price paid by such stories is that it consumes the time and attention of key administration members, distracting them from their other objectives. This is a subtle but important factor, as second-term presidencies have a general tendency to run out of gas, lose energy, and show a dwindling supply of fresh ideas, which all contribute to the “time-for-a-change” dynamic that usually starts to build in second presidential terms.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Imagine this headline: While Democrats Rant About Vietnam and Watergate, Public Mostly Yawns

[SoFloFreeper]

Who is Charles Cooke, and why should anyone care what she thinks? The National Journal??? What is the circulation of that freakin’ rag?

[nascarnation]

Watergate was probably the first truly media driven “scandal” as I remember it.

[ncfool]

Nobody is talking about this on the MSM. they don’t care. Now if your listening to Rush or any of the talkers then you hear our side or on Fox. No where else does anybody care.

[SoFloFreeper]

Here is where Miss Cooke really steps into her own dung:

Perhaps the best way to determine whether either (or both) of these stories is starting to resonate with the American people is to simply watch Obama’s daily and weekly Gallup job-approval ratings.

See, obtuse numbskulls like Miss Cooke think it all is about the polling data. Her professors never taught her about the need for ethical behavior and having a Republic built on the words and deeds of honest men.

So while she rambles on about the "narrow trading range" of her man-child hero, the morality of our nation decreases while the vulnerability increases.

Hopefully Miss Cooke has a sugar daddy payin' her bills--'cause she probably isn't being paid much as an analyst.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Imagine this headline: While Democrats Rant About Vietnam and Watergate, Public Mostly Yawns

Well said.

[tet68]

Dear Charlie,
The difference between Republicans and democrats is
that Republicans eventually woke up to the fact that
Nixon was in the wrong and had to go...
Didn’t happen for Clinton or Obama...yet.

[gusopol3]

Obama had about a 4 point positive bounce, believe it or not, when Tsarnaev was caught and it persisted for 2 1/2 weeks. Now over the past week, his approval rating has fallen to 49% but his disapproval his working its way up. Election day 2010, his approval/ disapproval was tied at 46% (Gallup tracking poll).

[jeffc]

Yeah, well I was in High School during Watergate and even with the “news” media (in cahoots with the Congressional Dems) broadcasting the hearings on a daily basis, almost everyone I knew couldn’t care less.

[clintonh8r]

Eff “the public.” After all, “the public” voted for this mess. Twice.

[gusopol3]

Hey. Nixon came between LBJ and Jimmy Carter. Why’d he have go when those were the other political champs of his era?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Here is where Miss Cooke really steps into her own dung:

Why are you referring to Charlie Cooke as “Miss”?

[SeekAndFind]

Who is Charles Cooke, and why should anyone care what she thinks?



Charlie Cook is Editor and Publisher of The Cook Political Report, and political analyst for National Journal, where he writes two weekly columns . He also writes a regular column for Washington Quarterly, published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and is a political analyst for NBC News. Widely regarded as one of the nation's leading authorities on U.S. elections and political trends, Cook has appeared on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news programs, as well as on Good Morning America.

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

SeekAndFind ~ (from the title) :”While Republicans Rant About Benghazi and IRS, Public Mostly Yawns “

Because the ‘talking heads’ on network news aren’t talking about the news
but rather are regurgitating the talking points that come out of the White Hut !
The un-informed remain uninformed

[Bratch]

[Amendment10]

As I mentioned in a related thread, the reaction of the public to the Benghazi investigation is possibly nothing more than an indication of how much the media is keeping the investigation in people’s faces, as it did with the Jodi Arias trial for example. So all that Gallop’s Benghazi poll may be telling us is that the corrupt media is trying to protect Obama by ignoring the investigation.

[skeeter]

Perhaps the best way to determine whether either (or both) of these stories is starting to resonate with the American people is to simply watch Obama’s daily and weekly Gallup job-approval ratings.

The press knows this well. They also know that if they, the press, print more idiotic articles spinning the scandals like this in lieu of any useful information the scandals will never resonate.

And the country continues to circle the bowl.

[ilovesarah2012]

I’m not yawning. I don’t think families of those murdered are yawning. It’s just the media who are yawning.

[centurion316]

Hopefully Miss Cooke has a sugar daddy payin' her bills--'cause she probably isn't being paid much as an analyst.

I take it that you don't know much about politics. Those who do also know who Charlie Cook is. I'm pretty sure that he makes more money than you, and I'm positive that he makes more than my six figures. You can disagree with him, I often do, but I would advise you to never make a bet about the outcome of a national Congressional or Presidential race. I made that mistake once and I have not repeated that bone headed move. Most here on FR call him a liberal and they are right, but he makes his money by calling it straight up when it comes to elections and his knowledge of political behavior down to the precinct level is better than anyone else out there with the possible exception of Michael Barone, and they frequently collaborate.

His son is an infantry combat veteran of Afghanistan with the 82d Airborne Division, and his right wing sister is my wife. He, by the way, is the only liberal in the family, we can't explain it.