The Beltway media has a blind spot as big as the Great Spot on Jupiter. It simply can't see any fact that is positive for President Obama (or any other Democrat). The example of this selective blindness is the new ABC/Washington Post poll that is unalloyed good news for the president. So how do the Beltway insiders spin it?
"Is Obama peaking too early?"
Seriously. "Is Obama peaking too early?" That's the penetrating analysis of The Power Player, a joint venture of ABC News and Yahoo news. Yahoo Washington bureau chief (honest!) David Chalian notes that the new ABC/WaPo poll shows the president's approval rating at 50%. It also shows him defeating Mitt Romney by 6 points. After grudgingly admitting that the number puts Obama in an advantageous position nine months before election day, Chalian asks:
But is that good news coming too early? Candidates want the trending pendulum to swing their way — but election day is still nine months away.
It's too bad there isn't a way Chalian could have checked to see how presidents seeking re-election had fared, based on their job approval ratings early in the election year. If only there were some sort of device that might provide access to that information, a device we might call a "search engine". Oh, wait, there is such a thing. Apparently, Yahoo employees aren't familiar with them. If they were, Chalian might have used one to check, say, the Gallup Poll's extensive archive of information. And if he had done that, he might easily have found some very illuminating data.
There were 2 U.S. Presidents in recent years who faced tough re-election campaigns. By one of those strange quirks of history, both were named George Bush. In 2004, the fine folks at Gallup compared the polling numbers of the two Bushes at similar points in their re-election bids. In March of 1992, George H.W. Bush (note to Chalian -- he was the first one) had an approval rating of 41%. In March of 2004, George W. Bush (the second one) had an approval rating of 50%. At the risk of spoiling the ending for Yahoo's Washington bureau chief, I should point out that Bush I lost re-election and Bush II won (sort of).
Another look at the numbers shows a trend that Chalian might have cited in his analysis, since his focus seems to be on the trends ("peaking too early", he says of Obama). Obama's job approval has risen from 42% in November to 50% in February. By comparison, Bush II's 50% approval rating in March was down five points since November 2003, while Bush I's 41% rating was down 12 points over period of time. In other words, both Bushes had seen significant declines in approval rating while Obama has seen significant gains in that measure. In Chalian's eyes, both "peaked too early". Of course, one of them won re-election (barely). Given the choice, though, I'd rather be the president with 50% approval on an upward trend-line than the one at 50% on a downward trend-line. Maybe that's why I'm not Yahoo's Washington bureau chief.
Chalian also noted the head-to-head match-up between the two likeliest rivals -- Obama vs. Romney. (Remember, Obama is ahead by 6 points.) The helpful number crunchers at Gallup give us a little historical perspective on that, too. In March 1992, Bush I was leading Bill Clinton by 10 points. In March 2004, Bush II was trailing John Kerry by 5 points. Hmmm, not a lot of predictive power in those horse race numbers, are there? (I think it's safe to say Bush I was "peaking too early" in the first months of 1992.)
Chalian could have used all this data points to offer some context for the latest Obama polling numbers. Instead, he chose to make something up -- and try to disguise his confabulation by tacking a question mark on to the end of it. There is no evidence the president is "peaking too early". In fact, there's no evidence he's "peaking" at all. Of course, if Chalian had written that, he might not be invited to Applebee's by David Brooks.