Zogby: What’s the Matter with the Incumbent Rule?

Zogby International ^ | November 14, 2004

[RWR8189]

Note:  The following column was the lead article in the November issue of Zogby’s Real America newsletter.  For more hard-hitting commentary like this from John Zogby and his team at Zogby International, check out the latest issue of Zogby’s Real America newsletter.   Visit http://www.zogby.com/realamerica/index.cfm for details.)

The Incumbent Rule is one of those useful analytical tools that people in my business, along with political scientists and pundits of every stripe, put a lot of stock in.  It’s a proven device for making predictions based on history, and it’s held up surprisingly well over time.  But it’s also taken a lot of hits among the talking heads lately.

Basically, the Rule says that historically, if an incumbent is polling under 50 percent, and leading his opponent by less than ten points, in the overwhelming majority of cases—historically—the incumbent loses.

Well, in this campaign season, seldom did I ever have President Bush—the putative incumbent—even at 50.  And he never had a 10-point lead.  Even the day before the election—why, even in the exit polls—Bush’s numbers came up negative.  He had a negative job approval rating.  He had a negative rating on the economy.  He had negative numbers on U.S. direction.  In short, under the Incumbent Rule, he should have been retired on November 2.

But he wasn’t. 

So, since the Incumbent Rule tells us the normal way things are supposed to work, this election forces us to re-examine the Rule, and whether or not it held. 

I think the President wisely understood the Rule, and chose to use a strategy of playing offense throughout the campaign season—rather than digging in and defending his first-term record.  Instead of letting his opponent make him defend his decisions and their consequences, he made his opponent—and what his opponent represented—the focus of much of the campaign.

In truth, the Incumbent Rule was proved essentially correct once again, only the tables were turned.  Instead of the election being a referendum on Bush, and his presidency, he turned it into a referendum on the Establishment.  And Senator Kerry, this scion of the Eastern liberal Establishment (you know—the Kennedys, coastal liberals, Massachusetts Democrats) became the embodiment of the political class that has dominated American politics for so long.

In short, George Bush turned John Kerry into the incumbent. 

This isn’t new.  This is something that worked for Jimmy Carter in 1976.  It worked for Ronald Reagan four years later.  And Bill Clinton in two successive elections.  They all won by running against Washington, and against the established political class.  That’s what George Bush did on November 2.  He ran as the outsider.

When we look at the political map, we see a good deal of evidence to bolster this theory.  Bush picked up more counties than he had in 2000, and turned that great red mass in the center of the country a deeper shade of red.  Nearly everywhere outside the halls of liberal power—the bluest of the Blue States—Bush improved his performance over four years ago. 

Bush went to the heartland and appealed to voters there.  He was unashamed to be filmed clearing brush at his Texas ranch.  He wore work jackets and blue jeans.  He rehashed his 2002 arguments about his judicial picks being obstructed by Eastern liberals.  He worried aloud about judges imposing their values on Americans.  He let his proxies fight the cultural skirmish over gay marriage.  He took this theme on the road to states hard-hit by recent economic sluggishness. 

He connected with Middle America.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Establishment more than once played almost willingly into his hands.  A while back, I asked Americans in some of my surveys which film they connected with more:  Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, or Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911.  Time and again, with nearly every demographic except the youngest voters, The Passion won out.  But what was surprising was the decidedly negative reaction these voters had to Fahrenheit 911—many saw it as an attack on not just Bush, but on themselves and their values. And we now know that these are the voters who showed up in record numbers to re-elect Bush.  

Thomas Frank, in his insightful book What’s the Matter with Kansas:  How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, noted that the reddest of the Red States were once dominated by social and economic progressives, but today are bastions of conservatism.  He went on to note that these states often, in embracing so conservative a course, were seemingly voting against their own economic well-being, but in doing so, were producing a backlash against what they saw as the reins of the political elite—the liberal culture that dominates both coasts.

The Bush team—the same team that occupied the White House for four years—successfully cast themselves as the outsiders in this election, fighting the Establishment, in the clearest example of a populist campaign we’ve seen since Bill Clinton’s 1992 race.

And populism is a funny thing.  While populism doesn’t always work, Bush managed to rally rural Christians to produce a protest vote against Boston, against New York, against D.C., and, maybe most importantly, against Hollywood.  His campaign railed against big taxes, bad morals, and Wall Street fat-cats.  He cast himself—and, seemingly, GOP senators as well—as rebels fighting an entrenched and elitist opponent, an alien force that had too long controlled much of American life. 

But as the smoke clears from this year’s political battlefield, the task of governing is ahead.  You can only run against the system for so long, and Republicans now have a very solid lock on most parts of the government.  And it’s hard to run against the Establishment when you’re it. 

[RWR8189]

why, even in the exit polls—Bush’s numbers came up negative.  He had a negative job approval rating.  He had a negative rating on the economy.  He had negative numbers on U.S. direction.  In short, under the Incumbent Rule, he should have been retired on November 2.

Which exit polls is he looking at?

U.S. PRESIDENT / NATIONAL / EXIT POLL

HOW BUSH IS HANDLING HIS JOB

BUSH

KERRY

NADER

TOTAL

2004

2000

2004

2004

Approve (53%)

90%

n/a

9%

0%

Disapprove (46%)

6%

n/a

93%

0%

 

IS U.S. GOING IN RIGHT DIRECTION?

BUSH

KERRY

NADER

TOTAL

2004

2000

2004

2004

Yes (49%)

89%

+53

10%

0%

No (46%)

12%

-62

86%

0%

[RWR8189]

ping

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

ZOGBY!?!

Does this guy have ANY credibility left after trying to suppress the GOP turnout on election day by raving about Kerry and a 400 vote landslide?

The only sauce he can hustle with any legitimacy anymore is served with two all-beef patties, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions on a sesame seed bun.

[chesty_puller]

There may be no good reason for this. When Bush ran for Gov. of Texas he destroyed the Dem party. When he ran for re-election as President he destroyed the Dem party. Zogby's rules don't apply.

[ChicagoRighty]

Even with the aid of this "rule", John Zogby hardly "got it right". He switched back and forth until the results were in (not to mention his summertime predication from Singapore).

I took the subscription through Newsmax this year and it was not telling at all. Evan-Novak did a much better Job of breaking down all of the races and were on top of the Presidential race to a much better degree.

[xzins]

Zogby: Even though I was wrong, I was actually right.

Kerry: I voted for it, before I voted against it.

These guys were separated at the head when they were 2 months old.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Well, in this campaign season, seldom did I ever have President Bush—the putative incumbent—even at 50.

... whereas virtually every other pollster, on the other hand, DID.

A more intelligent man than Mr. Zogby might conceivably draw a worthwhile conclusion or two from that, actually. :)

[elizabetty]

Zogby trying to describe the Incumbent Rule proves one thing about Zogby and other leftists:
Incompetence Rules

[EGPWS]

Basically, the Rule says that historically, if an incumbent is polling under 50 percent, and leading his opponent by less than ten points, in the overwhelming majority of cases—historically—the incumbent loses.

Perhaps, it's time to change the rules you idiot!

Zogby, as perceived as a liberal zealot, should be adept enough in his field to understand the term "progression"!

[ChicagoRighty]

And another thing... that picture of Kerry s way too flattering.

[Freepdonia]

In short, George Bush turned John Kerry into the incumbent.

See how easy it is to spin incompetence, FReepers?

Zogby is a loser.

[RightWhale]

For more hard-hitting commentary like this from John Zogby

It was close enough that some though they had a chance even when they didn't. John has a good speaking voice for radio. He ought to get his own talkshow.

[ChicagoRighty]

>>Incompetence Rules<<

It's time for the broadcast and internet media (realclearpolitics, etc) to put this guy out to pasture.

[Erik Latranyi]

Basically, the Rule says that historically, if an incumbent is polling under 50 percent, and leading his opponent by less than ten points, in the overwhelming majority of cases—historically—the incumbent loses.

This might be true of an unknown opponent. Unfortunately, Kerry was polling way under Bush as far as approval rating. Of course, Zogby ignores this.

[dufekin]

Actually, George Bush FAILED in his NONEXISTENT attempt to turn John F. Kerry into an incumbent. Bush merely portrayed Kerry rather benignly, never denouncing the junior Senator from the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the serial traitor and overt communist that an examination of his record would reveal.

Bush won because Kerry could not present a clear, coherent alternative--and Kerry stood for everything that the red states oppose.

[Tennessean4Bush]

Zogby is an idiot.

[JSteff]

"Nearly everywhere outside the halls of liberal power—the bluest of the Blue States—Bush improved his performance over four years ago"

Mr. Zogby is still an idiot about the map. Unless he is looking at the counties map he does not see who really voted Bush in the election. Virtually everyone not in the big cities areas voted for Bush in the election.

That would bring up other questions. Primarily "Why in the big cities did Bush not do as well?

The answer is fraud. For the most part ONLY where there is a the largest potential for fraud, in the heavily populated large cities with the rough and tumble and confusion of heavily used polling locations, did Kerry win.

More of the map might have been red without the fraud. I live in PA and once again Philly and Pit are what swung us blue. I don't even need to talk about Philly, and even then the state was not the easy victory the MSM called early for Kerry.

[truth_seeker]

Dear Mr. Pollster:

You get paid to figure this stuff out BEFORE the election.

But I ain't got time for no more readin'.

Gotta get back in da pickup. Gotta string da chin out behind, wit da uknowwhat guy draggin' behind.

And go barrelin' down da unpaved country road, shoutin' "faggot."

Then tomorrow back to work, in the ditches. Wish theyda givin me credit for washin' dishes, so I coulda got a high skul diploma, and a gud job in the fatoree.

I wish I cuda got in the armee, so I cud go start a war anyplace I wantu.

[Prime Choice]

Zogby has zero credibility. He called the election for Kerry and went out of his way to carry water for Kerry and his ilk. Zogby's been choking on crow ever since. It's time he faded into much-deserved irrelevance.