George W. Bush's presidency provides a fertile ground to further develop the standard model of presidential approval. In contrast to the vast presidential approval literature, early studies of Bush conclude economic conditions had no effect once the war in Iraq began. Rather than require a fundamental rethinking of presidential approval theories, we argue that approval models must take into account issue salience. When a factor is salient, it has a stronger effect. During the Bush presidency, with considerable over-time variation in the salience of the economy, terrorism, and the war in Iraq, each, in turn, powerfully affected Bush's approval.

During the six weeks before the 2012 elections, we conducted a contest for the 54 students enrolled in an upper-division political science course on campaigns and elections. We modified and improved on a similar contest conducted by the first-named author (Abramson 2010) during the 2008 election campaign. Using contract prices posted byIntrade.com, an electronic gaming market in Dublin, we asked students to choose among 10 political outcomes. The contest was designed to help students learn about campaign strategies, understand how electoral rules affect political outcomes, and encourage them to talk about the campaign. We discuss ways we improved on Abramson’s 2008 contest and show that student participation increased substantially.

No abstract

Can public support for recent presidents be explained by long-held findings in the presidential approval literature? The presidencies, of Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump seem to counter the existing literature, suggesting that recent approval ratings have become disconnected from the political environment. We synthesize prior scholarship on the environmental connection, salience, and economic handling to develop a general model to evaluate approval during the 1992-2020 period. The model estimates show the environmental connection remains intact. Looking at these four presidents together, we find the public punished and rewarded presidents in a manner consistent with the long-held findings of the literature. Even though each of these four presidents served in unique circumstances, the foundation of the public’s approval remained consistent. Our results point to an enduring environmental connection that holds presidents accountable for the conditions of the day.

No abstract