This always happens during campaign season, whether it's the President's approval ratings, or a supposed come from behind challenger: the media wants to sell a battle. Anything that they can use to show that there's a battle going on they'll use it.

According to Fred Barnes.  The following is from Dan Froomkin's WH Briefing on the WaPo.  

Does Bush have some insider information about gas prices, which appear to be conveniently dropping just in time for the mid-term election?

Barnes writes in the Weekly Standard: "Bush said the price of gasoline, which has been falling rapidly, is one of the 'interesting indicators' that the press should watch carefully. 'Just giving you a heads up,' he added."

Here's what I said on my own blog this afternoon:  "My question to the American Public is, when will we oust these [expletive] running our government who think that [expletive] around with our lives (cost of gas, unemployment, healthcare) most of the time is okay but the second they want something from us (like votes), they'll ease our lives some.

Are we that easily bought? Why don't we just put people in charge who actually give a shit about the little people? Or at least more of a shit than these [expletive] in charge?

This is what I don't get: WHY are the values correlated?  The implication is that gas prices are the most important issue, that people give the President 100% of the credit or blame for gas prices, and that people have no long term memory.

I can believe one of these, but all three?  Are people really that irrational?

I got bad news for you Chris.  That's Bush peeing on us, not God.

Gas prices always go down in the fall.

Yea, dropping to $1.15, I wonder if they think that will get him over 50 percent.

That was the main reason I predicted Bush's approval rating would rise to 45% by election day, the certainty gas prices would plummet in the fall, and more than typical. I've seen that Pollkatz table many times.

However, after looking at the incredibly extensive PEW findings, I think my 45% might be high, and even if it is not, we are still in excellent shape. Check out the 49 page full report. I've stressed the women's vote is most vital and it looks like older women, in particular (page 20), are simply not fooled by Bush anymore. Women age 50 and up have shifted dramatically in our favor in comparison to the 2002 midterm. So have married moms. I doubt they will switch back due to gas prices. The gains are basically everywhere, other than men and women aged 18-29, and even that's a positive since that block does not vote dependably so you couldn't rely on a preference shift among them.

No doubt we would have been at apex with a June election. Bush's approval was lower, gas prices higher, and opinion of Congress lower. In scanning that PEW report many other things stood out, but I'll highlight a few:

* Republicans in '98 and Democrats in '02 were simply too optimistic. In looking at the numbers it's crystal, and very surprising that the out party expected gains. Clinton and Bush had very high approval numbers and their was no unrest with congress. which had a slightly positive net re-elect margin (page 32, question 13).

* Unfortunately, this is not another '94. Again, check out page 13 of that full PEW report: "Regardless of how you feel about your own representative, would you like to see most members of Congress re-elected in the next congressional election, or not?" The anti-incumbent mood was startling in '94, 56-28 saying no in early October. It fell only modestly, to a 20-point margin, 51-31, in November on the eve of the election. This year we were at 57-29 saying no in June, but that is already 49-35. I would keep an eye on that number in PEW's subsequent surveys. It stabilized from August to September and we need it to maintain or go back up. Anti-incumbency this year means anti-GOP.

* Question 16, page 33: "Do you think of your vote for Congress this fall as a vote FOR George W. Bush, as a vote AGAINST George W. Bush, or isn't George W. Bush much of a factor in your vote?"  The numbers in that question demonstrate where Bush is, in relation to recent presidents including himself. It's incredible. Starting with Reagan in '82, no one had a "vote against" percentage above 23 until Bush this year. Even Clinton in '94 had a worst of 17% for, 23% against, hinting that midterm was a vote against congress as much or more than anti-Clinton. This year Bush has had 6 consecutive vote against numbers of 31 or higher. His low was 15% for, 38% against in June. Now it's 20-36. Let's dump some of the pessismism regarding 2002 and 2004. In early November 2002, Bush had a positive vote for/vote against net of 29-16.

* I'll point out again we need more emphasis on the economy. Question 27: "Next, please tell me if you think the REPUBLICAN Party or the DEMOCRATIC Party could do a better job in each of the following areas..." Our advantage above the Republicans on the economy is 14 points (46-32), higher than in any point among the 16 PEW surveys beginning in 1990. That 32 for the GOP is their lowest percentage ever. Even during the Clinton years the Republican percentage on being better on the economy was always between 37 and 45. Regarding Iraq, our lead is just 40-33. Gas prices lead the list in terms of what people are talking about (75%), so naturally the approval rating impacted by a change in price. Iraq (63%) and the economy (62%) are next behind gas prices among issues Democrats talk about. We have the largest advantage ever on the economy, double the edge on Iraq, and talk about it equally as Iraq, but apparently our campaigns have decided we don't want to hear about the economy. Again, interesting handicapping.

Is this thread some level of blogger sarcasm i'm not getting? the graphs do not at all show that gas prices determine Bush's approval. look here. by your same reasoning, then the real reason why Bush's ratings went up after 911 was because of gas prices going down, not because of media spin of his leadership.

there's a phrase in statistics i'm sure you've heard: "correlation does not imply causality". clearly gas prices influence Bush's approval ratings. but you can see much more obvious bumps in his ratings after Hussein was caught, and an slow rise right around the 2004 elections, among other things.

clearly multiple factors determine Bush's approval. not everyone in this country is a dumbass who doesn't pay attention to the news. i think when you look at the plots you showed in the post, ones eyes pick out relationships between the nooks and cranes of the general trends that happen by chance and make connections that aren't there.

its entirely plausible that events in the news cycle and spin strategies have contributed to Bushs gains. notice that approval has been steadily rising since early to mid May. if memory serves, this not too long after they got a new CoS and Tony Snow.

...gas dropped to $2.38 here. If you think that's not going to make people feel better in regards to right track/wrong track numbers you're crazy.

Welcome to the wonderful world of globalized deep politics.

No, people aren't "that stupid".  It makes perfect sense.  For most people, gas prices are not even just a sign of how the economy is doing.  They are a goddamned reality.  Gas at $3.50 means their family is hurting.  Gas prices dropping a dollar means they can drive to work without worrying so much about groceries for the week.

Most of us here online, it doesn't make quite as much of a difference.  Keep in mind you are not the average likely voter.

In terms of PetrolPolitics it's safe to assume that we could expect a drop in oil prices before this coming election.  Bush himself has little to do with it, nor does the "market" from what I understand.  But interested parties are betting on Bush and the Republicans, knowing that lower gas prices will help them.

Yes -- I filled today, noticed it was down, and looked for Bush to go up.

Gas prices are really just a proxy for inflation generally, and real income.  If the cost of living is going up, all else equal, real income is dropping.  Falliing real income, and rising unemployment spell doom for the party in power, especially in a mid-term election.  This has been discussed extensively in the academic literature.  See for example Donkey Rising, or the article it references at Atlantic Online.

The challenge for Democrats is to make the election about the Republican's incompetent stewardship of the nation.  A related challenge is to make sure that the incompetence attack is sufficiently broad so as to sweep in Iraq, and therefore the "war on terror."  Focusing simply on econmics is, in my estimation, insufficient.

There may well be another reason for the correlation between gas prices and Bush's approval ratings: Whenever there is a problem in the Middle East, oil prices spike up and Americans are reminded of the mess that has been made over there. Gas prices up, Bush's ratings down.  Despite the continuing problems in Iraq there has not been a great deal of mention of it in the press, the problems in Lebanon have quieted down, and even Iran has been off the front pages for a bit.