Over the past three decades, political scientists have been developing general models of presidential approval ratings, seeking to determine the structure of aggregate approval. This endeavor has culminated in the broad claim that “peace, prosperity, and probity” drive the public's approval. The unprecedented events of the Clinton Presidency, especially his high approval during and after impeachment, present a strong chal- lenge to this model. However, the existing model explains Clinton's approval remarkably well, suggesting that the public punished and rewarded him for the state of the economy, major political events, and his integrity. Passing this strong test constitutes considerable support for the existing model of approval.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achen, Christopher H. 2000. “Why Lagged Dependent Variables Can Suppress the Explanatory Power of Other Independent Variables”. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association, UCLA.
2.
Andolina, Molly W, and Clyde Wilcox. 2000. “Public Opinion: The Paradoxes of Clinton's Popularity” In Mark J. Rozell and Clyde Wilcox, eds., The Clinton Scandal and the Future of American Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
3.
Baum, Matthew, and Samuel Kernell. 2001. “Economic Class and Popular Sup- port for Franklin Roosevelt in War and Peace”. Public Opinion Quarterly65: 198-229.
4.
Beck, Nathaniel. 1991. “Comparing Dynamic Specifications: The Case of Presi- dential Approval”. Political Analysis3: 51-88.
5.
Brace, Paul, and Barbara Hinckley1992. Follow the Leader: Opinion Polls and the Modern Presidents. New York: Basic Books.
6.
Brehm, John. 1993. The Phantom Respondents: Opinion Surveys and Political Repre- sentation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
Brody, Richard A.1991. Assessing the President: The Media, Elite Opinion, and Public Support. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
Brody, Richard, and Lee Sigelman. 1983. “Presidential Popularity and Presiden- tial Elections: An Update and Extension”. Public Opinion Quarterly47: 325-328.
9.
Campbell, Colin, and Bert A. Rockman. 2000. “Introduction” In Colin Campbell and Bert A. Rockman, eds., The Clinton Legacy. New York: Chatham House.
10.
Clarke, Harold D., Euel W Elliot, William Mishler, Marianne C. Stewart, Paul E Whiteley, and Gary Zuk. 1992. Controversies in Political Economy: Canada, Great Britain, the United States. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
11.
Clarke, Harold D., and Marianne Stewart. 1994. “Prospections, Retrospections, and Rationality: The ‘Bankers’ Model of Presidential Approval Reconsid- ered”. American Journal of Political Science38: 1104-1123.
12.
Edwards, George C., III. 1989. At the Margins: Presidential Leadership of Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
Edwards, George C., III. 1996. “Frustration and Folly: Bill Clinton and the Public Presidency” In Colin Campbell and Bert A. Rockman, eds., The Clinton Presidency: First Appraisals. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
14.
Edwards, George C., III2000. “Campaigning is not Governing: Bill Clinton's Rhetorical Presi- dency” In Colin Campbell and Bert A. Rockman, eds., The Clinton Legacy. New York: Chatham House.
15.
Greene, Steven. 2001. “The Role of Character Assessments in Presidential Approval”. American Politics Research29: 196-210.
16.
Greene, William H.1993. Econometric Analysis, 2nd ed.New York: Macmillan.
17.
Harvey, Diane Hollern. 2000. “The Public's View of Clinton.” In Steven E. Schier, ed., The Postmodern Presidency: Bill Clinton's Legacy in US Politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
18.
Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr.1987. The American Political Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1994. “Issues, Candidate Image, and Priming: The Use of Private Polls in Kennedy's 1960 Presidential Campaign”. American Political Science Review88: 527-540.
20.
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Robert Y. Shapiro1995. “The Rise of Presidential Polling: The Nixon White House in His- torical Perspective”. Public Opinion Quarterly59: 163-195.
21.
Jacobson, Gary. 1999. “Impeachment Politics in the 1998 Congressional Elec- tion”. Political Science Quarterly114: 31-51.
22.
Kernell, Samuel. 1978. “Explaining Presidential Popularity. American Political Sci- ence Review72: 506-522
23.
Kernell, Samuel. 1997. Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership, 3rd ed.Wash- ington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
24.
Lawrence, Regina G., and W Lance Bennett. 2001. “Rethinking Media Politics and Public Opinion: Reactions to the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal”. Political Science Quarterly116: 425-446.
25.
MacKuen, Michael. 1983. “Political Drama, Economic Conditions, and the Dynam- ics of Presidential Popularity”. American Journal of Political Science27: 165-192.
26.
MacKuen, Michael, Robert S. Erikson, and James A. Stimson. 1992. “Peasants or Bankers? The American Electorate and the U.S. Economy”American Political Science Review86: 596-611.
27.
MacKuen, Michael, Robert S. Erikson, and James A. Stimson. 1996. “Presidents and the Prospective Year: Comment”. Journal of Politics58:793-801.
28.
Miroff, Bruce. 2000. “Courting the Public: Bill Clinton's Postmodern Education.” In Steven E. Schier, ed., The Postmodern Presidency: Bill Clinton's Legacy in US Politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
29.
Morris, Dick. 1997. Behind the Oval Office: Winning the Presidency in the Nineties. New York: Random House.
30.
Mueller, John. 1973. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
31.
Nadeau, Richard, Richard G. Niemi, David P Fan, and Timothy Amato. 1999. “Elite Economic Forecasts, Economic News, Mass Economic Judgements, and Presidential Approval”. Journal of Politics61: 109-135.
32.
Newman, Brian, and Charles W Ostrom, Jr.2002. “Explaining Seat Changes in the US House of Representatives: 1950-1998”. Legislative Studies Quarterly27: 383-405.
33.
Norpoth, Helmut. 1996. “Presidents and the Prospective Voter”. Journal of Politics58: 776-792.
34.
Ostrom, Charles W, Jr.1990. Time Series Analysis: Regression Techniques, 2nd ed.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35.
Ostrom, Charles W, Jr., and Dennis M. Simon. 1985. Promise and Performance: A Dynamic Model of Presidential Popularity”American Political Science Review79: 334-358.
36.
Ostrom, Charles W, Jr., and Dennis M. Simon. 1988. “The President's Public”. American Journal of Political Science32: 1096-1119.
37.
Ostrom, Charles W, Jr., and Dennis M. Simon. 1989. “The Man in the Teflon Suit? The Environmental Connection, Polit- ical Drama, and Popular Support in the Reagan Presidency”Public Opinion Quarterly53: 353-387.
38.
Ostrom, Charles W, Jr., and Renee M. Smith. 1992. “Error Correction, Attitude Persistence, and Executive Rewards and Punishments: A Behavioral Model of Presidential Approval”. Political Analysis4: 127-183.
39.
Ragsdale, Lyn. 1987. “Presidential Speechmaking and the Public Audience: Indi- vidual Presidents and Group Attitudes”. Journal of Politics49: 704-736.
40.
Ragsdale, Lyn. 1998. Vital Statistics on the Presidency. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
41.
Rivers, Douglas, and Nancy L. Rose. 1985. “Passing the President's Program: Public Opinion and Presidential Influence in Congress”. American Journal of Political Science29: 183-196.
42.
Rozell, Mark J., and Clyde Wilcox. 2000. The Clinton Scandal and the Future of American Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
43.
Schier, Steven E.2000. “A Unique Presidency” In Steven E. Schier, ed., The Post- modern Presidency: Bill Clinton's Legacy in US Politics. Pittsburgh, PA: Univer- sity of Pittsburgh Press.
44.
Sigelman, Lee. 1978. “Presidential Popularity and Presidential Elections”. Public Opinion Quarterly43: 532-534.
45.
Simon, Dennis M., and Charles W Ostrom, Jr.1988. “The Politics of Prestige: Popular Support and the Modern Presidency”. Presidential Studies Quarterly18: 741-759.
46.
Simon, Dennis M., Charles W Ostrom, Jr. and Robin E Marra. 1991. “The Pres- ident, Referendum Voting, and Subnational Elections in the United States”. American Political Science Review85: 1177-1192.
47.
Woodward, Robert. 1996. The Choice. New York: Simon and Schuster.
48.
Zaller, John R.1998. “Monica Lewinsky's Contribution to Political Science”. PS: Political Science and Politics33:182-189.
