Lincoln was right

65% disapproval on the job-performance question is terrible.
60% unfavorable on personal impresion is catastrophic.

You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Right now, for example, you can only fool 31% of them, and falling. The glass is now officially more than two-thirds empty.

Actually, if I were working for the RNC, what would really terrify me isn’t the 31% good/65% bad job-performance rating, which can go up and down based on events, but the 39% favorable/60% unfavorable rating of Bush as a person.

As Atrios says, only the real whack-jobs like the guy.

Smart man, Abe.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact:

3 thoughts on “Lincoln was right”

  1. actually, as i recall, we've established a precedent whereby you only need to fool NINE of the people (or rather a majority of those nine sitting on the SupCt bench) every 4 years… thank goodness gw's got say over the new appointees… wouldn't want them mandating a liberal president on accident…

Comments are closed.