The Bin Laden Bounce

Does killing bad guys really help at the ballot box?

BY SCOTT CLEMENT | FEBRUARY 1, 2012

Scott Clement is the polling analyst for the Washington Post. The poll-watcher analysis series on American public opinion on foreign policy is cross-posted at the Behind the Numbers blog.

"For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country," said U.S. President Barack Obama at the top of his State of the Union speech last week. For good measure, he closed his hourlong speech on the same note, speaking of the flag given to him by the Navy SEALs who killed the al Qaeda mastermind. And at a retreat later in the week, Vice President Joe Biden recounted to House Democrats how Obama made the decision to invade bin Laden's hiding place largely on his own, receiving little encouragement from his top advisors. A true presidential moment, we're told.

Obama and his team clearly see eliminating bin Laden as a top administration achievement. It's nearly conventional wisdom at this point that this refrain will be repeated throughout the forthcoming presidential campaign as a singular success. Who doesn't like getting bad guys? But do Americans really reward at the ballot box presidents who take down their bogeymen?

The answer may be disappointing.

Less than a month before bin Laden was killed, Obama held a 47 percent job approval rating in a Washington Post-ABC News poll. Immediately after the successful raid, it shot up to 56 percent. But only one month later, Obama's approval was back at 47 percent again -- and he fell as low as 42 percent in the next six months amid continuing economic troubles.

Simply put, no matter the patriotic fervor, there are other issues that matter much more to voters. Even on the issue of terrorism, Obama's ratings have settled back to pre-bin Laden levels. They spiked to a remarkably high 69 percent immediately after the raid, but slipped to 60 percent the next month. Currently, 56 percent approve of Obama on terrorism, according to a January Washington Post-ABC poll, exactly where they were in February of last year. As we've noted before, his relatively strong reviews on terrorism haven't buoyed ratings on foreign policy in general, nor those on his handling of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

But perhaps we should have known this already. When it comes to presidents seeing diminished returns for catching the bad guy, there's a good deal of precedent.

George W. Bush got a 4-point bounce when Saddam Hussein was captured in December 2003. But only two months later, his job approval rating sank below where it was before Saddam's roundup.

His father could have warned him. The elder Bush ended a long-running feud with Panama's Gen. Manuel Noriega in early 1990 with a swift invasion and capture, rocketing his already high 66 percent job rating up to 79 percent in a Post-ABC poll. But it sunk back to 65 percent in July before rising the next month with the onset of the Gulf War (also considered a big success by Americans). Of course, Obama would kill for numbers like these now.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

 

GREATPET

10:12 PM ET

February 1, 2012

People don't care about these things

They care about whether you're pro-life or pro-choice. They care about your religion. They care about your personal charisma. They care about your election talk which will not be carried out anyway.

Political track record much less. How many ordinary Romney supporters can list the bills that Romney helped passed? They're much more impressed by his debating appearance.

 

KINGFELIX

8:45 AM ET

February 2, 2012

Only an American

Jailing / killing runaway CIA assets, always good for a month of American feelgood.

 

TIMING

10:01 AM ET

February 2, 2012

james woolsey, former CIA director for bill clinton

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=256116

 

VIL4REAL

1:40 PM ET

February 2, 2012

How Are They Polling

I wonder just who these people that are conducting the polls are, because, I have several friends and they nor myself have ever been polled about President Obama's popularity before or after the capture of bin Laden. I'm sure if we were, the result would be very different. I for one feel very confident about President Obama as leader of the United States; especially after his three-year-in administration successfully captured bin Laden when the former Administration could not do it in eight. The bold and daring actions of this Administration make me feel safe as an American. I believe it sends a message to all terrorist that the people of American will not lie down and take their heinous misconducts without consciences and repercussions. I feel protected and confident that this Country is in excellent hands.

 

DIANA RELKE

3:19 PM ET

February 2, 2012

Assassination

Assassination is perfectly acceptable when practiced by the US and Israel, yet when some Zionist nutcase recommends assassinating the US president, hundreds of politicians and their stenographers faint in a breathless swoon as if they've never heard of such a barbaric idea.

 

KUNINO

3:34 PM ET

February 2, 2012

The GHW Bush lesson

A real WWII hero directs the military to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and, seemingly, they do. (I say seemingly because the Iraqi army left Kuwait after negotiations with the Russian deputy foreign minister. It was no military achievement -- although thought of as such at the time.)

About 18 months later, in national elections against a younger man thought of as a pot-smoking hippie coward who had fled the country to avoid callup, Bush liost his bid for re-election. The military victory had provided no bounde.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

4:23 PM ET

February 2, 2012

Article uses no real evidence in support of argument

Equating the capture of Saddam Hussein to Bin Laden is maaaaaaybe ok, but Noriega??? Not a chance. Also, Bush junior was an abysmal president, who is clearly, globally one of the most loathed human beings of the 21st century. Comparing him to Obama is useless. I will assure you that Obama's killing of UBL will help him win re-election. Only a complete idiot would think otherwise. This article seems like wishful conservative thinking at best, and right wing pandering at worst. I promise you that if we were talking about president Romney's killing of Osama Bin Laden, this author would be singing a veeeeery different tune.

 

ITS-ALL-LIES

9:02 PM ET

February 2, 2012

Top politicians having people

Top politicians having people killed, I don't believe a word of it?. Come on people its time to wake up and smell the coffee, this happens on a daily basis around the world with every goverment.

But you just don't hear about it, you hear about how porno is a bad thing, and how adult dating sites are corrupting the young, and how sex before marriage is a sin. But the goverment killing people, well that just doesn't happen, does it????

 

VERMICIOUS KNID

3:40 PM ET

February 5, 2012

"Of course, Obama would kill for numbers like these now.""

"The elder Bush ended a long-running feud with Panama's Gen. Manuel Noriega in early 1990 with a swift invasion and capture, rocketing his already high 66 percent job rating up to 79 percent in a Post-ABC poll. But it sunk back to 65 percent in July before rising the next month with the onset of the Gulf War (also considered a big success by Americans). Of course, Obama would kill for numbers like these now."

Maybe he will, what with Iran and all.

The perfect timing would maybe be in August or September- so that he could administer an epic a$s-whooping to Iran before the elections, but before the economic fallout really sinks in from the surge in oil prices.

Americans love vicariously watching their military completely clobber someone, even if, as in the case in 1991, they don't really know anything about the countries involved or the reasons for the conflict. However, I think people have been wanting to clobber Iran ever since the hostage crisis. Add scary nukes and terrorism - this could be a winner for Obama.

 

VERMICIOUS KNID

3:42 PM ET

February 5, 2012

Noriega = Bin Laden??

It is entirely possible that Obama will get no credit for killing Bin Laden, but neither Noriega or even Saddam Hussein were even close to as big villain-wise as Bin Laden.

 

SUPAH

2:14 AM ET

February 9, 2012

Why not

Why shouldn't Obama get credit? While Bush was in office they got no where hunting Bin Laden down. You can't tell my that Bush was on to something before Obama came into office and he just carried on his path. Self Improvement

 

LECHEB

6:07 PM ET

March 12, 2012

Overall Credit

I think it is definitely a good thing for the Obama administration that Bin Laden was removed. While the actually specific incident might not me a big part of the democratic campaign this year, everyone knows it occurred and thus have confidence in the President in the back of their minds. According to other pieces of work that I read on my iphone 5, this coupled with the administration's success with Libya, Iraq, etc. provides a strong argument that the President is great a foreign policy.