Masket suggests that Bill Clinton's poll ratings were a function of people's appreciation of peace, prosperity, and moderation rather than an inverse reaction to accusations of scandal. So, does that mean that people saw the country becoming 10%-15% more peaceful, prosperous, and moderate in the last ten days of January 1998?
In the article I think it explains that, due to the Lewinski thing, people were compelled to evaluate the President during a non-election year. And, during that re-evaluation, a lot of people who were used to answering "disapprove" to polls decided to change their answer to "approve" because the economy was doing well and there were no wars going on. In that argument, the Lewinski scandal had no real influence on people's evaluation of the President, aside from compelling people to pay attention to national politics.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
At The Washington Post
At The American Prospect