ABC's Gibson used polls renounced by ABC's polling director to speculate that Bush might get a "pretty good size boost" in polls due to SOTU
SUMMARY: ABC's Charles Gibson said that President Bush may get a "pretty good size boost in his polls" after the State of the Union address, even though ABC News polling director Gary Langer had dismissed such polls as a highly unreliable indicator of the entire country's view of the speech because those who listen or watch the speech, by and large, support the president already.
During ABC's post-State of the Union address coverage, Charles Gibson, co-host of ABC's Good Morning America, cited "polls done in eight of the last 11 years after the State of the Union (SOTU) address, [in which] at least 75 percent of the people who responded said they approved of what they heard" to justify his claim that "maybe [the president] will get a pretty good size boost in his polls from this speech." However, as ABC News polling director Gary Langer stated in the January 31 edition of ABC News' online political news summary The Note, such after-speech polls are a highly unreliable indicator of the entire country's view of the speech because those who listen or watch the speech, by and large, support the president already.
From the January 31 edition of ABC News' The Note, quoting Langer:
"Partisans watch these things; rather than torturing themselves, people who don't like the guy can just turn to another of their 100 channels. When we polled on the SOTU in 2003, we found that the president's approval rating among speech watchers was 70 percent, versus 47 percent among those who didn't watch. As we put it at the time: 'Simply put, people who don't like a particular president are considerably less apt to tune him in.'"
Langer further noted that, due to this built-in skew and the speech's typical content of mostly "poll-tested applause lines," ABC News "ha[s]n't done immediate post-SOTU reax [reaction] polls in years (pre-war 2003 was an exception) because ... they are so dreadfully predictable."
From ABC's January 31 post-State of the Union address coverage:
GIBSON: But it is a chance, as I mentioned earlier, for the president, really, to seize the initiative, to have the podium, to lay out his agenda. And I was interested to note that polls done in eight of the last 11 years after the State of the Union address, at least 75 percent of the people who responded said they approved of what they heard. So with the president's polls as low as they are, with the president reaching out and trying to find cooperation in Washington, maybe he will get a pretty good size boost in his polls from this speech.
I watched the entire ABC telecast... Gibson was pretty skeptical in the post-address commentary... I'd even say he was dismissive of most of what Bush said... Gibson's the least of our concerns... Matthews is the guy to look at...
did anyone else think it was weird not to hear Peter Jennings commenting on the SOTU? I've closely associated him with the address for ages...
I agree, it was weird not having him there. But I know many people, myself included, who cannot stand this President, who watched last night, mostly out of morbid curiosity. I have several friends who consider themselves "moderate Republicans" who have said they hope the GOP gets waxed in the mid term elections because they have gone way too far, and they want to see a little more of a check on party control. All of these people (I live in Texas, so little surprise) voted for him. To this day, I do not see how anyone in this state can support him. Our major cities have huge air quality problems, our budget was decimated by huge property tax cuts, and "abstinence only" education has left us with one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. To quote Molly Ivins, "Texas is a laboratory for bad government - if it doesn't work here, let's try it everywhere" or something to that effect. The sad part? I was never particularly partisan - I was always pretty accepting of legislation or government that I disagreed with, as long as there was some things I DID agree with. But now? The bushies haven't done a single thing that has made middle America better off. Wages have fallen vs. inflation- current savings rates in this country are actually in NEGATIVE numbers, average revolving household debt is at $50K, and our government debt equals our gross national product (over$8trillion). And they just say we're "pessimistic". No, I just don't think THESE clowns have the will OR the desire to fix it. And I don't think it can be done without a certain amount of pain.
Analysis, commentary, reportage coupled with insight—all clearly & cleanly delivered, presented and laid upon the table. Now a distant glimmer of the late Peter Jennings, at times like these, is all we can recall…where went the Truth by which Mr. Jennings spoke?
Now as the little–Nero fiddles along, whilst America smolders, how many are dumbed down by the untruths & deceptions, which mask the cheats & lies of his usurpations? When will America demand the surcease necessary to end the sufferings of so many within our borders? How can anyone utter the word “compassionate” as the number of American victims grows each day as the chasm widens? His overt, overly–preoccupied with his bowing technique—bias for “his” type of Americans: Those corporate, distanced non-breathing entities. He again typically eschews, with his vocal side stepping, the living & breathing backbone of corporate America: The American worker. And the little–Nero will continue to bleed–out America’s life force…all for the sake of corporate profits while real Americans continue to starve…and “his” chasm widens. That’s what he failed, yesterday, to say.