STATE OF THE UNION: COMMENTARY

Obama's State of the Union: Don't Measure Success by the Polls but by the 'Influentials'

Updated: January 21, 2011 | 8:00 a.m.
January 21, 2011 | 6:30 a.m.

President Obama delivering his State of the Union address in 2010. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

Updated at 7:55 a.m. on January 21.

In looking ahead to Tuesday’s State of the Union address, let’s pause and reflect on what is the likely impact of this speech by President Obama and what audience should be the real aim of his message.

An analysis of Gallup polling data over the last 35 years reveals that the State of the Union has little to no effect on presidential approval ratings. President Clinton fared the best -- on average, his approval rose a very modest 3 percentage points after his annual addresses. Surprisingly, all other presidents’ approval ratings experienced slight declines on average. President George H.W. Bush suffered an average drop of 4 percentage points, while Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush saw average declines of a single point.

More remarkable: Reagan, arguably the greatest communicator of the bunch, was unable to move public opinion through these widely watched and covered speeches. Obama’s first State of the Union yielded a similar result. The polling data showed no impact, even though he is often lauded as a superb speaker. 

Presidential consolation speeches don’t move the numbers much, either. Much has been made of Obama’s speech in Tucson, Ariz., and its similarity to the address Clinton delivered after the homegrown terror attack on an Oklahoma federal building in 1995. Clinton, while receiving a bump of 4 or 5 points from that speech, was right back at his previous approval levels within six weeks. And while some of Obama’s slight rise in polling can be attributed to his well-received and poetic speech, most probably has to do with the different bipartisan trajectory he has been on since the midterm election. It remains to be seen how long his “bump” lasts.

So what to look for? Whatever the (likely limited) impact the speech has on the general public will likely be due to his continuing to connect the dots on his bipartisan appeal and his desire to change the tone in Washington. Single speeches don’t usually move the country, but a cumulative effect of consistent communications and actions that resonate with the public does. And, of course, an improving economy would be a major help with stabilizing his numbers at a higher level. 

The audience these speeches have the greatest impact on: the 535 folks gathered in the Capitol, and the folks who surround them and influence their decisions and discussions.  Can Obama coalesce his party around a common agenda and build enthusiasm within those ranks? Can he keep putting pressure on the opposition party to meet him at the table to compromise? Can he lessen the effectiveness of the forces against him in Congress by his words and suggested actions in the speech? 

The bottom line for Obama’s State of the Union:

1) It will have limited power with the general public unless he ties it to where he has been going in the last 60 days;

2) The key barometers on which to judge the address’s effectiveness in the days following its are those men and women who are elected every two or six years, and influentials who help drive the discussion in Washington, D.C.

Matthew Dowd is also an ABC News analyst. He will be discussing the State of the Union address Sunday on ABC's This Week.

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Printable Edition
Click here for a printable edition of this week's magazine.
Columns
Charlie Cook: Off to the Races

Republicans’ Hatred of Obama Blinds Them to Public Disinterest in Scandals

May 20, 2013
Republicans are so focused on their bitter battles against Obama, they can’t see how little impact the “scandals” have had on public opinion.
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

Republicans Should Go Easy on Obama, At Least in Public

May 16, 2013
As a tactical matter, a subterranean campaign will score more direct hits on the president.
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

How the White House Scandals Could Hurt Republicans, Too

May 16, 2013
By enraging the base and strengthening the faction least willing to compromise with Obama, the IRS and Benghazi affairs could hurt a GOP shot at the presidency.
More Columns »
Expert Opinions
Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

7:33 a.m.

Latest Response by Michael Schmidt: Debate is Microcosm of Energy Policy

Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

6:25 p.m.

Latest Response by Jack Rafuse: The LNG Export Conundrum: Dow Chemical

Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

4:23 p.m.

Latest Response by Bernard L. Weinstein: Export more LNG to fight climate change

More Expert Opinions »