Summary: The State of the Union Address did help President Obama - but by how much, and will it last?
A week ago today President Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address. Earlier that day we asked “could it bump his approval rating?”
We looked at Gallup data from previous SOTU speeches and determined it was unlikely. Presidents rarely get a significant bump following their annual address. But after seeing the speech, we determined that if any address could help his approval rating, it was that one.
Well, the new Gallup data is in, and - though it was small - there was a notable increase.
In just a day or two, the gap between his approval and disapproval ratings increased from 2% to 6%. As of this morning it is currently at 9% (note: the approval rating data will be updated later today).
As Gallup notes though, most of that increase came because Obama was able to re-inspire confidence in the Democratic base - not among Independents and Republicans.
Support for Obama among Democrats on a week-by-week basis has held steady in the mid-80s during January, although with some minor shifts among segments of the Democratic Party. His approval rating dipped mid-month among liberal Democrats before rebounding a bit last week. His support increased slightly in mid-January among conservative Democrats and has held at the higher level.
Support for Obama is now a bit lower among moderate/liberal Republicans than it was at the start of the month (27% vs. 33%). It is also slightly lower among conservative Republicans and pure independents (those who don't lean to either party), but neither of those changes is statistically significant.
Of course, the impact of single political events - even as high-profile as a State of the Union Address - fade quickly. A small bump in his approval rating this week means virtually nothing when looking forward to the 2010 elections. President Obama needs to continue what he started during that speech.
And he appears to be doing so. His tone has become more populist, more inspiring, and more reasonable. His recent address and Q&A with House Republicans was a very good event for him. If he manages to keep this up he could easily recapture a lot of the ground he lost over 2009 in terms of popularity.
Obviously he is not up for election this year - members of Congress are. But as a Democratic president during a year Democrats are expected to see big losses, he certainly has his role to play. And for now, he appears to be playing it well.
One unexpected result of Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) outburst during President Obama’s speech last week has been the topic of racial anxiety among Republican - almost entirely white - voters.
Today Politico reports that many Democrats have come to see the opposition to Obama’s presidency as at least somewhat race driven.
This comes not long after the Los Angeles Times reported a growing “problem” Obama had in losing white support. Tom Schaller at FiveThirtyEight.com argued that the “problem” was being overblown for the most part, but it does seem to suggest that the divide over the 44th president’s performance is at least partially racial.
Just as they were infuriated by the Department of Homeland Security’s report that right-wing militia groups could spawn domestic terrorism, conservatives are undoubtedly becoming infuriated by the suggestion that their opposition to President Obama’s policies are due to racism. Conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh will undoubtedly say that Democrats are “playing the race card” now.
Of course, many social psychologists can easily explain what’s happening. Studies show that the image of a black man can evoke subconscious fears, anxieties, etc. in whites. Therefore, it wouldn’t be to far-fetched to assume that the unprecedented intensity of opposition coming from Tea-Baggers, birthers, and other hard-line anti-Obama conservatives is due to a little racial undercurrent.
Joe Wilson served as the perfect example. As a white Southerner (the South has by far the saddest record of race relations) he gave evidence to that theory when he made an unprecedented outburst (screaming “you lie!” of all things) during a presidential address to Congress.
But can Democrats admit it openly?
So far, it’s been liberal pundits and Democratic activists that have been ready to call their conservative counterparts out on the issue of race - politicians have known better.
On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we relayed an article from the New York Times explaining how then President-Elect Obama had been “an omnipresent icebreaker” for racial anxiety.
But Obama took a bit of a hit in the polls earlier this summer when he said that the Cambridge, MA police had acted “stupidly” in their arrest of an African-American Harvard professor. There was a huge racial divide on that subject - blacks supporting the professor, white’s supporting the arresting officer - and Obama’s mismanaged reaction resulted in a small (even just temporary) drop in the polls.
So far, neither the Obama Administration nor the Democratic Party will speak directly to the question of race in this debate. And that’s exactly what they want to do. Affirming the speculations of race-driven opposition will only hurt Obama among moderate whites while denying the speculations would hurt his position with progressives and minorities.
So the opposition to this president is (very likely) partially driven by racial anxiety. Unfortunately we can’t really admit it.
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday shows Obama doing well with public opinion.
In the survey, 68 percent have a favorable opinion of the president, including 47 percent whose opinion is "very positive" — both all-time highs for Obama in the poll. Moreover, 67 percent say they feel more hopeful about his leadership and 60 percent approve of his job in the White House.
Yet the percentage of Americans who are confident that Obama has the right goals and policies for the country — 54 percent — is slightly smaller, suggesting that the president is more popular than his policies are.
On the other side of the spectrum, Republicans are taking a lot of heat for being too partisan.
Just 26 percent view the Republican Party positively, which is an all-time low for the party. That's compared with 49 percent who have a favorable view of the Democratic Party.
On the economy, not only do voters believe Democrats are better suited for fixing it than Republicans (48%-20%), but they are giving Obama a long leash. Only after 18 more months of recession (by September 2010) will the majority of voters blame Obama for the weak economy - about the same number that expect it to be over by then.
If the economists are right, this is good news for Obama. Nate Silvers from FiveThirtyEight.com charts the different expectations between economists and voters.
But perhaps most significant figure in the poll was this:
…these attitudes about Obama have helped fuel a big jump in the percentage of Americans who believe the U.S. is headed in the right direction, according to the poll. In January’s NBC/Journal poll, 26 percent said the country was on the right track; now 41 percent think that.
Will this Democratic honeymoon last?
Although American generally viewed the GOP negatively, the Republican message seems to be rubbing off.
The top three concerns about Obama's stimulus were that it contains too much pork-barrel spending, that its tax cuts are too small and that the spending is focused in the wrong areas.
What's more, 61 percent say they're more concerned that the federal government will spend too much money and will increase the size of the deficit, than they are concerned that the government will spend too little money in trying to get out of the recession.
In fact, while Obama’s approval rating has been consistently hovering between 60-70%, his disapproval rating has been growing steadily.
From Gallup Daily:
And the figures from the Real Clear Politics poll averages seem to confirm this trend.
As long as the old Reaganite arguments work, the GOP will continue to use them - even if it means appearing partisan in the short term. After all, once public opinion shifts on economic policies (to “doesn’t stimulus mean big government?”) the political environment could be dangerous for Democrats.
