I disagree, I think it does mean something. And more importantly, look at the 30 point difference about the economy, which will be issue #1 in November.

But note that no comparison is given for how the President's plans were evaluated before and after the speech last year.

I disagree, I think it does mean something. And more importantly, look at the 30 point difference about the economy, which will be issue #1 in November.

 

Does it mean he personally has 91 or 83% approval? Of course not. But the difference is definitely meaningful in some ways.

The 30% is not the difference between those who said they approved of his economic plan after last year's speech and those that said they approved it after this year's speech. It is the difference between the approval of the plan before and after the speech.

 

Are you really telling us that this is a meaningful figure?

The 30% is not the difference between those who said they approved of his economic plan after last year's speech and those that said they approved it after this year's speech. It is the difference between the approval of the plan before and after the speech.

 

Are you really telling us that this is a meaningful figure?

Absolutely it is. Does it mean that he is 30% more favorable now? Now, but it clearly had an impact. I have a hard time seeing how it is you don't see that.

 

Absolutely it is. Does it mean that he is 30% more favorable now? Now, but it clearly had an impact. I have a hard time seeing how it is you don't see that.

Well considering the poll was taken immediately after the speech, my guess would be a large portion of it was just emotional response, as opposed to a well-thought out reaction which will last over time. While I was reading the speech, I admittedly came close to tearing up a few times. Some speeches are meant to rouse emotion. However, after a short period of time, that emotion goes away and the more deep-seated beliefs return.

 

Do you really think Obama said anything in that speech concerning our economic policy that should cause that sort of shift?

 

It was just an immediate, emotional response. Take the same poll in a month, and I'd bet my house that 80% of those same voters do not favor his economic policies.

That's exactly why the last Presidential debate is scheduled a few weeks before the election.

Well considering the poll was taken immediately after the speech, my guess would be a large portion of it was just emotional response, as opposed to a well-thought out reaction which will last over time. While I was reading the speech, I admittedly came close to tearing up a few times. Some speeches are meant to rouse emotion. However, after a short period of time, that emotion goes away and the more deep-seated beliefs return.

 

Do you really think Obama said anything in that speech concerning our economic policy that should cause that sort of shift?

 

It was just an immediate, emotional response. Take the same poll in a month, and I'd bet my house that 80% of those same voters do not favor his economic policies.

I think you are all missing the point here.

 

First, no one is saying those numbers mean that that many people actually favor his policies in the long run.

 

Second, when your results are better, relatively, than the year before, then yes, it of course means something.

 

Third, do you seriously think I am not familiar with emotion and politics?

 

The fact that the speech went over better than the last one definitely has meaning. Its like turning a car. Any given move with the steering wheel has an effect, which may or may not cause the car to do what you want it to do, but from that point on you have a different starting point.

 

And your idea that "80% of those same voters" won't favor his policies in a month is ridiculous, since even at bottom he was still getting around 40% favorable on that (or in that ballpark). The numbers move around, but not THAT much.

 

I think you are all missing the point here.

 

First, no one is saying those numbers mean that that many people actually favor his policies in the long run.

 

Second, when your results are better, relatively, than the year before, then yes, it of course means something.

 

Third, do you seriously think I am not familiar with emotion and politics?

 

The fact that the speech went over better than the last one definitely has meaning. Its like turning a car. Any given move with the steering wheel has an effect, which may or may not cause the car to do what you want it to do, but from that point on you have a different starting point.

 

And your idea that "80% of those same voters" won't favor his policies in a month is ridiculous, since even at bottom he was still getting around 40% favorable on that (or in that ballpark). The numbers move around, but not THAT much.

Umm...ok, I guess I am missing your point, because I still have no clue what it is.

 

The speech was his kickoff to his 2012 re-election campaign. It has an entirely different purpose than his last SOTU speech and it obviously accomplished that.

 

 

The speech was his kickoff to his 2012 re-election campaign. It has an entirely different purpose than his last SOTU speech and it obviously accomplished that.

100% agree.

 

I think you are all missing the point here.

 

First, no one is saying those numbers mean that that many people actually favor his policies in the long run.

 

Second, when your results are better, relatively, than the year before, then yes, it of course means something.

 

Third, do you seriously think I am not familiar with emotion and politics?

 

The fact that the speech went over better than the last one definitely has meaning. Its like turning a car. Any given move with the steering wheel has an effect, which may or may not cause the car to do what you want it to do, but from that point on you have a different starting point.

 

And your idea that "80% of those same voters" won't favor his policies in a month is ridiculous, since even at bottom he was still getting around 40% favorable on that (or in that ballpark). The numbers move around, but not THAT much.

I don't think that's what shack was saying. It's not that 80% will disapprove, it's that later, 80% won't still approve (i.e. the number will be different/lower, not reversed).

I don't think that's what shack was saying. It's not that 80% will disapprove, it's that later, 80% won't still approve (i.e. the number will be different/lower, not reversed).

Yes, this is what I was saying.

 

Lost is correct.

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by iamshack

Yes, this is what I was saying.

 

Lost is correct.

and I agree with that too.