I decided last night that even though I probably should watch the State of the Union to understand exactly how President Bush is planning to flush my generation’s military and social security down the toilet, I couldn’t stomach the sight of him speaking to multiple standing O’s from the republican reich. From what I heard in the post-speech reports, the Democrats shouted “No!” when he talked about social security. They have to start somewhere, I guess.
This morning, I decided to pop around some online newspapers to see how they covered the event. In addition to reporting on the speech, the USA Today shows the results of a Gallop/USA Today/CNN poll that reveals some surprising results. For instance:
| The situation in Iraq | ||
| Right direction | Wrong direction | |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 Feb 2 (Post-speech) | 78% | 20% |
| 2005 Jan 31-Feb 1 (Pre-speech) | 66% | 31% |
Wow! He must have been pretty good, huh, to convince 12% of viewers that they should ignore 98% of the news coming out of Iraq.
Here’s another one (in answer to the question “Now thinking about these specific areas, do you think the policies George W. Bush is proposing will move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?”):
| Social Security | ||
| Right direction | Wrong direction | |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 Feb 2 (Post-speech) | 66% | 29% |
| 2005 Jan 31-Feb 1 (Pre-speech) | 51% | 38% |
Again, wow! Has he been taking lessons in public speaking? How did he convince so many people that gambling with social security is moving the country in the right direction?
Ah, but one must read the fine print to understand what is really going on here. And here, my friends, is the fine print:
Survey respondents were first interviewed as part of random national adult samples by Gallup January 31-February 1, 2005, at which time they indicated they planned to watch the President’s 2005 State of the Union address and were willing to be re-interviewed by Gallup after the speech. Respondents’ pre- and post-speech answers are shown for those questions that were asked on both surveys.
The sample consists of 52% of respondents who identify themselves as Republicans, 25% who identify themselves as Democrats, and 22% who identify themselves as Independents.
Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.
So this poll is sampling twice as many Republicans as Democrats, and passing off the results as an objective poll? Please.
The only way to combat such blatant bias, it seems to me, is to counter with our own Ministry of Disinformation. I’m very proud to present The Tattered Coat’s SOTU poll:
| The situation in Iraq | ||
| Right direction | Wrong direction | |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 Feb 2 (Post-speech) | 0% | 101% |
| 2005 Jan 31-Feb 1 (Pre-speech) | 0% | 100% |
| Social Security | ||
| Right direction | Wrong direction | |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 Feb 2 (Post-speech) | 0% | 150% |
| 2005 Jan 31-Feb 1 (Pre-speech) | 0% | 100% |
note: The sample consists of 100% of respondents who identify themselves as Democrats, 0% who identify themselves as Republicans, and 22% who identify themselves as Broccoli.
Other SOTU notes:
1. I heard John McCain, in a post-speech interview, say that since Bush’s plan wouldn’t affect anyone currently over 55 years of age, those people “don’t need to worry about any of this.”
In other words, anyone who has actually experienced what it feels like to retire after a lifetime of work, only to find themselves living off of social security, is welcome to shut the fuck up. This, I think, is what Bush means by an “ownership society”: just look out for yourself, and don’t worry about anyone else.
2. I really liked Harry Reid’s bit about how even though he represents Las Vegas, he doesn’t approve of “gambling with social security.” That’s a great way to frame the issue—-Democrats should use the phrase “gambling with social security” every chance they get.
3. If you’re interested in making your opinion known, follow the links on Atrios’ list of post-speech polls.
One Comment on "SOTU: Stacking the Deck"
Jesse:
Bush is better when he doesn’t have to think about what he’s saying, when the script is all written for him. Which is not to say he’s good. He just stands less chance of embarrassing himself if he’s giving a scripted speech. Also, I didn’t watch, because Bush makes me want to throw up every time I see him, so I have no real idea of how it was or how he “managed to convince people,” who wound up being Republicans anyway. Very good point about that.
Comments