Wednesday | January 29, 2003
Bush gets boost
We knew this would happen (it always does), but Bush's SOTU address was well received by viewers in this CBS poll.
However, some of the numbers don't jive:
Before the speech, 67 percent favored military action to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Afterward, the number grew to 77 percent.67 percent supported war? All the latest surveys had "support" number in the low 50s. Who was polled, a group of College Republicans?
Oh, I see it now -- it was an online poll. It would be interesting to see the methodology.
That said, if support increased only 10 points amongst a group that was already disproportionately pro-war, Bush's boost may not be as big as I expected.
Then there's this Gallup poll:
Eighty-four percent of speech watchers say their overall reaction to the speech is positive, with 50% saying "very" positive. Last year, 94% said positive, with 74% very positive.On the war question, this poll has better news for Bush:
By a margin of 67% to 30%, speech watchers say Bush has made a convincing case about the need for the United States to take military action against Iraq. Prior to the speech, this same group of Americans was about evenly divided, with just 47% saying Bush had made a convincing case for military action and 52% saying he had not.On the economy, the reaction is more mixed. Note the comparison's with his father's mid-term numbers:
Update: This is good. demtom in the comments makes the following observation:
Gallup is diddling us again. Their poll last night (printed in this morning's USA Today) was, as you say, only of speech watchers, and in the fine print they offer a partisan breakdown -- 40% GOP, 31% IND, only 28% DEM. No wonder the numbers skew better for Bush. And to compare the results this group gave out for Iraq to the 47-47 division in yesterday's real poll, suggesting an overnight groundswell of new approval, is dishonest in the extreme. George Gallup must be turning in his grave.28 percent Dem? Jeez... Both these polls are completely useless. Posted January 29, 2003 08:48 AM | Comments (80)