Obama's speech unlikely to move polls

President Obama is going to address the nation tonight about health care. Despite all the hype, it's not likely to change much in terms of public opinion.

Over the last few years, I've frequently cited political science research showing that presidential speeches usually fail to change public opinion on domestic policy issues. From Bill Clinton's failed push for health care reform in 1993 to George W. Bush's ill-fated effort to add private accounts to Social Security in 2005, past administrations have repeatedly overestimated their ability to change public opinion. The reason is simple -- the president's message is typically offset by that of the opposition. In the aggregate, the effects tend to cancel out and the numbers don't move.

(John Sides has an especially nice post on this point at the Monkey Cage in which he debunks the claim that Clinton's approval surged after the 1993 speech.)

What's so striking is that reporters and politicos alike still don't understand this point. Why? One explanation is that people tend to conflate domestic policy with foreign policy, where the president has more freedom of action, the public has less information, and the opposition is often more deferential to the president (and is thus less likely to offset his message). In addition, some cases like the Reagan and Bush 43 tax cuts in which the president raised the salience of a relatively popular issue (but didn't change public opinion) are often misinterpreted. Finally, there's a tendency to explain away past failures via post hoc narratives of failed presidential leadership, bad communication strategy, etc. However, it's not likely that any kind of leadership or PR tactic can overcome an offsetting opposition message and change public opinion on a controversial domestic policy issue under normal political circumstances.

Update 9/9 4:39 PM: As I said above, politicians just don't understand -- Obama's own allies in the party are raising expectations to an unrealistic level:

[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid said he thinks Obama's speech will clarify the debate.

"I have every belief that when he finishes his speech tomorrow, the American people will be able to put aside some of the ridiculous falsehoods that have been perpetrated these past few weeks," Reid, D-Nevada, said Tuesday.

A House Democrat said Obama's specifics could be a game-changer in answering Americans' anger and concern over health care reform, displayed in sometimes violent and rowdy town halls over the summer.

"The president is clearly not running away from this battle but rather confronting the challenges we've encountered these last few weeks head-on," Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York said. "He's pulling out all the stops, and this level of involvement from the president could well be a game-changer."

Rangel said the speech could be a great way to turn public opinion on health care around.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll showed that Americans are evenly split over whether to support or oppose Obama's health care plan.

Six in 10 younger Americans support the plan; six in 10 senior citizens oppose it.

Comments

[Howard Craft]

In my opinion the speech could move popular opinion (even at this point of high divisiveness) but its ability to do so is diminished by the degree to which it is a broad message.

A successful speech could be made to promote the idea of a universal plan, or the idea that we should strive for 100% insurance coverage for the population, or the single idea that we should move aggressively to cut costs.

What I expect the President will probably do will be to touch on ALL these points (and a few others) so the message becomes "we must endorse change" - but not any single specific plan. As I see it, we will be left very much where we are already.

***

A speech that can move public opinion becomes possible when the speech is used to set a single goal that people can embrace. I think the JFK "put a man on the moon" speech might be one such example.

On the other hand, the Carter speech outlining a plan to reduce reliance on foreign energy failed. While Obama can do a better job than Carter did, I think he will tend toward that type of speech.

Of course health care, like an energy policy, is complex and involves may diverse constitutes. But again, I think a more effective approach (politically) is to keep it simple - to take a single aspect and focus on that one area.

[David]

I agree with Howard Craft. An alternative approach that also might help would be to discuss in detail specific objections. Various critics assert, e.g., that the plan wouldn't incept for 5 years, there's no actual method to cut substantial waste and inefficiency in Medicare, it would increase the deficits unduly, government panels would decide which end-of-life care to cover, it would enrich the plaintiffs' attorneys, it includes a payoff to unions amounting to tens of billions of dollars, etc. I'd appreciate a speech explaining why these concerns are incorrect or how the plan will make them OK. However, I expect generalities at best, scapegoating at worst.

At a time like this, I miss Hubert Humphrey. He always was on top of policy details. He could have given the talk I'd like to hear.

[giantslor]

This argument is highly illogical. Following Brendan's logic, no one on either side should ever bother making any argument, because it will just be canceled out by an argument from the other side.

The reality is much more complex. Obama's speech will move the polls on health care if the force of his rhetoric overcomes the other side's response-- and we know that Obama is a masterful speaker. Further, the speech should advance his agenda indirectly by boosting his approval ratings, just as Bill Clinton's big speech on health care in '93 boosted his approval rating by 10 points.

[bnyhan]

Actually, there are many reasons to give speeches -- changing the aggregate distribution of public opinion is only one possible goal.

On the Clinton approval change, see the Monkey Cage link above.

[Jinchi]

Obama doesn't need to change the poll numbers significantly. He needs to rally advocates of reform behind him. Lately, they've been demoralized because many believe he's selling out true reform for "a bill". They worry that the consequences will be a final bill written by Max Baucus to please Mike Enzi that protects the fortunes of industry, and requires everyone to buy insurance without ensuring that that the coverage they get is affordable and effective.

In that light, neither Reid nor Rangel are saying anything that contradicts your post. Obama's speech will almost certainly "clarify the debate" and it may well be a game changer in that a final bill will probably be framed around the core concepts he describes tonight.