No evidence Obama deficit speech backfired

Yesterday, John Sides and I published an article cautioning journalists against overstating the importance of political events on public opinion (they rarely have a significant effect). Today -- as if on cue -- NBC's First Read newsletter did just that, suggesting that President Obama's approval ratings are down as a result of his deficit speech last week:

Did last week’s speech backfire? A new Washington Post/ABC poll -- which shows President Obama’s approval down to 47%, and with 44% believing the U.S. economy is getting worse (when employment is actually on the rise) -- suggests that the climbing gas prices have soured the public’s mood, big time... [T]his poll, as well as the Gallup surveys, also seems to confirm that the president’s speech last week might not have played well. For one thing, and this is true going back to the ’08 campaign, Obama usually doesn’t get rewarded when he comes off as too partisan (even though the left loves it). More importantly, last week’s speech was on a topic -- the deficit/debt -- that most Americans don’t find as important as the economy/jobs. And in the Post/ABC poll, Obama took a hit with independents, with 55% of them disapproving of his job. 

The weasel-worded claim that the Post poll "seems to confirm that the president’s speech last week might not have played well" gives the game away. In reality, the Post estimated that Obama's approval ratings are down four points from its last poll a month ago. Anything that happened during that period could be the cause of the decline. First Read also references a downward blip in Gallup's approval estimate for Obama, but fails to clarify that Gallup's polling, which is much more frequent than the Post's, flatly contradicts their thesis. Obama made his speech on April 13. Gallup's three-day average approval ratings for Obama were 44% for April 10-12 and 44% for April 14-16. Rasmussen polls show no significant before/after change either. So what's the evidence the speech didn't play well again?

Update 4/19 4:16 PM: Greg Marx notes in a comment that "Chuck Todd and the NBC crew are repeat offenders here; they pulled the same thing with the oil spill."

[Cross-posted to HuffPost Pollster]

Comments

[Greg Marx]

Chuck Todd and the NBC crew are repeat offenders here; they pulled the same thing with the oil spill:

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_narrative_that_wouldnt_die.php

[David in Cal]

First Read from NBC News wrote:

A new Washington Post/ABC poll -- which shows President Obama’s approval down to 47%, and with 44% believing the U.S. economy is getting worse (when employment is actually on the rise) -- suggests that the climbing gas prices have soured the public’s mood, big time.

Earth to First Read: Gas prices are an aspect of the economy. Year on year inflation as of the end of March was 2.7%, which is more than 2010's figure of just over 1% Furthermore, for the last 4 months, Nov. 30, 2010 - March 31, 2011, the average annual inflation rate was nearly 6% -- primarily due to increases in the price of food and gasoline. In addition, the deficit is at at a historically enormous level and is the actions of Congress and the President seem to indecate that no cure is in sight.

In other words, First Read's parenthetical phrase seemed designed to imply that the economy isn't really getting worse, so the change in perception was a reaction to the President's speech. However, especially for families who spend a large fraction of their income on food and fuel, the economy is indeed getting worse. So, the change in the poll results may simply be an accurate perception of how the economy is changing.

[Rob]

I noticed last week that James Surowiecki in The New Yorker took pains to explain that people are over-reacting to the higher gas prices. That's something of a departure for Surowiecki, since previously he was writing about "how damaging skyrocketing oil prices can be." But it also is consistent with the media spin on higher gas prices, which during Bush's presidency were treated very differently. Quelle surprise.