CBS Poll: 91% Approve, 9% Disapprove of State of the Union Speech

[Political Junky]

CBS News State of the Union Poll - CBS News

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Oh come on!!! What were the demographics on this one? Just some type of photosynthesis or basic cellular respiration?

 

[Modbert]

Considering the viewer audience according to the poll was 44% Democrats, these are still some large increases after one speech. It does seem a bit whacky though to say the least.

He did put out quite a bit out there that could appeal to everyone.

Things such as being willing to lower the corporate tax rate, freezing domestic spending for five years, having goals ranging from high speed rail to alternative energy. Being willing to work with the GOP on a wide range of issues including Tort Reform.

With his speech last night, he definitely did put the ball in the GOP court. The question is now whether they are willing to work together with him to cut spending or not.

I'm not sure whether the approving of speech would be that large considering the poisoning of the political well by partisan politics alone, but it certainly wouldn't be surprising if a decent majority did approve of it.

 

[Ernie S.]

I think CBS asked Katie Couric the same question 100 times.

 

[BenMarbleMD]

this thread reminds me of the book 'How To Lie With Statistics"...

so what percentage of Americans actually WATCHED the speech? My guess is it is somewhere under 10% so 91% of 10% would actually mean that only 9.1% of Americans approve of the speech....just sayin

 

[Avatar4321]

online polls are so accurate nowadays

 

[Dr.Drock]

I didn't watch it, and probably never will watch one of those speeches.

That having been said can anyone tell me why this speech is important in the slightest and why people's opinions of said speech matter at all?

 

[Jarhead]

Considering the viewer audience according to the poll was 44% Democrats, these are still some large increases after one speech. It does seem a bit whacky though to say the least.

He did put out quite a bit out there that could appeal to everyone.

Things such as being willing to lower the corporate tax rate, freezing domestic spending for five years, having goals ranging from high speed rail to alternative energy. Being willing to work with the GOP on a wide range of issues including Tort Reform.

With his speech last night, he definitely did put the ball in the GOP court. The question is now whether they are willing to work together with him to cut spending or not.

I'm not sure whether the approving of speech would be that large considering the poisoning of the political well by partisan politics alone, but it certainly wouldn't be surprising if a decent majority did approve of it.

Thats the point. He put stuff out there to fire up just about every group.
Peroblem is, he trreated it as a campaign speech with a bungch of campaign promises and did not actually report on the State of the Union.

Not too difficult to get good ratings when you spew things about what you WANT to do.

Heck, I can get good ratings by jumping on my soapbox and saying:

I will lower taxes for all
I will lower corporate taxes
I will decrease the deficit
I will decrease our debt
I will increase our educational capabilities
I will build new high speed trains...

But that is what a candidates does...not the President during a SOTU address....

Ratings....lmao...

if the address were accurately recited then thius poll is like saying that 90% of the people are happy with 9.5% unemployment, a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, a 15 trillion dollar debt, and 2 wars going on.

 

[Trajan]

:lthis is why I asked NY Carbineer to post the poll, he didn't but, I am glad you did PJ .



I ALWYAS rtead the actual poll, sample questions etc....

note the , uhm, not quite 'upfrontness' of using the term;


" CBS Poll: 91% Approve, 9% Disapprove of State of the Union Speech"

....Nooooooooo, 91% approve of the proposals in the speech.....and note the heavy weighting of the dem. sample...and as LBT noted wheres the demographics aside from that meager note, 659 of what? are they Likely Voters, Reg. voters?

 

[gekaap]

Peroblem is, he trreated it as a campaign speech with a bungch of campaign promises and did not actually report on the State of the Union.

Not too difficult to get good ratings when you spew things about what you WANT to do.

Name ONE year in semi-recent history when the SOTU was not of a similar form as the year's address? Reporting on the state of the Union does not have to simply mean saying "Yep, everything's good, keep up the good work boys and girls." Presidents tend to take the opportunity to put forth their recommendations and requests for how the Union must move forward over the next year or so, in order to maintain and/or enhance the Union's condition. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, no matter how much you might be itching for an excuse to complain about Obama.

 

[Jarhead]

Peroblem is, he trreated it as a campaign speech with a bungch of campaign promises and did not actually report on the State of the Union.

Not too difficult to get good ratings when you spew things about what you WANT to do.

Name ONE year in semi-recent history when the SOTU was not of a similar form as the year's address? Reporting on the state of the Union does not have to simply mean saying "Yep, everything's good, keep up the good work boys and girls." Presidents tend to take the opportunity to put forth their recommendations and requests for how the Union must move forward over the next year or so, in order to maintain and/or enhance the Union's condition. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, no matter how much you might be itching for an excuse to complain about Obama.

lol...I didnt say anything was wrong with it.

I simply explained WHY the ratings were so unbalanced....and the implication that it meant people were leaning in Obama's court is absurd.

People liked his vision...I mean...who wouldnt?

Was the vision realistic and achevable? You tell me.

High speed trains....exactly how can we build them like China when china builds a straight line right through anything and we have to go around national parks, protected land, etc...OR....have them run on the same tracks as slower trains...(so much for high speed).

He simply talked about a vision.

Like I can...

"I will eliminate all taxes and give all of you free stuff"

 

[editec]

CBS News State of the Union Poll - CBS News

Which proves that stringing the same haaaaaaaaaap! hap! hap-hap-hap-hap! happy talk! is enough to satisfy most citizens.

Obama's speech mostly could have been read by any DEM POTUS in my lifetime with only a few changes to make it fit their times.

The same foolish notions we've been hearing for 40 years...that the problem is a lack of educated workers and incidetly, that we need more FREE TRADE.

All more worthless feel good blather.

 

[G.T.]

Peroblem is, he trreated it as a campaign speech with a bungch of campaign promises and did not actually report on the State of the Union.

Not too difficult to get good ratings when you spew things about what you WANT to do.

Name ONE year in semi-recent history when the SOTU was not of a similar form as the year's address? Reporting on the state of the Union does not have to simply mean saying "Yep, everything's good, keep up the good work boys and girls." Presidents tend to take the opportunity to put forth their recommendations and requests for how the Union must move forward over the next year or so, in order to maintain and/or enhance the Union's condition. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, no matter how much you might be itching for an excuse to complain about Obama.

lol...I didnt say anything was wrong with it.

I simply explained WHY the ratings were so unbalanced....and the implication that it meant people were leaning in Obama's court is absurd.

People liked his vision...I mean...who wouldnt?

Was the vision realistic and achevable? You tell me.

High speed trains....exactly how can we build them like China when china builds a straight line right through anything and we have to go around national parks, protected land, etc...OR....have them run on the same tracks as slower trains...(so much for high speed).

He simply talked about a vision.

Like I can...

"I will eliminate all taxes and give all of you free stuff"

The point the poster you're responding to is making is that Obama's itinerary he laid forth is no different than the standard for any SOTU, and so you calling it a Campaign speech rings on hollow ears because that's the clear precedent.

 

[Sallow]

CBS News State of the Union Poll - CBS News

Which proves that stringing the same haaaaaaaaaap! hap! hap-hap-hap-hap! happy talk! is enough to satisfy most citizens.

Obama's speech mostly could have been read by any DEM POTUS in my lifetime with only a few changes to make it fit their times.

The same foolish notions we've been hearing for 40 years...that the problem is a lack of educated workers and incidetly, that we need more FREE TRADE.

All more worthless feel good blather.

Not that I approve of this sort of thing..but sometimes it's needed. President Carter, who in my opinion was a really good President, was nothing but gloom and doom. He was way to honest. And people hated it.

President Reagan on the other hand was a horrible President. But he was all happy talk. People felt good about being American with him around. And people loved it.

If President Obama sticks with Carter's pragmatism (Which he does about half the time) and Reagan's optimism (Which he's now been channeling); it could be a good mix.

 

[Jarhead]

Name ONE year in semi-recent history when the SOTU was not of a similar form as the year's address? Reporting on the state of the Union does not have to simply mean saying "Yep, everything's good, keep up the good work boys and girls." Presidents tend to take the opportunity to put forth their recommendations and requests for how the Union must move forward over the next year or so, in order to maintain and/or enhance the Union's condition. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, no matter how much you might be itching for an excuse to complain about Obama.

lol...I didnt say anything was wrong with it.

I simply explained WHY the ratings were so unbalanced....and the implication that it meant people were leaning in Obama's court is absurd.

People liked his vision...I mean...who wouldnt?

Was the vision realistic and achevable? You tell me.

High speed trains....exactly how can we build them like China when china builds a straight line right through anything and we have to go around national parks, protected land, etc...OR....have them run on the same tracks as slower trains...(so much for high speed).

He simply talked about a vision.

Like I can...

"I will eliminate all taxes and give all of you free stuff"

The point the poster you're responding to is making is that Obama's itinerary he laid forth is no different than the standard for any SOTU, and so you calling it a Campaign speech rings on hollow ears because that's the clear precedent.

GT...the thread is about the poll...and I explained why the poll is rediculous in my original response.

I am surprised it was not 100% in favor.

I mean...what does that poll actually say?

People like the idea of faster trains, lower taxes, better schools, lower deficit, etc etc etc.....I mean.....who wouldnt like that?

 

[G.T.]

lol...I didnt say anything was wrong with it.

I simply explained WHY the ratings were so unbalanced....and the implication that it meant people were leaning in Obama's court is absurd.

People liked his vision...I mean...who wouldnt?

Was the vision realistic and achevable? You tell me.

High speed trains....exactly how can we build them like China when china builds a straight line right through anything and we have to go around national parks, protected land, etc...OR....have them run on the same tracks as slower trains...(so much for high speed).

He simply talked about a vision.

Like I can...

"I will eliminate all taxes and give all of you free stuff"

The point the poster you're responding to is making is that Obama's itinerary he laid forth is no different than the standard for any SOTU, and so you calling it a Campaign speech rings on hollow ears because that's the clear precedent.

GT...the thread is about the poll...and I explained why the poll is rediculous in my original response.

I am surprised it was not 100% in favor.

I mean...what does that poll actually say?

People like the idea of faster trains, lower taxes, better schools, lower deficit, etc etc etc.....I mean.....who wouldnt like that?

The point is, and I know that this could be a offensive but fwiw, you typically (not always to your credit) are in here defending the Right side of things, and so the seeming "need" to find something negative to say when #1. what you said is obvious and #2. it's the precedent for all Presidents is a bit like, the same boring partisan shit on here every fucking day with people, basically.

"this doesn't count because he appealed to all people, who wouldn't win with that strategy!"

-well, yea, that's kind of the point. And?

I mean, I'm also getting tired of the whole "what does he mean invest in infrastructure, the stimulus the stimulus!"

When 1, the *reality* is that 40% of it DID turn into tax cuts instead, and 2, the whole thing isn't even close to being rolled out yet. More of the same bickering heeber jeeber point out the "obvious" negatives instead of looking upward and ahead.

 

[Jarhead]

The point the poster you're responding to is making is that Obama's itinerary he laid forth is no different than the standard for any SOTU, and so you calling it a Campaign speech rings on hollow ears because that's the clear precedent.

GT...the thread is about the poll...and I explained why the poll is rediculous in my original response.

I am surprised it was not 100% in favor.

I mean...what does that poll actually say?

People like the idea of faster trains, lower taxes, better schools, lower deficit, etc etc etc.....I mean.....who wouldnt like that?

The point is, and I know that this could be a offensive but fwiw, you typically (not always to your credit) are in here defending the Right side of things, and so the seeming "need" to find something negative to say when #1. what you said is obvious and #2. it's the precedent for all Presidents is a bit like, the same boring partisan shit on here every fucking day with people, basically.

"this doesn't count because he appealed to all people, who wouldn't win with that strategy!"

-well, yea, that's kind of the point. And?

I mean, I'm also getting tired of the whole "what does he mean invest in infrastructure, the stimulus the stimulus!"

When 1, the *reality* is that 40% of it DID turn into tax cuts instead, and 2, the whole thing isn't even close to being rolled out yet. More of the same bickering heeber jeeber point out the "obvious" negatives instead of looking upward and ahead.

Again, I was discredtiting the poll as that was the topic of the thread.
Truth is, the state of the union sucks; Obamas vision is unattainable; and we the people need to stop hoping for the impossible and start truly understanding reality.

Whether Bush, Reagan, Obama, Carter, Clinton...I really dont care.

SOTU speeches are supposed to be the President speaking to congress about the state of the union from his perspective..

And now that we the poeple can actually see it live, it has turned into campaign speeches offering false hope.

And this poll just exassperrates matters

 

[Sallow]

GT...the thread is about the poll...and I explained why the poll is rediculous in my original response.

I am surprised it was not 100% in favor.

I mean...what does that poll actually say?

People like the idea of faster trains, lower taxes, better schools, lower deficit, etc etc etc.....I mean.....who wouldnt like that?

The point is, and I know that this could be a offensive but fwiw, you typically (not always to your credit) are in here defending the Right side of things, and so the seeming "need" to find something negative to say when #1. what you said is obvious and #2. it's the precedent for all Presidents is a bit like, the same boring partisan shit on here every fucking day with people, basically.

"this doesn't count because he appealed to all people, who wouldn't win with that strategy!"

-well, yea, that's kind of the point. And?

I mean, I'm also getting tired of the whole "what does he mean invest in infrastructure, the stimulus the stimulus!"

When 1, the *reality* is that 40% of it DID turn into tax cuts instead, and 2, the whole thing isn't even close to being rolled out yet. More of the same bickering heeber jeeber point out the "obvious" negatives instead of looking upward and ahead.

Again, I was discredtiting the poll as that was the topic of the thread.
Truth is, the state of the union sucks; Obamas vision is unattainable; and we the people need to stop hoping for the impossible and start truly understanding reality.

Whether Bush, Reagan, Obama, Carter, Clinton...I really dont care.

SOTU speeches are supposed to be the President speaking to congress about the state of the union from his perspective..

And now that we the poeple can actually see it live, it has turned into campaign speeches offering false hope.

And this poll just exassperrates matters

"False" Hope? Come on.

Either you are really young..or you just breezed past some of the real challenges faced by this country.

I live through all sorts of crap..and we've been in worse pickles.

 

[G.T.]

GT...the thread is about the poll...and I explained why the poll is rediculous in my original response.

I am surprised it was not 100% in favor.

I mean...what does that poll actually say?

People like the idea of faster trains, lower taxes, better schools, lower deficit, etc etc etc.....I mean.....who wouldnt like that?

The point is, and I know that this could be a offensive but fwiw, you typically (not always to your credit) are in here defending the Right side of things, and so the seeming "need" to find something negative to say when #1. what you said is obvious and #2. it's the precedent for all Presidents is a bit like, the same boring partisan shit on here every fucking day with people, basically.

"this doesn't count because he appealed to all people, who wouldn't win with that strategy!"

-well, yea, that's kind of the point. And?

I mean, I'm also getting tired of the whole "what does he mean invest in infrastructure, the stimulus the stimulus!"

When 1, the *reality* is that 40% of it DID turn into tax cuts instead, and 2, the whole thing isn't even close to being rolled out yet. More of the same bickering heeber jeeber point out the "obvious" negatives instead of looking upward and ahead.

Again, I was discredtiting the poll as that was the topic of the thread.
Truth is, the state of the union sucks; Obamas vision is unattainable; and we the people need to stop hoping for the impossible and start truly understanding reality.

Whether Bush, Reagan, Obama, Carter, Clinton...I really dont care.

SOTU speeches are supposed to be the President speaking to congress about the state of the union from his perspective..

And now that we the poeple can actually see it live, it has turned into campaign speeches offering false hope.

And this poll just exassperrates matters

The Presidents have always laid out their aspired goals in the SOTU, this one was not ridiculous and was no different.

35th in Education, we used to be 1st in the World. We need to innovate and build infrastructure to propel us back >>forward.

He should have addressed that need, and did. Very Seriously.



If he got up there and said "the economy sucks and there's no way out" would that make you happy?

I mean, he did address how bad the economy was while also keeping optimism alive by pointing to the steady recovering that the economy *is* doing. Unemployment is why R's took over Congress and their Agenda thus far ignores Unemployment and goes straight to Health-Care which, they said ACCORDING TO CBO, was going to KILL 650K jobs while the CBO report theyre referring to, itself, stated the 650K number as the approximate people who would leave the workforce VOLUNTARILY because they work *just* to qualify for benefits. That means, openings. That, is a good thing.

 

[Ernie S.]

CBS News State of the Union Poll - CBS News

Which proves that stringing the same haaaaaaaaaap! hap! hap-hap-hap-hap! happy talk! is enough to satisfy most citizens.

Obama's speech mostly could have been read by any DEM POTUS in my lifetime with only a few changes to make it fit their times.

The same foolish notions we've been hearing for 40 years...that the problem is a lack of educated workers and incidetly, that we need more FREE TRADE.

All more worthless feel good blather.

Not that I approve of this sort of thing..but sometimes it's needed. President Carter, who in my opinion was a really good President, was nothing but gloom and doom. He was way to honest. And people hated it.

President Reagan on the other hand was a horrible President. But he was all happy talk. People felt good about being American with him around. And people loved it.

If President Obama sticks with Carter's pragmatism (Which he does about half the time) and Reagan's optimism (Which he's now been channeling); it could be a good mix.