Q&A of the Day – Will President Trump’s State of the Union Address Lead to Rising Support for His Agenda?
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station page in the iHeart app.
Today’s entry: @brianmuddradio I thought Trump had a great speech too but how likely is it that it will actually matter? I’m skeptical.
Bottom Line: It’s an excellent question that I can address analytically and informationally. Before diving into data and research to illustrate the view of the possible, in general, your skepticism is warranted. In the history of State of the Union Speeches in the polling age, the average impact has been negligible.
The average impact of the first State of the Union speech a president delivers has only been a 0.9% bump in approval rating, with the average impact across all SOTU speeches coming in at what’s essentially a rounding error of 0.2%. The average number is so low in part due to just as many speeches having led to a loss in support following the address as those which have led to a bump. George H.W. Bush’s 1990 address is the leading example of this as he lost 7-points of support following his address. The biggest gain in support came from Bill Clinton’s 1998 address during the Monica Lewinsky scandal – when he added 10 points of support following his address.
In other words, the SOTU has historically been a double-edged sword. During his first term, President Trump performed slightly better than the historical averages as his average speech led to a two-point bounce in his support following the address. Even then, two-points is better than nothing but not exactly the type of move that changes the political agenda or longer-term political calculus.
It’s rare for SOTU addresses to be so successful they have a meaningful political impact. There are two clear positive and negative examples of this however. On the negative side, you have Gerald Ford’s 1975 address. His address, which was especially important for his political future amid the post-Nixon turmoil and energy/economic challenges landed about as poorly as possible. In the words of Ford: I must say to you that the State of the Union is not good. Not exactly a confidence builder or a message that voters are going to rally behind. The other example is George H.W. Bush’s 1990 address. His speech wasn’t deflating, as in the case of Ford’s, it wasn’t properly focused in the eyes of many Americans. Without question George H.W. Bush was an exceptional foreign policy president. The problem with that speech was that it was his focus. Here are all of the countries he talked about prior to addressing anything taking place in this country: Panama, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Germany. To be sure there were huge wins in those locations, most notably the Berlin Wall did come down. However, the focus on what was happening abroad couldn’t save him from what eventually doomed his presidency – economic issues at home when he didn’t address at the onset.
Conversely, the two positive examples included Reagan’s 1984 address which began with these words: I am pleased to report that America is much improved, and there is good reason to believe that improvement will continue through the days to come. Which is what set the stage for his historic “Morning in America” reelection campaign which resulted in the greatest landslide victory in American history as he carried 49 states that November.
The other politically moving example was Bill Clinton’s 1998 address. Now his case was somewhat unique case. Clinton’s popularity and political persuasion waned heading into that year’s address not because of the country’s performance or his leadership specifically...but rather because of his affair and attempted coverup with Monica Lewinsky. Always an adept speech giver Clinton started his speech with this: These are good times for America. We have more than 14 million new jobs; the lowest unemployment in 24 years; the lowest core inflation in 30 years; incomes are rising; and we have the highest homeownership in history. Crime has dropped for a record five years in a row. And the welfare rolls are at their lowest levels in 27 years. Our leadership in the world is unrivaled. Ladies and gentlemen, the state of our Union is strong. It was true. The message resonated, and it marked the turning point for Americans at-large to begin to believe that Republicans were overreaching through impeachment proceedings. Clinton carried the momentum into the midterms which led to the historically unusual event of a president’s party gaining congressional seats in a mid-term election cycle.
With those examples as the backdrop, what is the likelihood that Trump’s speech moved the needle as much as Regan’s 84 speech or Clinton’s ‘98 speech. While we won’t know until we get there (as in the conclusion of this year’s election cycle), obviously the odds are low. However, if Tuesday’s address does turn out to be his most effective address yet – it could hold the potential to still move the needle more than the typical address.
In all of the historical examples of good and bad speeches, the opposition party to the president in power was viewed far more positively than the opposition party currently. It’s my view that for as effective as President Trump was with his address, Democrats were at least equally destructive. I do not believe the party presented itself as a strong alternative for voters who aren’t already convinced of how they’ll vote this November to consider.
Heading into the SOTU address, in the RCP average of polls, Democratic Party Favorability was already at a record low 36% - with Republicans having a net favorability rating that was seven points higher than Democrats (which was 21-points underwater). I can’t imagine that after Tuesday night’s contrast that rating could go anywhere but down if there is any movement.
And so that dynamic holds the potential for this address to perhaps hold outsized significance. A particularly strong performance by Trump combined with record low favorability Democrats. What you might see is many voters in the middle simply deciding not to vote for either party this year.