"Overexposed" Obama In Danger Of Rising Poll Numbers

The chattering classes inside the Washington Beltway have decided amongst themselves that when all else fails, they can always revert to their "least common denominator" story about President Barack Obama -- that he is in danger of being "overexposed." You don't have to look very far to find this viewpoint on television, in print, or on the radio. It's like talking about the weather, for the political punditocracy. There's only one problem -- there's not a shred of evidence to back up the idea that President Obama using the bully pulpit (as often as he likes) is somehow a bad thing for him. But that doesn't stop it from being talked about endlessly, whenever Obama is in the same zip code as a news camera.

To be fair, Obama was all over the Sunday morning talk shows this week. [Amusing note: This used to be called "the full Ginsburg," in reference to the first person to ever appear on all the talk shows in one week (Ginsburg was Monica Lewinsky's lawyer), but few remember this catchy term these days, I guess.] In any case, Obama was following up a recent speech to a joint session of Congress, and so the "overexposed" storyline was trotted out again by the media.

The funniest of all of these tut-tuttings from the media was on "Fox News Sunday" (my motto: "I watch it so you don't have to"). At the start of their panel of "journalists," this was the first talking point out of the box (Brit Hume: "[Obama] risks overexposure and I think, in addition to that, this [i.e., the Sunday media blitz] isn't working").

They then pivoted -- without the slightest hint of irony -- to exploring why Obama really, really should have appeared on "Fox News Sunday." To sum up: Obama is dangerously overexposed, and he made a big mistake by not coming on our show, too. I am always astonished at the Republican propensity for doublethink, but this was a new one on me, I have to admit.

A little background is necessary here. Fox refused to show Obama's speech to Congress, and instead ran one of those contest/reality shows. All the other networks ran Obama's speech, but Fox did not (their cable branch did, but not the broadcast channel). So the White House snub of Fox was definitely deserved. This is actually par for the course in normal media/White House relations (for any president, in fact, no matter the party). The White House was not shy about pointing this out, after the Fox News Sunday host said before the weekend that the Obama administration was "the biggest bunch of crybabies" he'd ever dealt with. The White House released their own statement concerning why the president wasn't appearing on Fox this week: "We figured Fox would rather show 'So You Think You Can Dance' than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform. Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again, not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon."

Heh heh. Gotta admit, that still makes me chuckle.

Ahem. But getting back to reality (away from Fox, in other words), virtually nobody mentioned what has been happening to Obama's poll numbers of late. In July and August, when Obama was largely absent from the national stage in the healthcare reform debate, his poll numbers took a serious dive. Since he spoke to Congress, his approval rating has been inching back up again. Meaning that the "danger" of "overexposure" is that people start supporting him in larger numbers. Oh, the horror!

Now, that's a pretty sweeping generalization, I realize. And I could be eventually proven wrong on this. The movement within the polls is admittedly only a few percentage points -- within the margin of error, in most cases. You can check the daily graph at RealClearPolitics to see the current state of things, and then decide for yourself. But this is why I normally don't comment on day-to-day polling, instead covering each month (at ObamaPollWatch.com) after it happens -- one little blip in a poll line does not a trend make, in other words (which is the danger of watching polls too closely). But still, this chart shows a definite end to Obama's slide in the polls, although it may be too early to tell whether he's just plateau-ed at the low 50s, or whether he has indeed turned it around and is heading north of 55 again soon. Time will tell.

But even if Obama has turned things around and starts posting numbers between 55 and 60, don't expect the media to realize that their entire "overexposed" story has been turned on its head. One bright moment of reality did intrude on Fox News Sunday last week, when Mara Liasson, in response to the question of whether the White House thinks Obama is overexposed, said (the transcript I read had an extraneous "not" in Liasson's second paragraph, which I removed only after checking the tape, to verify that she had not indeed said it):

No, they don't worry about overexposure, and they're asked this a lot. I mean, I think he is hugely exposed. There's no doubt about it. He's exposed more than any other president, by design.

But this notion that he's overexposed says that if somehow he was out there less, his policies would be doing better, and I don't think that's true. If he doesn't get everything he wants in health care, it's not going to be because he was on TV too much.

I do think that we are in a different media environment now, and they believe strongly that the media environment is so fractured that he has to try to reach every single audience wherever he can, whenever he can.

And also, they believe that when he does talk in a big set-piece speech like the address to the joint session of Congress that it does help him. And as a matter of fact, we have seen in polling since then that some of the disparity in intensity between the people who were for his health care plans and against them has leveled off. So I think -- they think this does him good.

Of course, she had to qualify that last point, from "I think this does him good" or even (gasp) a factual statement of "this does him good," to "they [the White House] think this does him good."

Needless to say, no matter how she put it, the Fox gaggle immediately ignored her point, and went on to discuss why Obama should have overexposed himself even more by coming on their show.

Now, opinion polls take a few days to ask their questions of the public, and then a day or so to crunch numbers. So we won't see this Sunday's appearance reflected in the opinion polls until -- at a minimum -- the end of this week. If his numbers go up even further, the media will drop (until next time Obama appears on any camera anywhere) the "overexposed" storyline, likely in favor of another one of their perennial favorites: "The Comeback Kid." Assuming, of course, that the media actually notices what is going on, which is a pretty big assumption these days, I have to admit.

After watching the media long enough and closely enough, these things actually become pretty easy to predict. For everyone watching. But not, apparently, for the groupthink which passes itself off as "journalism" on our nation's airwaves.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

 

 

Comments

[sfnooner]

I voted for Obama, I support Obama, and I'm also growing tired of Obama. What can I say, it's an honest feeling. I no longer watch him because I'm beginning to distrust him. Truthfully, the more I learn about him, the more I'm inclined to think I was duped.

[TN60]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/tomtoles/?hpid=opinionsbox1

What all these right wing columnist, newspapers that favor the Republicans, are mad about is the fact that the President has totally dominated the news cycle since Sunday. They can get their lies out and it is driving them bat sh..t crazy

[donnal]

Yes I agree Mr. Obama has dominated the news cycle since Sunday. It has been reported that he has voted once again present on the war, has asked Gov. Patterson of NY not to run, he is being coy about ACORN, no health care bills were explained just more blah blah blah, he told some tall tales at the UN today, he has a whistle blower in the WH and doesn't know who leaked info to the WP, he has serious problems with his Czars, has our government now wanting to borrow money from our banks, and leaders from other countries are openly saying he is a nice guy, but can not get anything done, and its only Tuesday.

As if he wasn't over exposed enough last week, now he is going on the cooking shows. Would this be because he did so well with the Sunday shows, or because he has worn out his welcome at the network and cable shows?

Now, along with Fox he is snubbing Paula, talk about a bully. This is what teen-age girls do to each other, we should expect more from the President.

[tel8034]

DONNAL, OBVIOUSLY YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE THE FOLLOWING FROM THE ARTICLE:

"They [Fox News Channel Panel] then pivoted -- without the slightest hint of irony -- to exploring why Obama really, really should have appeared on "Fox News Sunday." To sum up: Obama is dangerously overexposed, and he made a big mistake by not coming on our show, too. I am always astonished at the Republican propensity for doublethink, but this was a new one on me, I have to admit."

AND:

The White House released their own statement concerning why the president wasn't appearing on Fox this week: "We figured Fox would rather show 'So You Think You Can Dance' than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform. Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again, not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon."

Donnal what you are upset about is that the White House SUCCESSFULLY DISSED FAUX AND IT'S MINIONS........... The SAME minions who claimed that President Obama was overexposed but WHINED that he did not expose himself enough because he didn't appear on their network.

TOTALLY CONFUDDLED AND INFANTILE ........ DON'T YOU AGREE?

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

TN60 -

Here's a permanent link to that cartoon, that'll last into tomorrow and beyond. I cited it earlier today on my blog as "saying what I tried to say here, only funnier."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/tomtoles/index.html?name=Toles&date=09222009

-CW

[TN60]

Thanks, Chris, for the link..........It amazes me that cartoonist like Tole can draw a "funny", yet be so topical and to the point. He says it all in this cartoon.

[Kenpasadena]

Please keep up this delusional thinking. It's the main reason the Republicans will come back in 2010 and beyond. Obama is not overexposed and Americans love him and all his programs. Say that 100 times every hour and it might just come true.

[OdaNobunaga]

"Republicans will come back in 2010 and beyond"

It's sad when someone's delusions get so bad that they think other people are the delusional ones.

[standard]

" I am always astonished at the Republican propensity for doublethink . . ."

Indeed! They're patriotic--but few of their current national leaders actually served in the military. They're for family values--but many of their leaders and talk show hosts are notoriously faithfulne­ss-challen­ged. They're a "big tent" party--but their followers are mainly aging, Caucasian, and from the Old South and rural West. They're for fiscal responsibility--but three-quarters of our national debt was generated on their watch. They're for Christian values--but their every policy is geared to maximizing their own wealth and helping those in need as little as possible. They're for bipartisanship--but haven't voted that way in the House since Obama was inaugurated. They're for No Child Left Behind--but didn't fund it. They're against intrusive government--yet deprived captives under U.S. control of any legal rights for years on end. They're for law and order--but violated Federal and international law, under the guise of "enhanced interrogation", and still defend doing that.

To borrow a phrase from Katrina vanden Heuvel, they're the party of "militant ingnorance". That's sad, as they once were the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller: not always enlightened, but trustworthy.

The sooner they go the way of the Whigs and the Know-Nothings, Federalists and Dixiecrats, the better for everyone. We'd even be free to do some housecleaning in the Senate--as to all those Blue Dogs and Joseph I. Lieberman.

[TN60]

Well said and very thoughtful and 100% true. Thank you

[loveHP]

It's both funny and absurd how the media, obviously only interested in viewership, applies it's own industry concerns to the President (i.e. overexposure leads to drop in viewership - a negative outcome), whereas viewer interest in the President does not at all equate to public approval.

[DantesE]

It has been a pretty bad day for me until I read this post. If it wasn't for you and the other bloggers here I would never know what was going on at Fix News. Destined to be one of the true classics of comedy, the antics of fix news and how you report them. Thank you for my laugh of the day

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

DantesE -

As I said, "I watch Fox News so you don't have to."

Heh heh.

:-)

-CW

[jbl inAZ]

And we thank you for your sacrifice. I for one am VERY grateful to be able to outsource F*xnews watching.

[BruiserND]

One thing that seems to be fairly consistent about viewpoints on Obama is that people cannot seem to understand what he is doing…and why. Obama’s new huge slap in the face to US allies in Eastern Europe—via Obama’s dropping the US missile shield project—seems to have left many of the talking heads stupefied; not to mention further angering the US’ soon-to-be-former friends whilst drawing smiles from her enemies.