Obama Mocks Polls But Spends More On Them ($4.4M) Than Bush Did

(Don't shoot the messenger. This is the masthead headline story currently at HuffPoT&A)



During his daily press briefing on July 13, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was peppered with questions about why the president's popularity numbers are in decline and his policy positions are so difficult to sell. ABC News's Jake Tapper sought reaction to the network's newest poll showing that 51 percent of respondents would rather have Republicans running Congress. CNN's Ed Henry wanted to know why, in that same poll, "six in 10 Americans have little or no faith in the President to make the right decisions." CBS's Chip Reid then pointed to his own network's poll showing that only 13 percent of respondents thought the president's economic programs had affected them personally.

Exasperated, Gibbs deployed a classic rejoinder: mocking the polling-obsessed media culture. "You know, in all honesty, Chip, there isn't a website in the world that doesn't have a new poll every day," the press secretary replied. "And if you spent a lot of time sitting around worrying about polls rather than worrying about the people that you're trying to help, I'm sure you'd get discouraged. But we're way too busy to sit around looking at polls."

Too busy to look at polls? Perhaps. But not too poor to pay for them. While Gibbs routinely chides members of the press for obsessing about the day-to-day temperamental swings of the American public, behind the scenes the White House has poured plenty of money into conducting its own public opinion polls. Through June 9, 2010, the administration, via the Democratic National Committee, has spent at least $4.45 million on the services of seven different pollsters, according to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. (The Huffington Post looked into only those expenditures that totaled more than $5,000)

That total represents only 18 months into the administration. During the first 24 months of the Bush administration, the Republican National Committee spent $3.1 million on polling according to a 2003 study done by Brookings. During the 2005-2006 years of the Bush administration, the RNC spent just north of $1.23 million on "surveys," "focus groups," and "polling," according to an analysis of Center for Responsive Politics data (they spent millions, instead, on telemarketing services). So far this cycle, the RNC has spent slightly more than $1 million on those same activities. (The Huffington Post did not examine data from the 2008 cycle because spending totals were affected by the presidential election.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/obama-mocks-polls-but-spe_n_663553.html

Nice thread.

Talk to them.

Accurate research is expensive- and as we've seen more than a few times over the last 18 months, the administration is keen to stake out the ephemeral center and center right. One way to do that is through the sorts of methodologies mentioned.

IMO- more often than not, that results in poor tactic and strategy and worse, poor public policy, ineffective half measures, unpersuasive messaging and reactive- rather than proactive control of the narrative.

"Through June 9, 2010, the administration, via the Democratic National Committee, has spent at least $4.45 million on the services of seven different pollsters"

So the story here is that the DNC -- and not the Obama Administration -- has spent more on polls than the RNC -- and not the Bush Administration -- spent during the first 18 months of their respective terms in office.

What The Fuck?

This is considered newsworthy because....why?

STUNNING REVELATION!!!!! Inflation has caused polling to cost more in 2010 than it did in 2001. Stop the Fucking Presses!

Nice fucking try.

Is this what HuffPost has become?

It already has over 1,200 responses.

:popcorn:

:D

As others have pointed out, this is the RNC spending vs DNC spending.

And how much do polls cost to conduct now vs then? I guarantee you prices have gone up.

After 9/11, Bush's poll numbers hit 90 percent and stayed above 70 percent through July 2002. What were they polling?

Also, Bush was likely busy fabricating evidence to justify the Iraq war. It's also conceivable that Republicans spent less money on polling since their strategies for the 2002 and 2004 elections involved phone jamming and other election tampering.

and with all the legislation we've passed there are bound to be more polls than usual.

Jesus Christ, didn't HuffPo have better things to put on their masthead?

POLLS???

They are really scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to get outraged about.

Not much flattering scuttlebut's come out of that.

To say the least.