Johnny Carson
A check of the Gallup Poll archives shows we didn't ask the public much about the late Johnny Carson over the years. Perhaps that's because there wasn't much to ask; Johnny was the clear King of Late Night and Gallup editors may have just assumed that didn't need checking with the American public.
But the small amount of poll data we do have reinforces how respected Carson was. In 2002, Gallup asked Americans which one of six men they would choose as their "favorite late-night television talk show host of all time" -- Steve Allen, Jack Paar, Johnny Carson, Dick Cavett, Jay Leno, or David Letterman. Carson won with 39% of the vote -- way ahead of Letterman (20%), Leno (16%), and the others. In 1992, more than 7 in 10 Americans had a favorable opinion of Carson; and in March 1991, a Gallup survey showed the public would have preferred Carson stay on as host of The Tonight Show, rather than relinquish his chair to Leno.
New Priorities
Now that the focus on George W. Bush's inauguration has started to fade, attention has turned to the challenges that lie ahead.
Many observers want to know where Bush stands in the public's eye as he begins his second term -- the "mandate" question. Reporters seem to have a need to predict what's ahead for Bush, and they assume that his standing with the public can help provide a basis for their predictions.
It's unclear to me, however, just how much Bush's current job approval ratings help predict what he is or is not going to be able to do in the months and years ahead.
To begin with, it's clear that Bush's ability to pass new legislation on some of his second-term agenda priorities -- Social Security privatization, tort reform, tax code reform, immigration reform -- relies more on sentiment in the House and the Senate than it does on the sentiment of the public.
That's unfortunate. I wish there was a tighter correlation between the views of the citizens of the country and the passage of national legislation. But often there's little connection. In his first term, Bush pushed new tax cuts that almost all polling showed were low on the public's priority list. It wasn't so much that Americans despised the notion of tax cuts (most seem to be willing to accept an idea that will put more money in their pockets), but rather that they simply didn't think tax cuts were the most important thing Congress should be working on. Even to this day, our data show that making tax cuts permanent and simplifying the tax code aren't the first things Americans want Bush to tackle.
But as we learned in the president's first term, that may not matter. If Bush pushes, and if the GOP-controlled Congress responds, the policies Bush has placed on his agenda are likely to be passed into law.
That's not to say Americans' views of Bush have absolutely no effect -- but it's less direct. Elected representatives in the House and Senate certainly pay attention to job approval ratings, mostly because they are all political animals themselves, used to monitoring poll ratings on a regular basis. There probably will be some vague relationship between Bush's job approval and Congress' willingness to either go along with, or push back from, directives emanating from the White House on policy legislation.
If Bush's job approval rating drops much below 50% -- say to new lows, which according to Gallup's trend would be 45% or less -- then representatives may be more emboldened to oppose his proposed legislation. If the president's job approval soars above 60% on the other hand, such opposition will be more difficult.
There's another reason why Bush's current job ratings may not help predict much going forward: things change. I believe the public's views of Bush are in a holding pattern of sorts at the moment, with a great deal pending on what happens in Iraq this weekend.
Americans also are probably in a wait-and-see mood regarding the economy. All of our data show that there is still no widespread recognition of an economic recovery. All presidents are judged to one degree or another by what's happening economically, and I think one key to a potential increase in Bush's job ratings (in addition to Iraq) will be the extent of the economic recovery.
Social Security
There is little doubt about the salience of one item on Bush's agenda: the push to do something about Social Security.
It's not so much that Americans are all excited about the idea of privatizing a portion of Social Security -- they aren't. But there is a fairly widespread perception that the Social Security system as it stands now has major problems, and therefore there is a good deal of receptivity to attempts to change it.
At the moment, most Americans probably don't understand precisely what would be involved in such a change. The proposed plans to privatize Social Security are complex. That complexity contributes to wide variations in support for the idea across different polls -- Americans listen for cues in question wording and respond accordingly.
Iraq
It's also difficult to summarize public opinion on Iraq. Gallup data suggest that for more than a decade, Americans have thought it was a good idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Still, there was initially little enthusiasm for going to war when the Bush administration began pushing it in 2002, although by the time the war was initiated in March 2003, the public clearly had decided to go along with the administration's arguments.
But much of that conviction has by now dissipated. A majority (albeit a slim majority) currently see the war as a mistake, and reject the administration's argument that the war has been worth it.
Americans are conflicted on what to do now. In my mind, this is eerily reminiscent of the war in Vietnam. Once engaged in a war for which there has been no official dénouement or surrender, the question becomes one of determining how the United States can extricate itself without losing face and prestige, and without invalidating the initial premise of the war.
At this point, Americans seem willing to wait for Sunday's elections in Iraq. There is no overwhelming sentiment to withdraw all troops now; and, about a quarter of Americans support the idea of sending in more troops. Many Americans seem resigned to the fact that troops may need to be in Iraq for a long time.
Exit Polls
A report on the November 2004 exit polls has been published by Edison-Mitofsky, the company that ran the exit polls for a consortium of media outlets last Nov. 2. Gallup is not involved in exit polling, but all pollsters have an interest when controversy erupts surrounding any type of poll, as it most certainly did last year.
I'm still digesting the Edison-Mitofsky report at this point, but a preliminary reading suggests that one of the biggest issues may have been one of fundamentals and execution. The report points out that interviewers stationed at precinct polling places around the country may have selected and interviewed a disproportionate number of Kerry voters. The process is supposed to involve a rigorous selection of every "nth" person coming out of the polling place. Interviewers were young and not as well-trained as would be optimum, and they may have ended up violating this selection procedure and thus biasing the sample toward Kerry voters. There were other issues involved (including the fact that the computer system went down at one point). But as the report's authors point out, there were no miscalls of any states in the media's coverage, and part of the blame for the impact of the faulty exit polling was the result of illicit early leaking of the results -- not the exit pollsters' fault.
Evolution and Cobb County
Legal rulings and lawsuits continue to fly in Cobb County, Ga., over the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The school board there had forced the district to put stickers in the front of textbooks stating that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" and that it "should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." A federal judge ruled last week that the stickers must be removed. The school board is appealing that decision.
Most scientists would argue that at least part of the sticker doesn't make much sense, because all science operates on the basis of theories that are either supported or unsupported by the facts. In other words, evolution is a theory and not a fact by definition. The question is whether evolution is a theory that the facts support. Most scientists say it is.
We do have some public opinion data that speak to this issue. One Gallup question asks rather straightforwardly about Darwin's theory of evolution, giving the respondents three alternatives: 1) They believe it is a theory supported by the evidence, 2) they believe it is just one of many theories and one that is not supported by the evidence, or 3) they don't know.
The responses? About a third say it's a theory supported by the facts, another third say it's one of many theories not supported by the facts, and the final third don't know.
People from both sides of this controversy could find solace in these data. Creationists could point out that only about a third of Americans believe in the scientific veracity of the theory of evolution, while scientists could argue that only a third of the people explicitly reject the theory. Educators would bemoan the fact that a third of Americans don't have an opinion on the issue.
Still, there is other evidence that suggests that teaching creationism, objectionable as that seems to scientists, might be generally acceptable to a sizable minority of the American public. A slight majority of Americans believe that humans developed over millions of years, either with or without God's hand in the process. In other words, a slight majority are in sync with what is explained by the theory of evolution. But a hefty percentage -- 45% -- believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."