Scene from movie Dazed & confused of students standing, sitting, and laying on and inside an orange convertible car

April 19, 2023

We Should Hang Out More

Movies often serve as perfect time capsules, offering snapshots of what life was like in an earlier time. Take Dazed and Confused. The movie is set in late seventies Texas and focuses on groups of ... Read Now >

News

3/9: Go Figure

March 9, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

Governor David Paterson is under siege with a series of swirling controversies… the awarding of bids for the Aqueduct racino, his conversations with a woman who has accused a top aide to the governor of domestic violence, and the cloud over how the governor obtained Yankees’ World Series tickets. As daily revelations are brought forth by The New York Times, New York Daily News, New York Post, and other media, New York’s public opinion community has been busy trying to keep tabs on changing voter sentiment. So far, the data points to seeming contradictions.

The Marist Poll released today, as well as those conducted by other organizations, shows Governor Paterson’s approval rating is scraping bottom. Yet, voters don’t want him to resign. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, expected to announce his candidacy for governor once he can see his way clear of the Paterson investigation, had been the most popular statewide pol in New York. Yet, he is taking a hit in the current atmosphere and voters prefer an independent investigation of possible Paterson wrongdoing over Cuomo’s probe.

There is little doubt voters disapprove of just about every aspect of Governor Paterson’s tenure. His approval rating is below that of former Governor Cuomo in 1994, the year he was defeated. Paterson’s numbers today trail what former Governor Pataki received in 2006, the year he decided not to seek re-election. Paterson is even more unpopular now than former Governor Eliot Spitzer was during the height of the sex scandal that forced his resignation and brought Paterson to power. But, New Yorkers are willing to give the governor the benefit of the doubt… at least in the short run.

Although voters are not calling for Governor Paterson’s resignation, it is not a ringing endorsement. If he doesn’t resign, most fear he will be ineffective in the remaining months of his term. Although most think he has done something wrong, in the absence of further evidence, New York voters don’t think he acted illegally and hence, should not step down. Others also say his stepping aside now would do the state more harm than good. With 41% of the electorate unable to rate Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch, maybe there is something about the governor you know being better than the governor you don’t.

The Cuomo report, expected in a couple of weeks, may ultimately be the final straw. But, Attorney General Cuomo must walk a fine line as he transitions to candidate Cuomo. As potential future candidate Cuomo, he remains the strong favorite for governor. But, as attorney general, Cuomo is being tainted by his role as the investigator. Many now question whether he should continue with his investigation or turn matters over to an independent prosecutor. Oddly, the governor is not among those who want to pull the plug on the attorney general and is standing by his initial request that Cuomo conduct the investigation.

As events unfold, this much is clear: the argument being advanced by some of Governor Paterson’s supporters – that he is being unfairly singled out – will not wash with the majority of New Yorkers. Voters want the process to be a fair one, and that’s exactly what they believe Paterson is getting.

3/3: The Devil Is in the Poll

March 3, 2010 | by Marist Poll

Sure, all polls are snapshots in time. And, because the political world doesn’t pause to allow for the several days it takes to complete the requisite number of voter interviews, occasionally, we get caught mid-poll. Typically, we adjust and move on. This was not as easily accomplished, however, in Marist’s most recent poll of New York State voters … a survey that will be forever remembered at the survey center as “The Poll from Hell.”

It is said that the devil is in the details. It seems he has taken control of the headlines, as well. What started out on Monday night, February 22nd as a regular measurement of New York’s electorate had become something far different when the results were finally released on March 2nd.

At poll kickoff last Monday, we expected to poll New York voters through Wednesday and start a national survey Thursday night. Tabulate and write the statewide results on Thursday, and, release the results on Friday morning. How was Governor Paterson doing in his anticipated contest against Andrew Cuomo? Was Senator Kirsten Gillibrand vulnerable to a challenge from former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr.? Was New York Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman a threat to disrupt the U.S. Senate picture against Gillibrand or Ford? But, the devil was already plotting against us.

We got off to a good start. We completed 292 interviews on Monday and felt everything was on track. Our scheduling tsunami was nowhere on our radar screen. And, then came record-breaking snows. Tuesday night’s polling was cancelled due to poor weather. Our optimism to get back on pace following a successful Wednesday night polling session (we now stood at a respectable 646 completed interviews) was short-lived. Snow knocked us off the map on Thursday and Friday … 154 interviews short of our original goal.

Then, things went even faster downhill. We were in the middle of a five-way staff conference call on Friday morning planning how to dig our way out of this project when our director of Interactive Media Mary Azzoli alerted us that the scandal-plagued David Paterson had pulled out of the governor’s race. What to do, now? Should he resign? Could he govern effectively? Was Cuomo now a shoo-in? The political world, as far as the governor’s race, had turned upside down. At least, the Senate race was intact. Satan, were you eavesdropping?

We turned to Plan B. (it was really Plan Z, but I’ll spare you all the details). In pollster-ese, we would resume polling on Monday with a separate survey of New York voters on the question of the governor’s political future, include questions about the Gillibrand-Ford Democratic Senate primary (we didn’t have a large enough sample of Democrats from the previous week), eliminate the now-outdated Paterson-Cuomo primary matchup, and take the 646 completed interviews from the previous week as a done deal on the remaining approval ratings and general election toss-ups. Our ducks were in order again.

The phone room was humming on Monday night. With the goal line in sight, we took a peek at the preliminary results. To our surprise New Yorkers didn’t want Governor Paterson to resign. Nothing like a counter-intuitive finding to get our conceptual juices churning. About half an hour later, the pitchfork landed again. The news hit that Harold Ford Jr. decided not to enter the race. Here we go again.

As midnight on Monday approached, we were putting the finishing touches on our Tuesday morning release. We would lead with the all-important results on whether Paterson should resign. To avoid being misleading we would also highlight the public’s concern over his lack of governing ability. That provided the appropriate context. As for the non-existent Gillibrand-Ford Senate race, we called it “What Might Have Been.” It stayed newsworthy thanks to Ford’s claim that he would have prevailed in a race against Gillibrand. The poll showed the opposite to be the case. We made it!

Of course, on Tuesday night Mort Zuckerman announced he would not seek the Gillibrand Senate seat. Nice try, Lucifer. But, we had already released those poll results earlier in the day.

At the Marist Poll, we jokingly say that no two poll projects are ever alike. This time to prove the point, the devil had his hand in it. But, we persevered and along the way, paid the devil his due.

2/23: Figure Skating: Pushing the Envelope?

February 23, 2010 | by Mary Griffith

I’d like to say I am unique. But when it comes to the Olympics, I’m not alone in my love for figure skating. (32% of American residents, according to the latest Marist Poll, say skating is their favorite Olympic sport.)

My interest in the sport peaked in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Brian Boitano, Kristi Yamaguchi, Nancy Kerrigan, Tonya Harding, Kurt Browning … these were all household names to me growing up. Not only was I riveted to the TV screen when the Olympics rolled around, but I would tune into other competitions and exhibitions year in and year out. I had my favorites and held my breath with every important jump, spin, and tricky footwork sequence.

But, here is my question today, has the sport become too technical? Has the push to advance the sport come at the enjoyment of the average spectator?

Not unlike many other Americans, my interest in figure skating has waned. (When Marist asked about Americans’ favorite Winter Olympic sport in 2006, 50% chose skating.) But, once again, I caught Olympic fever and checked out a few of the pairs’ and men’s performances last week. What struck me was the number of falls on the Vancouver ice. Although skaters have had their fair share of spills in the past, I don’t recall there being that many. Couple that with the controversy surrounding American Evan Lysacek’s gold medal win over Russia’s Evgeni Plushenko, and I couldn’t help but thinking, “This isn’t fun anymore.”

Don’t get me wrong, I applaud the athletes’ determination, their skill, and their drive to be the best, but at what cost? Forget about my selfish desire to be entertained. What about the athletes’ safety? Is it just a matter of time before one of these world class skaters suffers a life-threatening injury?

Perhaps, the Olympic judges made the right call by awarding Lysacek the gold medal over Plushenko. (Does anybody outside the sport even understand the scoring system anyway?) Sure. Lysacek lacked a quadruple jump, but his program was clean, athletic, artistic, and had a great deal of difficulty at the end. From a spectator’s standpoint, it was the perfect balance of agility and athleticism for figure skating enthusiasts who like to be wowed but mostly caught up in the performance.

2/22: Paterson’s Path to Election

February 22, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

Governor David Paterson became governor under unusual circumstances. He has served in turbulent times, and oversees a government that is seen by most New Yorkers as dysfunctional. He has also compiled unprecedentedly low poll numbers. How low is low?

In Marist’s statewide polls dating back nearly three decades, we find an answer. Former Governor Mario Cuomo’s lowest approval rating was 32%. It occurred in the fall of 1994, the year he was ousted from office. Former Governor George Pataki’s low point was 30% during the spring of 2006. He opted not to seek a fourth term. Not surprisingly, the bottom fell out on Former Governor Eliot Spitzer during his sex scandal in March, 2008. What’s shocking number-wise is that even Spitzer’s 30% approval rating, clocked just before his resignation, exceeded Paterson’s lowest score of 17% this past September and the 26% he currently has.

Governor Paterson finds himself having to accomplish something politically akin to going uphill in an Alpine skiing event. His spirited and feisty campaign kick-off in Hempstead was a good start. His inspirational story as someone who has already succeeded mightily against huge personal odds is moving and works when he alludes to the state’s dire circumstances. He doesn’t quit, he isn’t giving up on New York, and neither will New Yorkers.

But, Paterson needs to do more to connect with New York voters. He talks about his accomplishments and making tough budget decisions, yet New Yorkers are anxious for results. Although he scores better on handling the state’s fiscal problems than his overall approval rating, his numbers are even low here. His claim of being an outsider is probably a reach for a sitting governor and lifetime politician. And, there’s the significant matter of campaign cash, reluctant endorsements, and the very popular Andrew Cuomo to consider.

In these volatile political times, it is probably not wise to put too much stock in electoral history. But, Mario Cuomo enjoyed 71% and 64% approval ratings from New Yorkers when he launched his successful re-election bids in 1986 and 1990, respectively. George Pataki’s ratings were a comparable 59% and 72% when he began his two successful re-election campaigns.

Governor Paterson is in an unenviable position as he seeks a four-year term. We will be watching the electorate closely in the next few weeks to see if the New Yorkers are responding favorably to his effort.

Introducing Pebbles and Pundits’ Theme Song

February 19, 2010 | by Mary Griffith

The theme song for The Marist Poll’s website was composed by Joseph Mager, a Marist College student enrolled in the Fall 2009 unit of Political Communication and Politics. Joe wrote and performed Pebbles and Pundits theme song as a creative project pertaining to his coursework.

Check out our theme song and get to know its composer below.

An Interview with Joe Mager, Student Composer of Pebbles and Pundits’ Theme Song

Name: Joseph Mager

Age: 20 years old

Year of Study: Junior

From where did the idea for the Marist Poll theme song come?

I would have to say a culmination of my passion for making up lyrics on the spot, funny song writing like Adam Sandler (that actually has some purpose), and the realization that I wanted to make people understand that polling and the study of elections can be fun if you look at it from different perspectives. (A lot of my friends think everything I study is boring and dull.)

What was the process of writing like?

It really wasn’t all that difficult. Clearly I had some background on the topic after taking [Dr. Miringoff’s public opinion] class a year ago along with [the Political Communications] course. The work involved in PoliComm also gave me more time to look at how the whole of MIPO worked and allowed me to put a little twist on what was going on, in a fashionable [tasteful] manner of course.

What did you enjoy most about writing the song?

As for the song, I honestly just liked how much everyone actually liked it. I was surprised. For people who will actually listen to it, I apologize for not having pipes like Freddie Mercury.

What did you enjoy most about the Political Communications course?

As for the course, I enjoyed all of it. I enjoyed most of the projects assigned and always felt like I had to do something.

What are you currently up to?

As of today, I am actually in London studying through the Marist International Program. I’m here doing the Hansard Scholar’s Programme where I am entitled to take two POSC courses at the London School of Economics, serve an internship, and write a 10,000 word dissertation.

I am here alongside two of my colleagues who were in Political Communications with me last year. Rob Schmidt and Marissa Ryan are currently working for Members of Parliament! Very exciting indeed. As for myself, I am working for DODS Monitoring Company, in the Parliament Services Division. Basically, I follow specific Parliament activities here in the UK daily, or when I am working (Tuesday-Thursday,) and write up reports for various government agencies, parliamentarians, and stakeholders (generally charitable organizations, think-tanks, and unions.) Luckily, I am able to go into Parliament when I need to cover a select committee or house meeting, then, write up a story for the main parliamentary news site of DODS called epolitix.com. Check it out.

Aside from the curriculum and internship, there is time for fun. I have explored the majority of London along with its famous sites. A couple of weeks ago I was in Paris! Other trips are already planned for the next few weeks including Edinburgh, Scotland and Galway, Ireland (of course a trip to Dublin as well that weekend.) Future ventures will take me as far as Egypt I believe, but that will have to wait until after the dissertation!

Is there anything that you would like to add?

I just think it’s important to note that going into the office was always fun. It wasn’t like a normal job or internship where you sometimes grunt-and-groan when you have to go in. I want to thank all of the MIPO staff for always making the office feel like a second home, always willing to have fun and give advice on projects or assignments from a professional perspective. Without the experience I had last semester I don’t think I would think the same about PoliComm or Data analysis (which previously weren’t really all that interesting to me.)

Oh, and remember, if you are going to write a little song for something like this always use basic chord progressions and a rhyme scheme of ABCB, gets ‘em every time!

Cheers from London!

2/11: The Winter Games: An Interview

February 11, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

The Winter Olympics come around once every four years, but how popular are the games today? Verne Lundquist is CBS Sports Play-By-Play Broadcaster who has covered the 1992, 1994, and 1998 games. And, in a candid interview with The Marist Poll’s John Sparks, he discusses this year’s competition, addresses the issue of steroid use, and shares some of his own memories covering the games.

Verne Lundquist

John Sparks
Verne, you worked through Winter Olympics in ’92/’94/’98, I believe, for the network and of course you followed the Winter and Summer games for years. Do you think that folks follow the Olympic events as much as they have in years past?

Verne Lundquist
I get a sense that they don’t follow them quite as much, and I think particularly that’s true of Vancouver that’s coming up. I don’t … I just sense a general lack of a buzz about the games. And I live in a ski resort and we’ve got 17 athletes who either live in Steamboat Springs or train in Steamboat Springs and even there where you would expect to have a lot of conversation about what’s going to happen in Vancouver, I don’t get that the sense that it’s that prominent on anybody’s radar.

John Sparks
What do you think is the reason for that?

Verne Lundquist
I don’t know. I really don’t know. There just seems to be a real lack of awareness that the Olympics are going to take place.

John Sparks
You know when I think of your covering the Olympics, I immediately think of figure skating, of course. Is figure skating the event that you like the most?

Verne Lundquist
Yeah, absolute. Yes, absolutely it was. I just accidently fell into that. I can vividly remember when we were awarded the Olympic Games at CBS in the late ’80s and our first one was going to be in 1992. And as I just mentioned, I live in a ski resort, so I naturally assumed that I would get the chance to do the Alpine events, the downhill slalom, giant slalom. Billy Kidd was then our CBS analyst. He’s the director of skiing at Steamboat and a good friend, so I thought well that’s – – it’s just so natural. And then I got the call from New York and they said, “You’re doing figure skating.” And my initial reaction was not really positive, and the dirty little secret that I’ve managed to keep now, for what, almost 20 years, 18 for sure, since the ’92 Olympic games in Albertville, I didn’t know one jump from the other, and that’s where my dear friend Scott Hamilton saved my professional reputation because every time a jump was about to come up, he would reach over and just tap me on the forearm as if to say, “Shut up now, and I’ll take it.” And we’ve remained dear friends, and I’ve grown to love the sport.

John Sparks
Are there other events that you especially enjoy from the winter games?

Verne Lundquist
Yes, there are. There’s one particularly, and I think it would surprise folks, but again it goes back to where I live in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Over the course of the last half century, maybe even more than that, our little community has sent now more than 80 athletes to the Winter games, 80. It’s astounding, and the most prominent of those who have represented our country from Steamboat are the Nordic Combined guys. And Todd Lodwick is kind of the leader of that group. He grew up in Steamboat, and I’ve known Todd for better than 20 years. Johnny Spillane is another Steamboat native who’s a part of the group, and a young man named Bill Demong, D-E-M-O-N-G, is from upstate New York, but he’s lived in Steamboat for a decade, and those three kids, not kids, I mean Todd’s in his 30’s now, and this will be his fifth, fifth, Olympic Games. That’s (unintelligible). But they might medal in Vancouver. They’ve gotten that good. So our whole community is going to be watching that event, the Nordic Combined. It’s a combination of ski jumping and cross-country racing and it’s really not on anybody’s radar in our country. It’s enormously popular in Scandinavia, as you can imagine.

John Sparks
Is there one particular event, one particular performance that stood out above all others in your memory at a Winter Olympics?

Verne Lundquist
Oh yeah. Yeah, John, 1994, we were involved in the cartoon that is known as Tonya and Nancy, right. And Scott and I were right in the middle of it, the whole unbelievable build up to that event. I just got a word from CBS, one of my friends who’s a vice president at the office in New York just sent me word that our Super Bowl coverage had an overnight rating of 46, a 46 share, which — or 46 rating rather, and that is the highest since 1987 for a Super Bowl, so we’re going to set a record number of viewers. In 1994 for Tonya and Nancy on the ice in Lillehammer, we had 48.5, and it’s the all-time highest rated Olympic show, and I don’t think anybody’s going to top that now on a fractured universe. So just to be a part of that is very, very memorable.

John Sparks
I can imagine. As a follow-up, do you have a favorite Olympic athlete who will be competing this month in Vancouver?

Verne Lundquist
Yes, I do, and I already mentioned him, Todd Lodwick. He’s … his grandparents lived in Steamboat Springs. His mom and dad served as the grand marshals of our winter carnival last weekend. The 97th winter carnival in Steamboat history, and it is — for a small community, it’s a huge event, and I’ve known Todd not since … well, since he was a teenager, a young teenager, and I first saw him compete in the Olympics in Lillehammer in ’94, and he’s been a part of everyone since, and they finished fourth, the team did, in Salt Lake City. They had a breakdown at the last minute, so I know how much it would mean to him if he could lead the Nordic Combined team to any kind of a podium finish in Vancouver.

John Sparks
Verne, there’s always been this issue about athletes being role models, and it’s difficult, as you know, to make a broad general assessment, but I’m going to ask you anyway. Do you think that the actions of the Olympic athletes teach our kids mostly good things or bad things?

Verne Lundquist
I think mostly good. I’m an optimist in some ways about what the lessons are that emanate from the athletes down to — into the young people’s world. I think the whole Olympic concept, I know it’s over-commercialized. We all understand and accept that, and I know that in the summer, I mean, the shoe companies just dictate so much and it — that tends to make one very cynical. But here again, I keep going back to these — the two sports in the Winter Olympics that I know best — figure skating and Nordic Combined. I really do know the kind of sacrifice that skaters, male and female, go through to earn a spot on their respected Olympic teams and the effort that’s put in, the dedication that’s required, and I know the same about the much less popular sport of Nordic Combined. And I think, I really believe, that on the whole, the lessons learned from these people who compete at that high level are beneficial to our youngsters.

John Sparks
Now Verne, no matter what the sport may be, whether we’re talking amateur or professional, the issue of drugs comes up, specifically these days performance enhancing drugs. And I’m just curious how common you think the use of steroids is among our Olympic athletes?

Verne Lundquist
Well I was optimistic about the previous question. I’m a little pessimistic and somewhat cynical about this one. It’s there, and it’s a constant race between those who find ways to mask the use of steroids or other performance enhancing drugs and those who try and catch them. We’ve seen what happened in baseball. I’m not foolish enough to think it doesn’t happen in the winter sports and the summer sports as well. I mean what track and field has gone through and may still be going through is alarming, and we’ve all heard about blood doping and other — anything it seems to me that by a certain group of people that can help you go become stronger, faster and jump higher, their level of cynicism seems to be a dominant facet of their lives. I’m going on and on here, but it bothers me. As pure as I’d like to think they are, I’m realistic enough to know that not all of them are.

John Sparks
Verne, anything else you might want to comment on concerning the Olympics which we haven’t talked about, and then I certainly want to ask you what’s going on with you these days?

Verne Lundquist
I’m heavily involved in our college basketball. I’ve got … I did a game in the West Coast last week. We had — Duke-Georgetown a week before in Washington and were blessed to have the President do commentary with Clark Kellogg and me. If I had to do one event before it’s all over for me, I’d love to get a shot at one more Olympics, either winter or summer. I’ve never done the summer, ever, ever. I’m terribly envious of Tom Hammond, who at NBC, who gets to do track and field in the summer and figure skating in the winter. That would be something I’d really love to do.

Verne Lundquist

February 10, 2010 | by Marist Poll

Verne Lundquist first joined CBS Sports in 1982. During his tenure, he has broadcast over 20 different sports for the Network. Currently, Lundquist serves as the lead play-by-play announcer for CBS Sports’ coverage of college football, alongside analyst Gary Danielson. In addition, he serves as a play-by-play announcer for the Network’s coverage of NCAA Basketball, including the NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Championship. He provides commentary for the Masters , the PGA Championship, among other PGA TOUR events. Lundquist was inducted into the National Sportscaster and Sportswriters Hall of Fame in April 2007.

Verne Lundquist

He marked his 25th year covering the Masters in 2009 and was a regular member of CBS’s golf announce team from 1983-95. Lundquist returned to CBS Sports in 1998 after having previously worked for CBS from 1983-95. During his career, he worked with Terry Bradshaw and Dan Fouts, and occasionally with lead analyst John Madden, on the Network’s NFL broadcasts and was lead play-by-play announcer for CBS’s coverage of figure skating during the 1992, 1994 and 1998 Olympic Winter Games. He had extensive involvement in the Network’s previous coverage of the NBA.

His extensive credits at CBS Sports include track and field, swimming and diving, boxing, volleyball, gymnastics, soccer, weightlifting, free-style skiing, archery, horse racing and horse jumping. He spent eight years at ABC Sports and three years as a play-by-play announcer for TNT’s coverage of the NFL, NBA and golf and figure skating coverage (1995-97). He is well-known in Texas as the long-time radio voice of the Dallas Cowboys (1972-84). Lundquist was sports director at WFAA-TV in Dallas for 16 years and won seven consecutive Texas Sportscaster of the Year Awards (1977-83). He was inducted into the Texas Radio Hall of Fame in 2003. Lundquist was inducted into the Texas Sports Hall of Fame in 2005.

It was the first time in the 55-year history of the Texas Sports Hall of Fame that members of the media were inducted. Lundquist was part of the inaugural class along with seven other legendary sportscasters and sports writers. He was named a 2005 Legend of the Sun Bowl by the Sun Bowl Association. Lundquist presented former Pittsburgh Steeler great Terry Bradshaw at his induction ceremony in Canton, Ohio for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He began his career at KTBC-TV in Austin at a station owned by President and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson.

Biography from CBS Sports

2/8: A Successful Presidency for Obama? An Onside Kick isn’t Necessary, But…

February 8, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

It’s one down and three to go for President Obama, and no one is suggesting the first year was stellar. But, President Obama doesn’t need to pull any Super Bowl Coach Sean Payton’s razzle-dazzle just yet… a strategic redirection, though, wouldn’t hurt.

The latest, national Marist Poll points out the trouble spots for President Obama. His approval rating continues to lag in the mid-forties. His efforts to attract Independents and appeal across party lines have come up way short. A majority of Independents disapprove of his job performance. Four in five Democrats give him high marks, and a similar proportion of Republicans think he is failing. Almost half of the electorate reports he has fallen below their expectations.

A 2010 referendum on President Obama has to be far down the Axelrod wish list. Just slightly more than one-third of the electorate thinks Obama is changing the country for the better. A majority of voters tell us the 2010 elections are more about sending a message to D.C. pols and less about local issues important to their state or community. And, who tops the list of Beltway types targeted for unhappy voters? It’s Congressional Democrats, followed by President Obama, and then Congressional Republicans. It’s the end of the first quarter. President Obama has no choice but to reverse direction and bring the GOP into this political scrimmage.

The White House strategy of defining the 2010 elections in terms of Obama vs. GOP policies could still have traction, if the contests revolve around the economy (as they inevitably will). President Obama frequently references that he inherited the nation’s economic problems, and 62% of registered voters agree with him.

Successful presidents have followed divergent paths on the road to their own re-election. Take the case of Presidents Clinton and Reagan. President Clinton suffered on likeability but flourished in terms of the job he was doing on policy. Although coming up short in the current numbers, this could still end up being the Obama direction. More likely, President Obama will follow the Reagan roadmap. Higher likeability scores than job performance ratings. Currently, President Obama’s favorability rating is running six percentage points better than his approval rating.

This is not to argue that President Obama will score the kind of policy points Clinton did or enjoy the adoration of Reagan. But, until the public believes he owns the economic problems, his Democratic base erodes, or his likeability ratings fall to where his job approval numbers are, he’s still very much alive in the political ballgame.

2/5: Advocacy Ads: A Broadcast Veteran’s View

February 5, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

What do those in broadcasting have to say about the Tim Tebow ad?

Lee Salzberger

Lee Salzberger has a worked in the broadcast industry for 40 years. He has managed television station affiliates of CBS and ABC and, as a group head, has additional Fox responsibilities. Salzberger has served on the ABC Board of Affiliates and has taught television sales and programming at the University of North Texas for the past five years.

When Salzberger spoke with the Marist Poll’s John Sparks, he shared his insights into the advocacy ad discussion:

John Sparks
Lee, in the past, television stations and networks may have been reluctant to air commercials on policy issues such as abortion and gay rights. Why is that, Lee?

Lee Salzberger
Gee, I wish I could answer that question why. I think it’s the climate of the country, and I think the climate of the country has continued to grow and certainly is more liberal than it has been in the past with the present administration; and I don’t know that I would say that’s entirely the reason, but I think it’s certainly a big portion of it.

John Sparks
You have managed television stations. Are there standards that broadcasters adhere to in deciding whether to air commercials that one might describe as an advocacy spot?

Lee Salzberger
The individual stations really don’t have any particular kind of guidance in this particular issue. It is how they believe their licensed community might feel. But, as you said, John, this is a network commercial and although the network is not licensed by the federal government, the stations are and it’s up to the individual stations to determine whether or not they choose to individually or not telecast that particular commercial. In my judgment, it is likely that most of the television stations will likely telecast this commercial without reservation. It’s just another network commercial.

John Sparks
Do you think that this could set a precedent for advocacy ads in future Super Bowls?

Lee Salzberger
I don’t think it’s particularly precedent setting. I can’t at this very moment recall any particular ads that may have been advocacy involved in the past, but I at the same time don’t feel that this is anything that is so particularly out of bounds that it would have been so rattling to the cages of everybody.

John Sparks
You have sold television time. Any thoughts on the impact this ad might have?

Lee Salzberger
You know, John, if it sells, then it works. If it doesn’t sell, it’s not a good ad. I haven’t seen the ad; you haven’t seen it; nobody has seen it, to the best of my knowledge, broadcast yet, so I can’t really speak to whether or not it will be or is an effective presentation of the issue.

John Sparks
Is there anything else you’d like to add or clarify on the subject?

Lee Salzberger
No, John, other than the licensee, the individual station, by virtue of the Communications Act has the opportunity to accept or deny access to its microphone. I believe that’s the actual phrase. But you know, I just don’t see stations taking particular and specific action either for or against this particular ad. I think the network has done its due diligence in investigating the copy and probably investigating the visual elements of this. I don’t think they would telecast anything that was so extraordinary that would take the viewers into a total other area of belief without saying, “Hey, it’s just an ad, and we’ll take care of the other side through other opportunities from the standpoint of equal opportunity.”

Related Stories:

2/5: Advocacy Ads: The Lasting Impact?

2/5: Advocacy Ads During the Super Bowl? Public Okays Tebow Ad

2/5: Advocacy Ads: The Lasting Impact?

| by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

Peggy Wehmeyer was the national religion correspondent for ABC-TV. She spoke with the Marist Poll’s John Sparks on possible effects of the Tim Tebow/Focus on the Family Super Bowl Commercial.

John Sparks
Peggy, while there’ve been television commercials aired by Pro-Life groups in the past, there hasn’t really been such a precedent to air one during a national broadcast that would attract 90-million viewers like the Super Bowl. With CBS’ decision to accept the ad, do you think that we might see more of this sort of ad placement in the future?

Peggy Wehmeyer
I think unless CBS changes its position after this based on the outcry to the ad that they’re getting, sure, I would expect we’ll see more of these kinds of ads in the future. I mean, look at all the publicity it’s getting, which might actually be good for CBS. If anyone who had forgotten over the last few years who Focus on the Family was, they’re now back on the radar screen, and I would imagine their donations will even go up as a result of this, so I would think so.

John Sparks
What would you say the pros and cons are for Focus on the Family about running such an ad?

Peggy Wehmeyer
You know, I think the pros will be, as I mentioned, that it puts them back on the radar screen. They’re an activist organization. They want this kind of attention especially on social issues like abortion. So for the people who have supported Focus on the Family in the past, this is going to be evidence that “Oh, they’re still doing some — they’re still stirring up the waters. They’re still doing what we used to support them for doing,” and it might actually engender more dedication to this group. My guess is, and I’m not certain, but there’s probably — they have less support than they used to, so maybe this will be a good thing from their point of view. On the other hand, it will make their so-called enemies of the people who have never liked what Focus on the Family stands for. It will probably harden their positions against them, but that might actually help Focus on the Family also because that’s part of how they fundraise.

John Sparks
So do you think that they run the risk of drawing more negative attention than positive on this thing?

Peggy Wehmeyer
You know, I think Focus on the Family would hope to use Tim Tebow’s celebrity status to sway people who might be in the middle on the abortion issue, and I think that’s where most people are. So from Focus on the Family’s perspective, I think for them it might be a positive thing. Politically, it puts them in the position from the less point of view, at least, of being troublemakers.

John Sparks
Do you think that there is some yardstick measure that they might use to determine if the Tebow ad is successful?

Peggy Wehmeyer
You know, I think it’s very hard to measure whether this ad is successful if it runs. And I guess it depends on how you define success. Did you define it by saying, “Did it stop women from getting abortions?” Perhaps you could do some kind of scientific poll with those who saw the ad and ask them whether it changed their views on abortion. I doubt actually it will. Most likely, I would expect it to strengthen people’s support of groups like Focus on the Family who sponsored the ad or create an even greater backlash against these kinds of groups. You could measure … one way you could measure is whether donations to Focus on the Family, which sponsored the ad, are up or maybe donations to Pro-Life groups went up. I mean you could look at that, I suppose.

John Sparks
I’ve heard a report that suggests that more viewers of the Super Bowl over the years remember the ads than they do even the teams or the scores of a particular Super Bowl. If that’s indeed true, what kind of impact do you think the Tebow ad might have for Focus on the Family and the Pro-Life movement?

Peggy Wehmeyer
Well, it’s really hard to pinpoint what the impact of this ad will be. Sure there’s a chance. There’s a chance it might make a young pregnant girl think about having an abortion. It might make her change her mind about an abortion. It will make Pro-Choice people even more adamant that they get their message out. It might really ramp up the whole abortion debate. Mostly I think the Tim Tebow ad will fuel, unfortunately, the culture war battle lines over abortion. But you know these things don’t last for long because they die down after awhile, so I don’t anticipate that it will have any real long-term impact.

John Sparks
So do you think with CBS accepting the ad that NARAL and other groups might seek to buy time in next year’s Super Bowl or the World Series or the Final Four?

Peggy Wehmeyer
Sure. I think women’s groups and other liberal groups will shout and protest about this airing of the ad; and if they don’t win their campaign to stop it from getting on CBS and CBS airs it anyway, it wouldn’t really surprise me if they take the tact: Well if you can’t beat them, join them, and then we’ll have dueling ads. But I doubt CBS is going to let that or any other network would let that get out of hand.

John Sparks
Speaking of getting out of hand, if we could envision commercial breaks at national sporting events becoming cluttered with advocacy ads, do you think that the networks might reverse this position? CBS kind of put it out there in accepting this ad. It’s kind of a first for a national ad buy like this.

Peggy Wehmeyer
You know, I think CBS and the networks have control over their advertising space. There are too many other advertisers who are not advocating social issues that are clamoring for air time. I doubt commercial breaks will be cluttered with advocacy ads. The public would hate it, and it wouldn’t help the network, and the network will always do what is in its best interest.

2/5: Advocacy Ads During the Super Bowl? Public Okays Tebow Ad