It’s State of the Union time, so wrong headed expectations and misleading renderings of history require correction once again.

One colleague inaccurately opined on television that “historically presidents get a little bump [from the SOTU]… and then it flattens out.” Another commentator wrongly asserted that presidents are “aways helped” by these speeches.

You have the advantage of having heard what I’m sure was a marvelous speech; I’m writing before it was given.

But history is clear.

Very rarely do State of the Union speeches meaningfully improve presidents’ approval ratings. Moving numbers is not really the key objective of these speeches, and that should not be the criteria by which they are judged.

Examining those ratings before and after these addresses, demonstrates that since 1978, the average State of the Union has had less than two-tenths of a percentage point impact on presidential approval. Infinitesimal.

In fact, it is slightly more common for approval ratings to worsen than to improve.

Only 5 SOTUs produced upward movement of 4 points or more. Master communicator Bill Clinton delivered 3 of those 5 addresses.

Though dubbed the “Great Communicator,” none of Ronald Reagan’s SOTU addresses generated more than a 3-point increase in his approval rating, while 2 seemed to produce declines of 4 points or more.

Donald Trump improved his ratings after just one of his SOTU speeches, by a meager 2 points.

Nonetheless, by the time you read this, you will probably be inundated with instant polls purporting to portend big shifts in public attitudes.

Those polls usually portend nothing.

Generally, they inquire about reactions to the speech and/or support for the policies presented. Significant numbers like the speech and favor the proposals offered.

But these seemingly intense reactions rarely translate into meaningful change in the indicator that has real political consequences—presidential approval.

Unlike the questions on the instant polls, presidential job approval is highly correlated with electoral and legislative results. Reactions to a SOTU, and the policies presented in it, are not.

Indeed, they aren’t even correlated with changes in approval.

The strongest positive reaction in CNN’s instant poll data was for George W. Bush’s 2002 address. How was Bush’s approval rating effected? It worsened by 2 points.

The least positive reaction was also to a Bush speech, in 2006. Afterwards his approval rating dropped 1 point.

Why the disconnect between the perceptions of the commentariat and the instant polls on the one hand, and reality on the other?

First, commentators assume big audiences mean big impacts. President Biden’s last SOTU had an audience of about 38 million.

That’s a large number, but well below this century’s record of 62 million viewers in 2003.

More important, even that record setting event found just 21% of the country viewing the address, while only 11% of the country tuned-in to President Biden’s last SOTU.

Big changes in this relatively small slice of the country are muted in the population as a whole. A 15-point jump in a president’s approval rating among 20% of the country would register just a 3-point increase in the nation as a whole.

Second, these surveys are just that: instant. Only the truly hardened are unmoved immediately after hearing an hour-long presidential pitch.

The proposals appear sound, having been presented in glowing terms.

But as commentary points out flaws and failings, distortions and disagreements, voters settle back into their preexisting attitudes.

Numbers can be moved, but it takes more than a great speech. Raising a president’s approval rating requires not just great messaging and legislative triumphs, but a continuation of real improvements in peoples’ lives.

This speech may well mark be the unofficial start of President Biden’s reelection campaign, but no one should judge the efficacy of that campaign by the impact of the speech on his approval rating.