How much can a president alter the economy? New poll results.

That's a central message from a new Associated Press/GfK poll that's in the news Monday.

In reporting its survey of US adults, the AP encapsulated the story in this headline: "Poll: Half doubt next president will alter economy." The story has been picked up by various news organizations Monday, and there have been blogs about it, under similar headlines.

RECOMMENDED: Four ways to cut the unemployment rate

So, wait a minute. Is this poll really telling us that the 2012 presidential election – billed as an epic battle between President Obama and Mitt Romney over the nation's economic soul – is essentially meaningless?

Far from it, really.

The grain of truth in the AP headline is that fewer than half of Americans (48 percent) say the election outcome will have "a great deal" or "a lot" of impact on the economy. And history suggests some justification for that view. A president is just one part of the federal government, after all, and the federal government is just one influence on the vast web of consumers and suppliers known as the economy. Most citizens know that.

But here's the important caveat:

Federal policies do matter for the economy, and citizens know that, too. Where the AP story played up the fact that "only" 48 percent of respondents see the election having a significant influence on the economy, the number of people in the poll who said the election won't make any difference was much smaller: just 7 percent.

Here's the way the answers broke down in the poll, which was taken June 14-18.

When asked about the election's expected impact on the economy, 7 percent said they expect none at all, 17 percent said "a little," 26 percent said "just some," 18 percent said "a lot," and 29 percent said "a great deal." So the largest cluster of responses actually came on the end of the spectrum viewing the election as very consequential.

When the poll diced the question into smaller parts – on health care, unemployment, and the federal budget deficit – the responses ran along much the same lines. The next president will influence health care a bit more than he will influence the overall economy, they predict, and he will influence unemployment and deficits a bit less.

Again, AP staked out one valid point: Many Americans are rightly skeptical of how much one person can do, even someone sitting in the Oval Office.

Consider another recent poll, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International for the financial firm Bankrate.com. The survey found that 21 percent of Americans think an Obama victory would be best for their personal pocketbooks, an equal percentage favors Mr. Romney, while fully 50 percent "don’t think it will make much difference either way," Bankrate reported.

At the same time, all signs point toward the economy remaining a vital campaign issue – with the two main candidates staking out considerable contrasts on how they would approach economic policy. Mr. Obama hopes to tax the rich more, while Romney says he wants them to pay about the share of overall US income taxes that they do now, to give just one example.

And all signs suggest that when the election is over, the White House occupant will influence important choices the nation faces on matters including taxes, federal spending, entitlement programs, and the regulation of health insurance.

Matt Sandusky Feared Perjury Charge Over Grand Jury Testimony

The adopted son of convicted child molester Jerry Sanduskydetailed claims of sex abuse in a 25-minute audio tape with police, but he also worried about a perjury charge because he told a grand jury nothing inappropriate ever happened.

Karl Rominger, one of Jerry Sandusky's defense attorneys, confirmed for ABC News the existence of the audio tape.

"As a general rule it's a tape of Matt (Sandusky) making the allegations. I don't feel comfortable going into specifics about what he says, but I'll say that he is an alleged victim, so that will tell you some," said Rominger, who has listened to the audio recording of the interview.

The recording shows Matt Sandusky, whom Jerry and Dottie Sandusky adopted in his teenage years, hesitating to talk about the abuse allegations because he had previously said under oath that his father had not molested him, Rominger said.

"The problem is," Rominger said, quoting Matt Sandusky from the audio tape, "'I don't want to get into trouble for perjury'... because he previously said other things."

He then goes on, however, to detail allegations which Rominger said echo those of other alleged victims, specifically those represented by Matt Sandusky's attorney, Andrew Shubin. Shubin represents the men known as Victim 3 and Victim 7 in court documents.

"It seems like that story magically tracks one of Shubin's clients' stories," Rominger said. "A lot of these kids seem to have this kind of magnetic memory that comes back over time. (Matt's) comes back all of a sudden."

A source close to the state's investigation confirmed the existence of the audio recording to ABC.

Matt Sandusky came to prosecutors during the first week of the trial to say that he, too, had been molested by his father. Prior to that, Matt had been a staunch supporter of the former Penn State football coach, who took him in when he was a teenager and later adopted him. Matt was listed as a witness for the defense at the beginning of the trial.

After meeting with him on Thursday, prosecutors notified the defense that Matt Sandusky could be called as a rebuttal witness before the trial's completion. Defense attorneys cited that fact as the reason for not putting Jerry Sandusky on the stand to defend himself, lest the prosecutors then call Matt Sandusky to talk about his own alleged abuse.

Matt Sandusky has so far declined to go public with his allegations, though Shubin released a statement saying that Matt was a victim of his father.

Sandusky was found guilty on 45 counts of child sex abuse on Friday night following a two-week trial that saw eight men testify against him about being molested. One man, known as Victim 4, said that when Sandusky began a soap fight with the boy in a Penn State locker room shower one day, Matt Sandusky left quickly and acted "nervous."

Matt Sandusky watched only the first day of the trial before he was sequestered as a possible witness for the defense.

Sandusky Defense Plans Appeal

Sandusky's attorneys began discussing a possible appeal of the guilty verdicts just moments after leaving the courthouse Friday.

Sandusky's lead lawyer Joseph Amendola told ABCNews.com today that it was "not definite" that he would stay on to handle the appeal, but said, "I anticipate I'll be a witness for Jerry on his appeal."

Rominger confirmed that he planned to stay on for the appeal process.

But both men began looking ahead to an appeal almost as soon as Sandusky was convicted on 45 of 48 counts of child sex abuse. Sandusky's bail was revoked and he now sits in Centre County Correctional Facility until his sentencing, in approximately 90 days. Sandusky, 68, faces more than to 450 years in prison.

"We had volumes of materials that we really didn't have sufficient time to review prior to start of this trial," Amendola told ABC News Friday night following Sandusky's conviction.

"Until we go through those materials and talk to one of our experts who was unable to testify in this case within the time constraints, we really wont' know what issues are involved in those particular matters," Amendola said.

Amendola and Rominger both said that they would be able to file appeals on issues including the lack of preparation time ahead of trial and the improperly-edited audio recording of an interview Sandusky gave to NBC's Bob Costas.

Sandusky's lawyers had requested multiple continuances from Judge John Cleland ahead of the trial, claiming that they did not have enough time to adequately prepare a defense. Days before the trial started, they submitted a sealed petition asking to withdraw as Sandusky's legal counsel on those grounds, but Cleland denied the petition, Rominger said on his weekly radio show.

"There are appellate issues," Rominger told ABC News.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelley said that an appeal would likely not be successful.

"The defense in this was given a lot of discovery material, they were made aware of all the charges in the case, and what the commonwealth intended to present. We don't believe it was rushed into court," she told ABC News Friday.

Attorneys may also appeal Sandusky's verdict based on the NBC audio recording prosecutors played for the jury. Last week, Amendola asked Cleland to declare a mistrial after the recording played in court made it sound like Sandusky was stalling or hesitating when asked, "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"

During the actual interview, Sandusky responded, "Am I sexually attracted to young boys? Well, I enjoy young people," and went on to say he was not sexually attracted to them. But the recording played for the jury at the trial made it sound like Costas had to repeat his question and that Sandusky was reluctant to answer it.

According to sources close to the case, Cleland was angry about the mess up and considered Amendola's request on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. To avoid a mistrial, the attorney general's office then reached out to NBC, asking them to send all of their versions of the interview to the judge.

NBC News spokeswoman Amy Lynn confirmed this weekend that NBC supplied three different versions of Costas' interview with Sandusky to prosecutors, and that one of the versions contained the error.

"Prosecutors used the 'Today' version, not realizing it included a technical glitch, and played it for the jury," Lynn said in a statement Sunday.

"After court that day, NBC News executives had a series of discussions with the prosecutors, and after some internal investigation were able to determine that the glitch originated on 'Today,'" she said.

After NBC took responsibility for the editing glitch, Cleland instructed jurors to refer to a corrected transcript during their deliberations and denied Amendola's request for a mistrial, but Amendola said following the guilty verdict that it would be a possible reason for appeal.

The Sandusky defense team may have a shot at appealing parts of the complex case brought against the former coach, according to Jules Epstein, a law professor and attorney at Widener University in Pennsylvania. He said that lawyers will likely try to appeal on the basis of the lack of preparation time, which has been successfully used in the past, as well as the hearsay allowed as evidence with the man known as Victim 8. In that case, the only witness who testified about Victim 8 was a janitor who did not witness a sexual assault himself, but said that his coworker did and told him about it.

"Suppose an appellate court says you're right, the janitor should not have been able to say that," Epstein said. "That's step one. Then it's a case of how bad is the harm? The appellate court could say it affected only the verdict on the one missing victim, so we'll give him a new trial on the one missing victim. Or it could say, no, it polluted all of them. Or it was an error, but was harmless, which means it had no possible impact on the outcome."

The appeals process cannot begin until Sandusky is sentenced, which Cleland said would take approximately 90 days. The process is then a lengthy and expensive one, Epstein noted. If Sandusky's estate is the subject of multiple civil actions, it is unclear if or how he will be able to afford to mount an appeal.

Egyptian president moves into Mubarak's old office

As Mohammed Morsi moved Monday into the presidential office last occupied by Hosni Mubarak, the contours emerged Monday of a backroom deal that led Egypt's powerful military council to bless the Islamist as the country's first freely elected head of state.

The complex web of issues still to be hammered out range from what to do about the dissolved parliament and the drafting of a new constitution to who will head the Cabinet and hold the key defense and foreign ministries.

Still, the country breathed a sigh of relief that at least the question of who won the presidential runoff had been resolved on Sunday when Egypt's election commission officially recognized the 60-year-old U.S.-trained engineer as the first civilian and the first Islamist to hold the post.

People returned to work a day after a panic sent many home early for fear that violence might erupt when the winner was announced. Traffic was flowing again through Cairo's Tahrir Square, the birthplace of last year's uprising, which had been blocked by Morsi supporters protesting against the military's power grab.

Newspapers were brimming with upbeat headlines, after a week of rumors and scaremongering. "Morsi president on orders from the people: The revolution reaches the presidential palace," said a banner headline in independent daily Al-Shorouk.

Still, Morsi's recognition as president-elect does not resolve the larger standoff between the generals and his Muslim Brotherhood over the institutions of government.

After the generals stripped the presidency of most of its major powers in recent weeks, Morsi takes office without a clear picture of his authorities or what he can do to resolve Egypt's most pressing issues, including restoring stability and security, and improving the struggling economy.

Morsi narrowly defeated Ahmed Shafiq, Mubarak's last prime minister and a former air force general, in a race that deeply polarized the nation and threatened to unleash violent protests. Now he faces a daunting struggle for power with the still-dominant military rulers who took over after Mubarak's ouster in the uprising.

State TV showed footage of Morsi meeting Monday with the ruling military council headed by Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, who was Mubarak's defense minister for 20 years. The TV quoted Tantawi as saying the military will "stand by the elected, legitimate president and will cooperate with him for the stability of the country."

Morsi also met with the military-backed Prime Minister Kamal el-Ganzouri, who resigned Monday and was asked to head a caretaker government until Morsi nominates a new one.

Lawmakers and mediators were tightlipped about the details of the negotiations, although they acknowledged that a few round of talks with the generals took place last week and are ongoing — a sign that much remains undone.

"There is a political settlement initiative that takes everyone's concerns into account," said Muslim Brotherhood member and lawmaker Sobhi Saleh.

But deep mistrust remains. The ruling generals have stacked their side with a maze of legal tools that strengthen their negotiating position, while the Brotherhood must tread softly: The talks can easily blow up into wider social discontent if the Islamist group appears to be looking out only for its own partisan interests and trying to entrench its grip on power.

Emad Abdel-Ghaffour, the head of the ultraconservative Islamist party Al-Nour, said in the week between the June 16-17 presidential runoff and the announcement of the winner on Sunday, many politicians tried to mediate between the Islamists and the generals.

"There was an easing (of tension)" when the elections results came through, he said. But discussions are still under way to clarify the authorities of the president and the military. And one of the immediate sticking points is the dissolution of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated parliament by a court order, days before the presidential runoff.

As polls closed on June 17, the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces announced constitutional amendments that shocked the Brotherhood and many other political activists who took part in the uprising 16 months ago.

The ruling generals gave themselves sweeping powers that undercut the authority of the president. That followed a government decision that granted military police broad powers to detain civilians. The military council, which promised to transfer power to an elected leader by July 1, said the moves were designed to fill a power vacuum and ensure that the president doesn't monopolize decision-making until a new constitution is drafted.

Two days before the runoff, a court packed with judged appointed by the Mubarak regime also dissolved the country's first freely elected parliament, which was dominated by Islamists. The military council followed by declaring it was now in charge of legislating.

Closed-door meetings between Brotherhood members and the ruling generals as well as mediation from different groups, including pro-reform leader Mohammed ElBaradei, aimed at easing the crisis and defusing a political stalemate.

Brotherhood members said the election results, delayed for four days, were held up by authorities as a bargaining chip to reassure the generals in the face of mounting Brotherhood opposition to the military's tightening grip and the group's rise to power.

Former presidents were sworn in by parliament. But with the parliament dissolved, it was not clear where Morsi will be sworn in. Authorities say he could be sworn before the country's highest court, but his supporters are pressing for parliament to be reinstated, arguing that the court decision only disputed a third of the house's seats.

Abdel-Ghaffour said discussions with the generals centered on the Brotherhood's argument that only the disputed third of parliament be dissolved because it was that portion that was elected based on articles deemed unconstitutional. Independent and party members competed for a third of the 498-seat house, which the court said violated rules of equality between candidates.

Brotherhood lawyers say another court, Egypt's highest administrative court, is likely to back their claim.

"This is likely to happen," said Abdel-Ghaffour, whose Islamist party won 25 percent of the dissolved parliament seats in addition to the Brotherhood's nearly 50 percent. "A third of parliament can be dissolved and re-elected in 75 days."

The speaker of the dissolved parliament met with the No. 2 general on the military council, Chief of Staff Gen. Sami Anan, twice since the court decision on June 14.

Abdel-Ghaffour also said talks centered on reassurances the generals were seeking regarding the Brotherhood's control of the new government, including demands that Morsi appoint a prime minister who is a technocrat from outside the Brotherhood.

The stickier issue of drafting the constitution was also raised as well as fears over who controls the key foreign and defense ministries. The generals' new declaration ensures the military appoint the defense minister and control all issues regarding military personnel.

Before parliament was dissolved, a panel appointed by the legislature was supposed to be in charge of drafting the new constitution which would determine the role of Islam in legislation, Egypt's future political system and the role of the military.

In the recent power grab, the ruling generals gave themselves, the prime minister, judges or a fifth of the panel members the right to veto details of the constitution that will be drafted, curbing the powers of Islamists to control the process. The parliament-formed panel is expected to meet Tuesday, and Abdel-Ghaffour said it is expected to continue its work.

"Both sides want reassurances," Abdel-Ghaffour said. "But there is a will for the caravan to keep moving," he said, using an Arabic expression.

Brotherhood officials said protests will continue until the military responds to their demands.

Saad Emara, another Brotherhood lawmaker, said allowing the military to determine these posts will further erode the authority of the president. "They are hardening their position," he said. "Our presence in the square as protesters is the best negotiating card."

Thousands of Morsi supporters, backed by some liberal and secular youth groups who drove the uprising, vowed to press on with their protest in Tahrir Square to pressure the ruling generals to rescind their decrees and reinstate parliament. Tens of thousands spent the night in Tahrir in joyous celebration of Morsi's win. After thinning in the morning, the crowd built up again by Monday evening.

Islam Lotfi, a former Brotherhood member who has formed a new party and was part of a Brotherhood-led front to protest against the military power grab, said there are efforts to create a representative committee to negotiate with the generals over demands to abrogate the recent decisions and "truly transfer powers to civilians."

Ayman Nour, a liberal former lawmaker who is currently on the panel to draft the constitution, sounded a more cautious note.

"The situation is very ambiguous ... and no one wants a clash," said Nour. "Every coming step can create a crisis, and if it is not managed smartly, professionally and in a non-partisan way, it will only get more tangled."

Hundreds of Florida killers could get new sentences under Supreme Court ruling

Hundreds of convicted murderers in Florida will likely get a chance to convince a judge that their life prison terms should be reduced because they were juveniles when they killed.

A U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday in two cases, Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Arkansas, struck down laws in 28 states that mete out mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for minors convicted of homicide.

The ruling, hailed by civil-rights activists, doesn’t mean Florida judges can’t still impose a life sentence on youths for first-degree murder — but they must now at least consider a defendant’s age.

“Kids are different. They are very impulsive. They follow other people. They don’t have a full understanding of the consequences of what they’re doing,” said Miami-Dade Assistant Public Defender Stephen Harper, who has worked on the issue and estimates some 225 Florida convicts could get new sentences. “The court found it is important for a judge to consider all these factors.”

Monday’s opinion follows the high court’s 2010 decision, based on a Jacksonville case, that ruled that sentencing minors to life without the possibility of parole in non-homicide cases constituted “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The teen in that case, Terrance Graham, received probation for a robbery, but was later arrested for another armed robbery and sentenced to life in prison for violating probation.

In most states, the Graham ruling meant simply amending a life sentence to include the possibility of parole. But Florida lawmakers abolished parole in 1983, and with 115 defendants affected, the state was in a bind. Many of those 115 defendants have since been re-sentenced, and some have been released from custody.

Monday’s high court decision drew heavily on the reasoning in Graham.

The first case involved Kuntrell Jackson, who as a 14-year-old in 1999 participated in the robbery of an Arkansas video store in which a clerk was shot and killed. Jackson did not fire the weapon, but was convicted of felony murder for participating in an armed robbery that led to a death.

The second case involved Evan Miller, who in 2003 beat an Alabama man to death with a baseball bat. Miller, 14 at the time, had been in and out of foster care because of his tumultuous family life.

Both teens — who under an earlier Supreme Court ruling are not eligible for the death penalty — were charged as adults.

Justice Elena Kagan, in the majority opinion, noted that Miller “deserved severe punishment” but that the automatic life sentence did not allow a judge to consider his troubled past.

The law “prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him — and from which he cannot usually extricate himself — no matter how brutal or dysfunctional,” Kagan wrote.

The justices who formed the majority were Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy. The dissenters: Samuel Alito Jr., John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

The American Civil Liberties Union hailed Monday’s ruling.

“Today’s decision helps to restore some rationality to the treatment of juveniles in our criminal justice system,” said Steven R. Shapiro, ACLU national legal director. “Surely, it is not too much to expect that judges will at least consider the fact that a 14-year-old is standing before them when deciding whether to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, even in murder cases.”