O'bouncing

by: tremayne

Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 14:20


Following up on Chris's post yesterday on Barack Obama's rise in the tracking polls, the news today is good as well. Both Gallup and Rasmussen show an increase in Obama's margin over McCain. Here are the margins along with those released yesterday and Thursday (day of the Berlin speech):

                 Gallup    Rasmussen

Thursday:    +2            +4

Friday:        +6            +5

Saturday:    +7            +6

It is quite possible  these margins will increase again as the last of the pre-speech data drops out and is replaced by more post-speech data. Of course Obama has seen these bumps before, but it will be interesting to see if it holds this time or reverts back to earlier averages.

As an aside, can anyone make sense of this headline and this part of the story:

While his reception at each stop on the trip has been generous, the polls showed his message was having less impact among some segments of the US voter population. A Gallup poll found Obama leading McCain 47-41 percent, a four-point gain for the Republican hopeful from earlier in the week.

Huh?

Update (Chris): More great coverage of the bounce:

A daily tracking poll from Gallup published on Friday showed Obama with a six-point lead over McCain, close to the lead he has held over his Republican rival for the past several weeks.

 Yep, moving from a two-point to a six-point lead is "close."

tremayne :: O'bouncing

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
O'bouncing | 32 comments
Bouncin (4.00 / 2)
Have you noticed that every single time in this campaign that people start squawking about "Where's Obama's bounce?" that only then does the bounce show up? Patience, people. It takes a few days for these things to emerge.
Another trend (4.00 / 2)
I have also noticed that this chorus of "where's the bounce" is followed by concerns of how unimpressive the bounce is once it arrives. At least that seems to be the media's take. Much like in the primary, the media is baffled as to why Obama can't woo every single American voter.
I swear, if Obama was polling 90-10 against McCain, the media would obsess over why Obama can't win that last 10%.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
I disagree somewhat (4.00 / 1)
Generally, yeah, the MSM loves McCain and wants a horserace so they get way carried away with this meme.

But, at the same time, there's something to the milder version of this argument. I'm rather surprised, given everything, that Obama hasn't popped double figures yet. I'm not saying he needs to; I'm not saying he won't ever. I just think that maybe Obama does have something of a ceiling. Maybe that ceiling is soft, maybe it's not permanent, maybe it's a little higher than it has looked recently. But maybe it is, in some qualified version, actually there.

[ Parent ]
I think that expectation is unrealistic (4.00 / 1)
Why would he have a double digit lead? We are coming off decades of a pendulum swing to the right. We are only now begining the pendulum swing to the left. Although Reagan won a huge number of electoral votes- the popular vote win was still only high single digits with him at 50.7 percent, Carter at 41 percent, and Anderson at 6.7 percent. It's unclear to me where the Anderson voters would have gone, but the clear point is that at the begining of the pendulum swing fully to the right in the 1980 election- Reagan still only won with a bare majority at 50.7 percent. So this expectation that Obama should be leading by double digits in the polls seems unrealistic to me. It's not motivated by the structure of our electoratal presidential politics. Besides, our shifts in the Congress are stronger indicators of where the electorate is. As of 2006, our wins there are far more impressive than anything the GOP did. Indeed, if we keep on track this year- and the more positive estimates bare out it would represent a full route at least of the GOP. With the caveat that it still will not have meant a shift as strong as maybe possible with regard to the idealogical scale rather than partisan scale.
[ Parent ]
These are all very good points (0.00 / 0)
I wouldn't expect Obama to actually win by 10. Or even to hold a 10-point lead for more than a few days. I just can't get beyond the overall crappiness of the fundamentals for McCain. And the overall solidness (at least) of Obama as a candidate.

But, still, point(s) taken.


[ Parent ]
Seems like this has been the narrative ever since the primary (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, Obama's winning

But who cares about that, why can't he seal the deal?

Keep on raisin' that bar...

[ Parent ]
Obama Wins Presidency By Less Than Expected Margins (4.00 / 5)
Yesterday Barack Hussein Obama beat John McCain by less than expected margins.  While many pundits were expecting a landslide victory over the 72 year-old McCain, Obama failed to win the popular vote by double digits and outright lost many states in the South, denying Obama the mandate for change he had been hoping for...

[ Parent ]
"Seal the Deal" (0.00 / 0)
The most revolting phrase from the primaries, IMHO, because of the pompous ignorance it implies. It suggests that in addition to an election having a winner and loser, there is also a third measurement of 'sealing the deal' that the winner must achieve. It's a doublespeak way of calling Obama a loser even thought he won by the only metric that matters. And now it is being replicated in the GE.

The only way to 'seal the deal' is to win, not to perpetually exceed fictitious expectations proclaimed by the media.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
I think that 47-41 citation (0.00 / 0)
by AFP is a typo. They meant to go with the 45-43 Gallup number from Thursday, which was a 4 point gain for McCain from the 47-41 spread 3 days earlier. In any case, they're obviously giving way too much credence to the daily float, and it shot back to 47-41 the next day anyway.
but this (0.00 / 0)
story is from an hour ago...
[ Parent ]
Someone had an unchecked/unedited brain fart n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Plenty wrong with that article (0.00 / 0)
The same poll found that 58 percent of voters identified more closely with McCain's values and background, against 47 percent who said the same of Obama.

That's a lot of people!

[ Parent ]
But the trend is our friend (4.00 / 1)
The days that are dropping off must have been much better for McCain to saee that gain.  

I've said it before and I'll say it again.,  Many people are going to be put off by the spectacle of McCain whining and begging for attention and that stupid grin he has when he says something to cover up his last stupid statement.  And didn't anyone tell him a politician doesn't laugh at his own jokes?  He jsut beams in the applause.  Am I the only one who thinks McCain is starting to get a bit creepy?

Patience is in order.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

You're definitely not the only one (0.00 / 0)
He's a total Skeletor.
[ Parent ]
As If (0.00 / 0)
Obama's 180's, refinements, changes of position, excuses for changing, and non-repudiation of Cass Sunstein's right wing comments and explanations, etc are not creepy?

It really is sad to see people so invested in one way of thinking that they lose all objectivity as I pointed out in the earlier Obama's Trip Changes McCain's Position On Iraq thread. Contrary facts no longer make a difference to some because even if they are public facts they don't really exist.

[ Parent ]
It's part of the daily effort ... (4.00 / 3)
... to show Obama in the worst possible light.

Today's Yahoo! AP headline reads: "Obama defends tour..." as if his tour needed defending. Instead of reporting on the events, they shade the coverage with McCain's  spin. It happens every day -- on TV and in the newspapers -- nonstop.

The point is to drown Obama in negativity to reduce his popularity. Even C-Span is on it. When is the last time you saw an Obama campaign event on C-Span   that wasn't broadcast on a Sunday night? During the primary, C-Span broadcast and rebroadcast campaign events all the time. Now, almost nothing.

Big campaign events like the trip to Europe are hugely important for Obama because the networks are forced to pay attention, and Obama can get his message out with the least amount of corporate-media filtering.  


actually (4.00 / 1)
Sunday nights carry big ratings for TV. But I get you point. Here's another headline from the same outfit I linked above:

"Foreign tour no victory lap, Obama says as polls dip"

That's from two hours ago. There is no "dip." None. No way to find one. Completely fictitious reporting as if written by someone at Fox.

[ Parent ]
Looks almost real (4.00 / 2)
Daily tracking polls will fluctuate a lot even if public opinion doesn't change at all, so I tend to discount most any conversation on changes we see in real time.  You need to wait a week or two to see if the poll really settles into a new equilibrium.

But I must say both tracking polls moving up in harmony like this adds credibility.  Include that a bounce was actually expected at this time and the bounce almost looks real to me.

What we still don't know is if the recent publicity improved Obama's polling for just a few days or if this really changed some people's opinion for the long run.

Regardless of any bounce, I think this past week has been hugely successful.  The whole narrative has fundamentally changed on foreign policy and a wide range of tactics available to McCain have been taken off the table.

Are you kidding? (0.00 / 0)
"The whole narrative has fundamentally changed on foreign policy..."

Really? So a tightly scripted trip in which heads of state had the obligatory duty to meet with one of two candidates does what? Show that Obama can make the tough decisions in the WH? NO it does not. It shows that he can make a tightly scripted trip in which heads of state had the obligatory duty to meet with him and nothing more.

I dare anyone to point out how this trip showed anything beyond that. Oh sure the first Black candidate drew some curiosity crowds in Europe, but then those Europeans don't get to vote.

All and all this trip did nothing more that give Obama face time on the news. It did not show he has anymore credentials to lead by any stretch of the imagination.

[ Parent ]
Hahahahah (0.00 / 0)
Oh yes your analysis is the stuff of Genius. Does it hurt when your head explodes? 200,000 people turned out cheering and laughing -  because they "were curious" (did you see that polling showed Germans, Brits and French supporting/hoping for Obama's victory at 5 to 1, and 7 to one majorities? That he is the favorite in Israel?)

McCain's "tightly scripted" appearances bring 300 people trying vainly to sound like 150 when the few with the energy remember to clap.

How long has it been when an American leader was treated like a rock star? Even when a rock star is giving a very well received speech that didn't just make warm statements but called on them to be even more giving in the world, urging to rise up and be more demanding of democracy, more demanding of world development and urging them do more about the environment, while the US catches up.

Did you listen to even one of the speeches, releases or statements?

Sucks to be you I guess.

The Republican/conservative/neo-con/"because_I-say_so" religionists have had their day, and a bad time it was.

A new day is dawning.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
curious (0.00 / 0)
Yes, most "curious" people I know don't just turn on their TVs  for a few minutes but actually take hours or days out of their lives to travel and fight crowds to hear it with others.

Let's hope American voters are that "curious" in November.

[ Parent ]
Well if they were not curious (0.00 / 0)
what were they? You neglected to say. They sure did not come out to vote or contribute money did they?
[ Parent ]
Stop pretending to be retarded (4.00 / 1)
I know you always argue in bad faith, and I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but really, can't you do better? You can impugn his integrity and competence and still sound as if you had some idea of what you were talking about.

You do not get crowds of 200,000 just because people are curious. Berlin hasn't had demonstrations that big since the Iraq war protests. So why were they there?

It's not difficult. They were enthusiastic, you dullard.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Wow, you are dense (4.00 / 2)
Are you trying to prove your ignorance and anti-Kool-Aid drinking.*  You got the part about how the Iraqi Prime Minister supported Obama's plan in Iraq, right?  You got how McCain had to change his position to be in line with Obama's, right?

I understand that those who only see Obama as an empty-suit rock-star who is only good at self promotion see much to despise out of this trip.  That is why I didn't expect a big of a bounce as others did -- it supported both positive and negative images of Obama.

But that doesn't change the fact that the foreign policy debate substantially changed this week.  

And yes, images like this are actually important and influence how Obama is perceived by the general population:

[* We should come up with a name for those that are so against Obama and complain so loudly about Kool-Aid drinking supporters they are far worst than the most worshipful Obamaniac.  What is the opposite of Kool-Aid?  Anti-freeze?  Can we call these guys anti-freeze drinkers?  Any other ideas?]

[ Parent ]
I take it (0.00 / 0)
that picture is when Peterus was telling Obama that that a firm timetable was a bad idea? LOL.

And no the foreign policy debate has not changed. I just found this. Stuff like this is the difference of your blog chatter and facts:

Rasmussen: 63% Say Trip Does Not Make Obama More Fit to be President

While Barack Obama has touted his travel to Afghanistan and Iraq as a "fact-finding" trip, 63% of Americans do not believe it makes the Democratic candidate any more qualified to be president.

So 63% to 37% essentially say the trip does not change a thing as to the foreign policy debate.

Fact is facts.

[ Parent ]
63% of the electorate does not vote on foreign policy issues (0.00 / 0)
The figure is more like 25-30% normally, and the growing importance of pocketbook issues means that number is likely to drop.

But if you do, you're likely to be a little bit more high-information than those voting based on likeability and you're going to have noticed the important changes this week in the narrative.

And your polling proves nothing. We don't know how many of either subgroup planned to vote for him initially, whether those in the 63% will weigh-up foreign policy when deciding who to vote for or even whether the 63% perceive the trip as a neutral or even a negative thing. All it shows is that it didn't have a huge effect on the majority of the electorate. Which just doesn't matter, because all Democrats has a base of nearly 40% (McGovern got 37.5%).

Obama doesn't have to convince 50%+ of the electorate on every issue, he just has to win enough voters on each issue to get to 50%. And making 37% of voters more favourably disposed to you in one week is good work.

Also, why the hell does it matter what Petraeus says? He's a) a right-wing hack before he's a general and b) not the ruler of Iraq, and therefore not the final arbiter of what happens there. The photo is important entirely for political kabuki reasons. One would think you could muster the cynicism to understand that...

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Oh it did (0.00 / 0)
"All it shows is that it didn't have a huge effect on the majority of the electorate".

You see Obama went for the reasons I stated and the electorate decided he failed that mission 63 to 37.

Also from Rasmussen:

"In a separate survey this week, 45% said Obama is too inexperienced to be president."

That's a pretty high number and I doubt that the trip, especially considering his snub of the soldiers is going to help that number, In fact it will probably hurt his 'experience number. On the flip side I'm sure McCain is polling well above 50% on the experience question.

More Rasmussen:

"Slightly more than half (53%) of Americans in the new poll do not approve of candidates making statements contrary to U.S. government policy while visiting U.S. troops in a war zone."

So again this trip did not help him. And if he can't beat McCain on national security then he is ceding that to McCain which means he cedes conservative independents to McCain. Regardless of what you say about national security that hurts. and on the economy the last poll I say of likely voters Obama only had a three point lead on McCain. that is within the margin of error.

[ Parent ]
I proposed elsewhere 'Obamabats'. (0.00 / 0)
As opposed to 'Obamabots'. People who are driven batshit crazy by Obama. Just something about him I guess. I can't quite put my finger on what might be driving these people batshit crazy...hmmm...let me think about it a little more...
[ Parent ]
Why are Obamaskeptics (0.00 / 0)
always so hyperaware of Obama's race?

Yes, Obama's 'Black'. That's right. I had almost forgotten. Thanks for the reminder.

[ Parent ]
This phrase from Gallup's polling explanation is fantastic. (0.00 / 0)
Obama's particularly large leads over McCain in Friday and Saturday's tracking . . .

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109...

Gallup uses rolling averaging, using the combination of the three last days to achieve their daily published trend. Meaning that todays figures are still held down by Thursdays numbers. This means unless this trend disappears, (ie Sundays numbers are dismal) look for an even larger climb tomorrow.

In fact here is my prediction now: Obama by 9 in Gallup tomorrow.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

O'bouncing | 32 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox