Bounce?! We don't need no stinkin' bounce.

[orange]

From The Washington Independent

Presidential nominees typically get a bounce out of successful conventions, and Sen. Barack Obama's performance was a hit by any metric. (More on that later.) After a busy weekend, however, national polling shows that Obama got no bounce at all. Gallup:


Obama did not gain any additional support in the poll since his generally well-reviewed acceptance speech on Thursday night.

None. Zip. Zero. Remember, the Democratic National Convention broke several records for overall viewers. Day Two drew five times the ratings of the same day in 2004. Day Four, Obama's address, shattered convention records, topping ratings for "American Idol," the most-watched night of the Olympics and the Oscars. (The Oscars!) The speech thrilled delegates and was heralded across the spectrum -- including this striking praise from conservative Pat Buchanan. If the story ended there, Obama would have surely netted some increase in the polls.

Before the Mile High Speech sunk in at all, however, the McCain campaign dropped its bombshell news about Gov. Sarah Palin. People were shocked, riveted, excited and disconcerted. They were not thinking about Obama anymore. CNN's new poll, like Gallup, shows no bounce for Obama. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland explains that there were two bounces -- or maybe none:


The convention, and particularly Obama's speech, seems to be well-received. And the selection of Sarah Palin as the GOP running mate also seems to be well-received. So why is the race still a virtual tie? Probably because the two events created equal and opposite bounces assuming that either one created a bounce at all.

Now, maybe you'd like a slightly more definitive analysis from the person in charge of the poll, but Holland is candidly noting that tracking polls are inexact and the non-bounce is hard to read. If by "opposite bounces," however, he means that an equal number of supporters of each candidate switched places, that's the less likely explanation. More likely, the undecideds and soft conservatives -- who might have been temporarily swayed by Obama's big night -- stopped in their tracks with the Palin news. That's discouraging, naturally, for all those people who reflexively assume that Palin is hurting McCain. Take The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, who emphasizes that undecided voters claim they dislike the pick:

[A]mong the critical undecideds, the Palin pick made only 6 percent more likely to vote for McCain; and it made 31 percent less likely to vote for him. 49 percent said it would have no impact, and 15 percent remained unsure.

So they say. But survey interviews are a "performance of an ideal self," as the writer Alexander Provin explains so perfectly in a review of pollster John Zogby's new book. People may not want to admit -- to themselves, let alone pollsters -- that the running mate affects their vote, or that the simple addition of a woman to the GOP ticket is making them give McCain a second look. Most say the pick is irrelevant (49 percent) or bad (31 percent). Meanwhile, in the aggregate, the same voters appear to be sticking by McCain, defying the usual trends, after Obama's tremendously successful convention.

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3665/palin-deflates-obamas-bounce

cross-posted to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/palin-deflates-obamas-bou_b_122963.html


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE REPLY TO READERS: Several readers note that Obama did slightly improve his numbers over the course of the convention. That's true, but as the above links show, there was no post-convention bounce in national polls from Gallup or CNN. In other words, after Obama gave that amazing address, his support did not budge. That's the point I'm emphasizing -- not that the entire convention had no impact, or that the speech did nothing. (Maybe Obama will rise further as the Palin furor dies down.)

Also, kmac23va posts a great point -- "national polls mean zero in presidential politics," as Obama's aides say. That is certainly true, since an aggregate national poll focuses on a metric that is entirely different from how our elections are actually decided, through the electoral college. For that reason, I do try to avoid covering the national polls much -- and instead criticize their foibles -- but they can give a snapshoot of the national mood at key points, like after a convention or major debate.

Anyway, thanks to all for reading and rebutting....


And here are the links he refers to:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109903/Gallup-Daily-ObamaBiden-Ticket-Leads-Points.aspx
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/31/obama.mccain.poll/

[orange]

Herricane Sarah has washed out the Democratic Convention the way Hurricane Gustav is threatening the Republican.

[Adept Havelock]

[A]mong the critical undecideds, the Palin pick made only 6 percent more likely to vote for McCain; and it made 31 percent less likely to vote for him. 49 percent said it would have no impact, and 15 percent remained unsure.

:hmmm:

As close as I suspect this election will be, that's not a good development for the McCain camp.

[dirk digler]

First I wasn't expecting much of a bounce for Obama because this is the first time that the conventions have pretty much gone back to back.

But I think it is hard to argue there was no bounce, Obama on Tuesday was down 2 and then by Friday he was up 8 and now he is up 6.

It will be interesting to see what kind of bounce McCain gets.

[orange]

First I wasn't expecting much of a bounce for Obama because this is the first time that the conventions have pretty much gone back to back.

But I think it is hard to argue there was no bounce, Obama on Tuesday was down 2 and then by Friday he was up 8 and now he is up 6.

It will be interesting to see what kind of bounce McCain gets.

He made those gains in the two(?) days following the Biden announcement, then held steady (no bounce) after the speech.

[dirk digler]

He made those gains in the two(?) days following the Biden announcement, then held steady (no bounce) after the speech.

The Biden announcement was on Saturday so by Tuesday he was down 2. This according to the gallup poll.

He started an uptick on the Wednesday poll through Saturday.

On Aug 30 Gallup had him up by 8 and now it is 6

[whoman69]

Convention bounce always goes away, so its irrelevant. Its just a temporary bubble. There was about a 3.5 % bounce, but again irrelevant.

[beer bacon]

CBS poll just released shows Obama up 48-40, and a USA Today poll also just released shows him up 50-43.

Here are some internals from the USA Today Poll:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-poll-monday_N.htm

Who is seen as a strong and decisive leader? Before the convention McCain had an eight point advantage. Now voters see Obama as a more strong and decisive leader than McCain by a two point margin.

Who shares your values? Before the convention, voters saw Obama over McCain as someone who shared their values by a 6 point margin. Now they favor Obama by 13 points.

Who do voters believe will handle terrorism better? McCain still retains a nine point lead in this category, but it is down from a 22 point lead before the convention.

Who is better for the economy? Obama now has a 19 point lead on the economy.

[orange]

Melber has amended his story (also added to the main post above):

UPDATE REPLY TO READERS: Several readers note that Obama did slightly improve his numbers over the course of the convention. That's true, but as the above links show, there was no post-convention bounce in national polls from Gallup or CNN. In other words, after Obama gave that amazing address, his support did not budge. That's the point I'm emphasizing -- not that the entire convention had no impact, or that the speech did nothing. (Maybe Obama will rise further as the Palin furor dies down.)

Also, kmac23va posts a great point -- "national polls mean zero in presidential politics," as Obama's aides say. That is certainly true, since an aggregate national poll focuses on a metric that is entirely different from how our elections are actually decided, through the electoral college. For that reason, I do try to avoid covering the national polls much -- and instead criticize their foibles -- but they can give a snapshoot of the national mood at key points, like after a convention or major debate.

Anyway, thanks to all for reading and rebutting....

[kstater]

Also, kmac23va posts a great point -- "national polls mean zero in presidential politics," as Obama's aides say. That is certainly true, since an aggregate national poll focuses on a metric that is entirely different from how our elections are actually decided, through the electoral college. For that reason, I do try to avoid covering the national polls much -- and instead criticize their foibles -- but they can give a snapshoot of the national mood at key points, like after a convention or major debate.



That's what I don't get. Certain people keep clinging to these national polls being close, but by most accounts, this race isn't really close when it comes to the numbers that count in regards to the EC votes.

[kstater]

And looking at some of the current maps, McCain would have to win virtually all of the swing states to get the election.

[dirk digler]

That's what I don't get. Certain people keep clinging to these national polls being close, but by most accounts, this race isn't really close when it comes to the numbers that count in regards to the EC votes.

Now you have done it. jake will be along any second to post every state poll.

But I agree with you the race isn't as close as people make it out to be but with the conservative base energized now we will see if it tightens.

I have a feeling it will energize the far-right but independents will move towards Obama.

[beer bacon]

And CNN has it 49/48 and Zogby has McCain up...

This time next week, the polls will matter... because it will be after the Republican convention.

Zogby Interactive doesn't count. It doesn't count now. It won't count two weeks from now. It won't count the day before the election. Sorry :(

[dirk digler]

LMAO Right on cue

[dirk digler]

Really ****ing Funny.... The Messiah is barely winning...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Maybe you missed where I predicted you would show up :D

Now you have done it. jake will be along any second to post every state poll.

Relax man just having some fun

[kstater]

Really ****ing Funny.... The Messiah is barely winning...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Gotcha. McCain just has to win every big swing state to barely lose.

[Ultra Peanut]

Orange, why would a clinton supporter be behind two anti-choice ****wads?

And yeah, congratulations to McCain. He managed to get a cheap pop that negated a bounce that almost always fades away in time BY ITSELF. That'll really help his ground game, I guess.

[orange]

Orange, why would a clinton supporter be behind two anti-choice ****wads?

And yeah, congratulations to McCain. He managed to get a cheap pop that negated a bounce that almost always fades away in time BY ITSELF. That'll really help his ground game, I guess.

I'll answer that for you.

I don't believe - and NEVER have - that Choice should be the province of a Court Decision. This is a fundamental matter that deserves an airing in the political arena and a Democratic (i.e. voted) solution. Pro-choice forces were moving the country back in the '70s (yes, I was there) and a constitutional amendment was the goal. Roe v. Wade short-circuited the process, to the lasting detriment of the Democratic Party and the nation as a whole.

It's not a surprise that many working class Americans have voted against their best interests ever since; every election has boiled down to a referendum on abortion - just as YOU are trying to make this one. It's no wonder that the Republicans have never brought up an Anti-Abortion Amendment - it would eliminate half their brand.

Face the simple reality - the Anti-Abortion people are honestly and passionately committed to their beliefs. If in fact a person believes that Abortion = Murder I WOULDN'T EVER WANT THEM TO PUT SOME OTHER ISSUE AHEAD OF THAT.

So, it should follow that I would be happy to see Roe v. Wade overturned - and Choice as well as the broader Right To Privacy enshrined in a real law. One VOTED into place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for "he managed to get a cheap pop that negated a bounce that almost always fades away in time BY ITSELF," you're being ridiculous. Sarah Palin is a MASSIVELY popular choice among Republicans and will be increasingly so among independents, especially women. As the newness wears off and she shows her intelligence and abilities, initial uncertainties about her lack of experience will wear off.

Don't get wrapped up in the nonsense on leftie blogs where people are falling over themselves predicting she will drop out. These so-called scandals are chicken-feed. She tried to get to get her sleazebag ex-brother-in-law fired? The real question is why was this guy still on the force.

Firing a couple of people because they wouldn't get on the team? She was COMPLETELY within her rights to do so! At worst, her opponents will try to paint her as petty. Bill Clinton was never impeached because he/Hillary fired the White House Travel Agency; it caused no more than a momentary hiccup in his approval rating, and "Troopergate" won't amount to any more than that.

The attacks on Palin's teenage daughter - you can't really believe that can work out well for Democrats, can you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In sum, the Palin announcement was a political master-stroke. She's absolutely DOMINATED the news cycle for five days now and more to come. When's the last time you ever heard Obama's acceptance speech mentioned - this post is IT since early Friday, right? It was a masterstroke that was made available to McCain because Obama was too petty to make his own masterstroke - and I don't think I need to tell you what that should have been.

I will be voting for McCain/Palin because I don't trust Barack Obama (and I DO trust those around him to be crooked). In four years, we go back to the drawing board.

[ROYC75]

WTF? It's extremely close in the states... McCain was leading the RCP average last week... then the Dems had their convention... McCain just has to win the same states that Bush won - Iowa and New Mexico... and he wins.

There are a lot of toss up states..... McCain has his work cut out for him.

[Ultra Peanut]

Sarah Palin is a MASSIVELY popular choice among Republicans and will be increasingly so among independents, especially women. As the newness wears off and she shows her intelligence and abilities, initial uncertainties about her lack of experience will wear off.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Z4uIGZ5l-w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Z4uIGZ5l-w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I will be voting for McCain/Palin because I don't trust Barack Obama (and I DO trust those around him to be crooked). In four years, we go back to the drawing board.Yeah, man. There's just SOMETHING about him...

[Ultra Peanut]

WTF? It's extremely close in the states... McCain was leading the RCP average last week... then the Dems had their convention... McCain just has to win the same states that Bush won - Iowa and New Mexico... and he wins.
Obama wins all Kerry states 56.64%
McCain wins all Bush states 6.08%
Obama loses OH, wins election 32.17%
McCain loses OH, wins election 3.56%

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I don't see Obama getting any less than 300 electoral votes. Print it.

[orange]

Yeah, man. There's just SOMETHING about him...

Do I actually have to list the LIES?

FISA
NAFTA
Public Campaign Financing
...

Or should I just point out the MASSIVE disgust I have for being called a racist by some DICKHEAD who doesn't know ONE ****ING THING about me... all because I happened to oppose your candidate... which is SOP for the Obama campaign.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Do I actually have to list the LIES?

FISA
NAFTA
Public Campaign Financing
...

Or should I just point out the MASSIVE disgust I have for being called a racist by some DICKHEAD who doesn't know ONE ****ING THING about me... all because I happened to oppose your candidate... which is SOP for the Obama campaign.

STFU, racist.

[J Diddy]

Do I actually have to list the LIES?

FISA
NAFTA
Public Campaign Financing
...

Or should I just point out the MASSIVE disgust I have for being called a racist by some DICKHEAD who doesn't know ONE ****ING THING about me... all because I happened to oppose your candidate... which is SOP for the Obama campaign.


I don't think you're a racist I just think you're wrong.

[HolmeZz]

Get the **** out of here, orangedouche. You were spouting bullshit against Obama before FISA or the campaign financing stuff became issues, and Hillary was guilty of the same thing you're accusing Obama of in regards to NAFTA. You're almost as bad as CCW when it comes to revising history.

Somehow Hillary friggin' Clinton is truthworthy, but not Barack Obama. LMAO

[orange]

Hillary was guilty of the same thing you're accusing Obama of in regards to NAFTA. You're almost as bad as CCW when it comes to revising history.

No - she wasn't. You're just wrong. We can't get the damn news story from the Canadian newspaper anymore (without paying), but it doesn't say what you think it did.

Simply, some Canadian official dropped a line about Hillary's people saying behind closed doors that she didn't mean her stance on NAFTA. On that, we agree, right?

What the Obama camp ignored was the rest of the story. The CBC (? - Canadian Broadcasting Corp?) reporter was outraged by the duplicity of the whole thing and went to investigate it. His investigation led him to - NO EVIDENCE of Clinton doing that, but a memo clearly stating that OBAMA'S people were. And THAT'S what they reported - honestly and against their initial thoughts.

Since the primaries ended, Obama has PERSONALLY admitted to Fortune Magazine in an interview WHICH HE HAS NEVER DENIED that his rhetoric on NAFTA was a load of hot air.

Get the **** out of here, orangedouche. You were spouting bullshit against Obama before FISA or the campaign financing stuff became issues,

As for this, I was always a Clinton supporter in the primaries. What of it? I still could have voted the party line but his campaign's actions - and more particularly the actions of Obamatrons like ultra peanut on this and other sites - have driven me away. I've always been upfront about this - I doubt you can find a single post where I implied I liked Obama. I was on the fence (really more uninvolved and uninterested) until the talking points memo in South Carolina shoved me off, so I'm pretty sure I never posted anything before I had gone negative about him.

[J Diddy]

No - she wasn't. You're just wrong. We can't get the damn news story from the Canadian newspaper anymore (without paying), but it doesn't say what you think it did.

Simply, some Canadian official dropped a line about Hillary's people saying behind closed doors that she didn't mean her stance on NAFTA. On that, we agree, right?

What the Obama camp ignored was the rest of the story. The CBC (? - Canadian Broadcasting Corp?) reporter was outraged by the duplicity of the whole thing and went to investigate it. His investigation led him to - NO EVIDENCE of Clinton doing that, but a memo clearly stating that OBAMA'S people were. And THAT'S what they reported - honestly and against their initial thoughts.

Since the primaries ended, Obama has PERSONALLY admitted to Fortune Magazine in an interview WHICH HE HAS NEVER DENIED that his rhetoric on NAFTA was a load of hot air.



As for this, I was always a Clinton supporter in the primaries. What of it? I still could have voted the party line but his campaign's actions - and more particularly the actions of Obamatrons like ultra peanut on this and other sites - have driven me away. I've always been upfront about this - I doubt you can find a single post where I implied I liked Obama. I was on the fence (really more uninvolved and uninterested) until the talking points memo in South Carolina shoved me off, so I'm pretty sure I never posted anything before I had gone negative about him.

so you're voting for McCain?

[Ultra Peanut]

orange doesn't care about black people.

[J Diddy]

orange doesn't care about black people.

ROFL

we need us some kanye

[orange]

so you're voting for McCain?

Yes, I believe so. Although there's still time for the Republicans to screw up royally and send me home....

[Ultra Peanut]

MR WEST, MR WEST!

[Ultra Peanut]

Yes, I believe so. Although there's still time for the Republicans to screw up royally and send me home....If picking a scandal-plagued superfundy for their #2 spot isn't enough, I think they're safe.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ba-6niOoR_U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ba-6niOoR_U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[J Diddy]

Yes, I believe so. Although there's still time for the Republicans to screw up royally and send me home....


I just don't understand...

Why would you vote for someone who is the exact opposite of who you wanted to win.

I mean shouldn't you be voting for the person who's gonna follow the path you believe in.

I doubt McCain is the the closest to what Hillary stands for. Sounds risky to me to bet the opposite because hillary didn't get the party nomination.

[orange]

Scandal plagued?!

You mean like Biden's sons wrapped up tight with asbestos lawyers? ... or Obama in the pocket of the ethanol industry?

[J Diddy]

Scandal plagued?!

You mean like Biden's sons wrapped up tight with asbestos lawyers? ... or Obama in the pocket of the ethanol industry?

If he's wrapped in asbestos he's gonna die

Wanna talk about a failure in the life of candidate, being not wrapped in the money maker that is big oil. Settling for corn oil.

[orange]

I just don't understand...

Why would you vote for someone who is the exact opposite of who you wanted to win.

I mean shouldn't you be voting for the person who's gonna follow the path you believe in.

I doubt McCain is the the closest to what Hillary stands for. Sounds risky to me to bet the opposite because hillary didn't get the party nomination.

Because both Houses of Congress will be firmly in Democratic hands. And McCain is NOT Bush. He has shown an ability to get important things done with Democrats. And a little waste-cutting and corruption-fighting will go a long way to making the four years palatable. I believe the Dems in Congress will be better fighting McCain than going along with Obama.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I should add that McCain is not "the exact opposite" from me as you put it. While I would rate myself very liberal on social and civil liberties issues, I'm much more middle-of-the-road on economics and foreign policy. Kind of like the DLC (who could that be, I wonder?)

[Ultra Peanut]

Because both Houses of Congress will be firmly in Democratic hands. And McCain is NOT Bush. He has shown an ability to get important things done with Democrats. And a little waste-cutting and corruption-fighting will go a long way to making the four years palatable.Holy Christ. You actually buy into the "Maverick!" image.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N1GjgEaLnYw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N1GjgEaLnYw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[J Diddy]

Because both Houses of Congress will be firmly in Democratic hands. And McCain is NOT Bush. He has shown an ability to get important things done with Democrats. And a little waste-cutting and corruption-fighting will go a long way to making the four years palatable.

I believe the Dems in Congress will be better fighting McCain than going along with Obama.


do you realize that mccain voted with bush's agenda 90% of the time.

you're voting for 4 more years

[orange]

I was going to paste in a chunk of McCain's Wiki bio, but there's just too much needed to make it readable. Go look at it for yourself.

And you might check that "voted with bush 90% of the time" campaign soundbite with factcheck.com while you're at it.

[J Diddy]

I was going to paste in a chunk of McCain's Wiki bio, but there's just too much needed to make it readable. Go look at it for yourself.

And you might check that "voted with bush 90% of the time" campaign soundbite with factcheck.com while you're at it.

no need to I've got my candidate, wanted barack to run since the last dnc and been following him since

I agree with him most of the time and is a skilled politician which is what we need worldwide

[orange]

Well, I think he's probably going to win (barely), so I'll just have to hope I'm wrong about him.

[J Diddy]

Well, I think he's probably going to win (barely), so I'll just have to hope I'm wrong about him.


I think we're all hoping your wrong about him