No post-convention bounce for the Democrats
After a successful convention in Denver, Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden watched their poll numbers stay the same. Meantime, a weird weekend for news and weather clouds the prospects for Republicans at their convention this week.
The Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., resumes its regular programming today now that Hurricane Gustav has run its course. Republicans generally shut down their convention yesterday, Sept. 1, except for procedural matters and a joint appeal by first lady Laura Bush and would-be first lady Cindy McCain for relief funds for Gustav's victims.
Sen. Barack Obama and his Democratic running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, came out of their party's Denver convention Thursday night, Aug. 29, with much momentum. It was blunted the following day by Arizona Sen. John McCain's surprise selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate — which dominated media coverage for 24 hours — and then on the weekend by Gustav.
There are some strange things taking place in this in-between period:
-
Obama-Biden should have gained a generous "bounce" in national polls after their highly successful Denver convention. But they did not. First data made it apper they might gain 10 percentage points or more on McCain-Palin. Normally, that bounce would have lasted until the end of the Repubican convention, a week later, with numbers settling out afterward.
But by Monday, major national polls had Obama-Biden leading McCain-Palin by no more than 4 percentage points; one had them dead even. Polls showed Biden contributing zero to Obama's poll standing and Palin in 48 hours giving McCain a two-point upward bump.
-
Voters seemed generally to agree with Republicans' decision to pare back their convention to the bare essentials for the first couple days. The response to Gustav by President Bush, FEMA, and the five Republican governors of Gulf Coast states appeared to be prompt and efficient — in contrast to the response to Katrina three years ago. So Republicans seemed to benefit from the storm while Obama and Biden sunk below visiblity with their own campaigning.
Republicans had been grappling with "the Bush-Cheney problem." That is, how would President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney affect public opinion during their scheduled Monday appearances in St. Paul? The storm took Bush to the southeast and both of them off the program. Bush has announced he will not seek a makeup date for his rained-out Monday appearance.
Thus Bush will be the first president since Lyndon Johnson in 1968, not seeking reelection and retreating during the convention to his Texas ranch, to be absent from his party's national convention.
-
It was disclosed Monday that Palin's 17-year-old daughter is five months pregnant. She will have the baby and marry her boyfriend. The pregnancy apparently was well known in Alaska. Meanwhile, probers discovered that Palin's husband had a DWI violation some 24 years ago. Neither revelation is likely to affect the campaign one iota. Obama, following disclosure of Palin's daughter's pregnancy, immediately called for the issue to be off-limits.
We shall see what "bounce" the GOP ticket gains after McCain's and Palin's convention speeches Wednesday and Thursday nights. Speculation about Palin has only heightened during this in-between storm period. Initial reaction to her selection was enthusiastic among religious conservatives. GOP fundraising boomed. Male voters, more than female, expressed strong support for her. I suspect this was due mainly to her tough-minded, independent posture in Alaska and her blue-collar background. Gender and other demographic data will begin to mean something only after the convention ends and voters have taken greater measure of Palin.
All normal factors, including a strong tide toward change, apprehension about the economy, dissatisfaction with the Iraq intervention, and Democratic strength in congressional races — not to mention the successful Democratic convention in Denver — should have provided Obama-Biden a double-digit lead by now. Obama-Biden have not made big mistakes which would cause them to be running even with McCain-Palin. McCain-Palin have done nothing remarkable to explain their parity with Obama-Biden — except for McCain's selection of Palin, which at most accounts for a small upward GOP blip.
What is going on here? Why are Obama-Biden running less strongly than they should? Why are McCain-Palin hanging in there? I do not accept the argument that beneath-the-surface racism is at work or that Sen. Hillary Clinton supporters are on-the-fence or moving to McCain.
The only argument that seems convincing is that voters are just plain hanging back because they do not yet have a full sense of the candidates. It may take one or more candidate debates before things begin to clarify. I'll write again after Wednesday night's convention session with an update.
Tribute to Ed Guthman
Ed Guthman, a Seattleite, died Sunday night in Los Angeles at 89. After World War II service, he was a reporter for many years for The Seattle Times, where he won a Pultizer prize for exposing McCarthyism directed against University of Washington professor Melvin Rader.
As an undergraduate, I took a course from Rader precisely because of Guthman's defense of him and, as a young Seattle Times reporter, found Guthman, a staff star, offering his friendship to me. Later, Guthman would become Robert Kennedy's press secretary, editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, and national editor of the Los Angeles Times. I encountered him frequently over the years in all those roles. His e-mails left no doubt where he stood on public issues. He was a man of integrity, professionally accomplished, personally modest, always engaged, and one of our city's most distinguished natives.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!











Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Sep 1, 10:44 p.m. Inappropriate
USA Today
CBS =
As for Palin's troubles not affecting the race -- it points to a seriously disorganized McCain campaign.
NYT =
Posted Tue, Sep 2, 8:19 a.m. Inappropriate
The expectations: of a big lead for messiah, Obama are certainly disappointing to his followers. I'd suggest that people are beginning to understand that an ultra-liberal president and vice-president may not be best for America or for the world especially after Russa's actions against Georgia and the word getting around how Obama's friends and associates are mostly extreme radicals.
Posted Tue, Sep 2, 12:14 p.m. Inappropriate
CBS poll calls it a bounce with an 8 point lead for the democrats, here.
USA Today calls it a bounce with a 7 point lead for the democrats, here.
Gallup doesn't use the word bounce, but it shows the democrats with an 8 point lead and above 50% for the first time, here. Rasmussen, a similar tracking poll to gallup, has a narrower democratic advantage, but also shows a bounce, here.
What gives?
Posted Tue, Sep 2, 3:27 p.m. Inappropriate
Coming out of the 1988 Dem. convention, Dukakis had an 18-point lead over Bush---and lost. After the 1968 Dem. convention, Humphrey trailed Nixon by 15 points---and almost won. My own suggestion: We should watch polls more seriously after both party conventions have concluded, and things have settled for about a week, before we begin to reach conclusions about the candidates' standings.
I do remain perplexed, however, that Obama-Biden by now are not leading by double digits in just about every poll. That normally would be expected, given Dems' advantages this year and a successful Denver convention---and the fact that Republicans have not yet gotten their convention "bounce," if any.
Posted Tue, Sep 2, 6:58 p.m. Inappropriate
He is a scam. A snake-oil salesman. No substance. Groomed by Ted Killer Kennedy and the Chicago mafia who hoped to keep under raps his associations with racists, domestic terrorists, crooks and how the guy has accomplished zero even with his prestigious law degree from Havard. He is a pampered, confused individual whose arrogance and self importance are finally making people question everything about him.
Posted Fri, Sep 5, 7:31 a.m. Inappropriate
Other Polls - released before Van Dyk's posting - confirmed this bounce on the eve of the Republcian Convention (and two days after Palin's annoncement):
The Hotline Poll 8/31: Obama/Biden +9
CBS News Poll 8/31: Obama/Biden +8
USA Today Poll 8/31: Obama/Biden +7
The historic average for both first convention bounces and Democratic convention bounces is just over 6%. Obama seems to have done about that and maybe slightly better. It generally takes four or five full days after the close of the convention to reach the apex of the bounce. This is the first time in quite a while that the party's have had back to back conventions and the Palin announcement and the quick march onset of the GOP gathering likely truncated the full impact Obama/Biden could otherwise have been expected to enjoy.
The historic average bounces for both second conventions and GOP conventions are between 5% and 6%. Given that, the McCain/Palin bounce should erase these gains and put us back in the dead heat we were in as Denver began. But to state that there was no bounce for the Democrats is just flatly untrue. To say that that none of the public polls showing a bounce were available the night of Monday 9/1 is also flatly untrue. Van Dyk should be ashamed of himself.
Posted Fri, Sep 5, 7:52 a.m. Inappropriate
This very question is the point of departure for many investigating the possibility that racial bias is restraining the Obama led ticket from where it might be had the Democrats nominated a White Male.
This seems to me a live possibility and well worth exploring, but let me suggest few others:
1. We just aren't a double-digit country. Given how close 2000 and 2004 were many believe the country has a very deep ideological cleavage. (!988 was closer than remembered, and 1992 a 3-way race that may have been quite close if it was head-to-head.)
2. Modern campaign persuasion, research, and segmentation techniques have become so sophisticated that elections are almost always close if the candidates are fully funded. Even if you look down ballot at Congressional and Senate races, fully funded opponents generally result in close elections. (And if you think about it, Dole went down to Clinton so heavy after running a shockingly underfunded campaign.)
3. The election is following the standard pattern for change elections. In 1980, people were sick of Carter and the Democrats, but unsure Reagan had enough on the ball to be Commander-in-chief. The election was very close until the last few days. People decided Reagan could handle it and he won big. By 1988 people were sick of Reagan and the Republicans, but again unsure if Dukakis was up to the job. The campaign see-sawed, but they decided not, and he lost. In 2000 people were sick of Clinton and the Democrats but not sure W. was up to snuff. W. fumbled it and we all know what happened.
Based on this pattern, it seems to likely that you will not see outside the margin leads for wither candidate until either (1) Obama screws up and people start to turn away, (2) The date grows near. If Obama makes it over the bar (including people deciding that black can be Presidential) he may win quite handily. If he and the GOP convince the public he is too "inexperienced," "unpatriotic," "egomaniacal," or in some other way disqualified, he'll lose.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.