pageok
pageok
pageok
Are there hints of an Obama bounce after all?--

Yesterday's Gallup Tracking Poll showed McCain up by an insignificant 2% (46% to 44%). Today showed a 3-point swing in just one day, to Obama up an insignificant 1% (45% to 44%). Today's release is an average of polls done on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday.

While it may be just random variation, a 3% jump in a 3-day average in one day suggests that Obama polled about 8-10% better in the Tuesday polling (added today to the 3-day Tracking Poll) than in the Saturday poll (dropped today from the Tracking Poll). That difference should be statistically significant, since both daily polls were done with about 900 respondents.

We will have to wait a few more days to see if this difference is real or a 1-day aberration. After all, they average these polls for a reason.

mls (www):
On the other hand, Rasmussen has McCain and Obama basically tied the last two days, while the two weeks before Obama was ahead 1-3 points. Frankly, the movement in these polls seems to have little rhyme or reason.
8.27.2008 3:56pm
JosephSlater (mail):
I think if these daily tracking polls show my guy losing a few points, then they are meaningless (too early, unreliable, prone to fluctuation, biased, oversampling some groups and undersampling others, etc.). But if they show my guy picking up a few points, they show the BIG MO, that will carry him to the White House baby!

I have a similar analysis of whether to look at national polling date vs. swing state polls, and which demographic groups are most important to watch, by the way.
8.27.2008 3:59pm
GV:
Why do national polls get so much press? All that matters are the polls in swing states.
8.27.2008 4:00pm
a guest:
The real story is that the candidates are in the same position that they were (1) before the Veep announcement, and (2) before the convention started. This is a very weak showing.
8.27.2008 4:00pm
Justin (mail):
Regarding your post about African-American responsibility, prior. I understand you are simply being objective, and thus are not implying anything regarding yourself. Indeed, I tend to agree objectively with the point.

But doesn't that say something sort of noxious about white America? I assume that the bump that Obama would achieve would not be from African-American people, who are already behind Obama 100%. Instead, the bump would come from white people. And note, the bump would come from white people who disagree with how African-Americans take responsibility for themselves - not from white people who simply disagree with racial preferences and income equality policies, which are supported by a coalition that includes a majority of African-Americans but is simply a minority of that coalition, which is, I'd imagine, plurality-white itself.

But why would white people approve more of Obama for arguing that African Americans need to take more responsibility for their actions? Maybe part of it is political courage, but there's certainly a ton of ways to do that - Koch's famous support of the death penalty while running for mayor is one. It also can't be simply a matter of simple agreement with the idea, for the same reason - also, none of this comes with any idea or need for a polich change.

Instead, it says that white people would support Obama for either, to some degree, rejecting his own race, or alternatively, for criticizing African Americans as a group. That seems to show some antithapy, some serious racial tension, coming from whites towards blacks, even as the racial inequality in America is clearly to the advantage of whites.

Such below-the-radar racism is concerning, and yet true. It makes your idea to Obama somewhat profound, but in a dark way. And it is all too clear that Americans cannot start patting themselves on the back for a post-racial society.
8.27.2008 4:00pm
Justin (mail):
The difference between the Obama and the Rassmussen tracking polls can also be attributed to simple methodology and demographics. The dropped Gallup poll was a Saturday poll. Weekend polls tend to get a different demographic than weekday polls. Oddly, those polls tend to favor Democrats, but a lot of that has to do with the fact that Republicans go to Church on Sundays.

Of course, whether there's any significant different, and what that difference is, is unclear.
8.27.2008 4:06pm
Anderson (mail):
All that matters are the polls in swing states.

The Obama campaign certainly agrees:

We tried to get Plouffe to react to a spate of national polls showing a tightening race.

"All we care about is these 18 states," he said. He repeated, with emphasis, that the campaign does not care about national polling. Instead, the campaign's own identification, registration and canvassing efforts provide the data he uses to determine where to invest money and resources.


Look for McCain's next ad: "Obama doesn't care about America."

(Various other interesting observations by David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, at the link.)
8.27.2008 4:08pm
wolfefan (mail):
Hi Jim -

Just an FYI that the link to Althouse's blog a couple of posts below this one actually links you right here to Volokh...
8.27.2008 4:15pm
Duffy Pratt (mail):

After all, they average these polls for a reason.


Yes, to make sure that what could be pseudo-scientific is actually voodoo.
8.27.2008 4:19pm
Constantin:
And it is all too clear that Americans cannot start patting themselves on the back for a post-racial society.

No kidding. When one racial group plans to vote for a member of their race by a margin of 23-1, there's a problem indeed.
8.27.2008 4:33pm
Serendipity:
Is it REALLY a problem Constantin? Haven't all white voters voted a member of their own raace nearly 100% of the time in every presidential election up to now? Additionally, I don't really recall blacks voting en masse for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Shirley Chisolm.
8.27.2008 4:43pm
matthewccr (mail):
No kidding. When one racial group plans to vote for a member of their race by a margin of 23-1, there's a problem indeed.

For real - I can't believe white people have been doing that for hundreds of years in this country. For shame.

Or were you talking about men? (Oh, I guess not, men aren't a race)
8.27.2008 4:44pm
Anderson (mail):
When one racial group plans to vote for a member of their race by a margin of 23-1, there's a problem indeed.

What was the margin on Kerry? 88% to 11%?

Seems like a relatively small rise in black votes for Obama, actually.
8.27.2008 4:45pm
Angus:
I don't know what the obsession is about "bounces." In the current polarized atmosphere, I don't expect any bounce from either convention. 2004 saw the same thing -- zero bounce for Democrats or Republicans. Even in years where there has been a bounce, it's more along the lines of 4-5 points than the 15 point craziness McCain's camp is spinning.

According to Gallup, the only two candidates to get a double digit bounce since 1964 were Carter in 1980 and Clinton in 1996.
8.27.2008 4:45pm
AntonK (mail):
You mean "Are there Hints of an Obama Bounce after 3 straight days of fawning coast-to-coast coverage by the DNC's primary PR arms: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and all their national and local affiliates?"
8.27.2008 4:52pm
James Lindgren (mail):
Justin,

Yes. I mostly agree. Part of Barack Obama's appeal to whites -- and a big reason why he is favored to win -- is that he comes across as a post-racial figure who doesn't make whites feel uncomfortable.

Obama's initially too evenhanded treatment of Rev. Wright was a missed opportunity to accomplish the same thing without seeming to reach out gratuitously to make a political point.

I actually don't think he will do what I mentioned at this stage. But if he is behind going into the last debate, I think his advisers will press him to do so. We'll see.
8.27.2008 5:01pm
Hoosier:
Justin:

Instead, it says that white people would support Obama for either, to some degree, rejecting his own race, or alternatively, for criticizing African Americans as a group.

Third option: They agree with the policy implications of his analysis? Or am I just being another Typical White Person?

Anderson:

You point about a white Democratic candidate polling close to 90% reflects my thoughts on this: African Americans may go from 90% Democratic to 94% Democratic in this election. Not a big deal.

The question is whether they will turn out in greater numbers for a black candidate than for a white candidate from the same party. So it may come down to a matter of motivation. I suspect that the Af-Am percentage of the total vote will rise over four years ago. Despite the fact that I'm voting McCain, I don't see this as a bad thing at all. But the small percentage of blacks in the nation as a whole means that Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will have to be very close for this to make a difference. Right?
8.27.2008 5:16pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
This will come back to bite:

"America's chickensssssss have come home to rooooooooooooost!"

No matter how much Barry wants it to go away.
8.27.2008 5:22pm
KeithK (mail):

Why do national polls get so much press? All that matters are the polls in swing states.


national polls matter because national perceptions of the candidates drive the state races to a degree. If Candidate A shows (statistically significant) gains in the national polling then it's likely he will show gains in the swing states. That's both because the national polls have some swing state component (or are intended to) and because the results influence people's perceptions.
8.27.2008 5:37pm
Curious Passerby (mail):
We political junkies have heard it all, but when middle America hears about buddy Ayers bombing the Capitol, The commie mentor and the god damn America pastor, the Indonesian upbringing and the fact he thinks there are 57 states, BHO's gonna be a Dukakis or a McGovern.
8.27.2008 5:42pm
wfjag:

According to Gallup, the only two candidates to get a double digit bounce since 1964 were Carter in 1980 and Clinton in 1996.


True, and Carter lost, and Clinton only won a plurality. Still, typically a candidate picks up around a 5 to 7% bounce from a convention and some bounce from a VP pick. So far, BHO appears not to have benefitted from either. The best news for BHO is that the polls don't appear to support concluding that McCain is picking up -- rather, it looks like a long-term shedding of support by BHO as more attention is focused on his policies and proposals, and away from personality.

BHO will probably pick up some Hillary supporters' support due to her speech. But, then comes the roll call -- re-opening the resentment -- and Bill's speech, and that Bill won't attend BHO's speech Thurs. might. So, the Clinton "endorsement" and call for "unity" begins to look tepid.

Finally, there will be BHO making an acceptance speech in front of a faux Greek temple -- and, the "lunch pail Democrats" in places like Ohio, Michigan, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, who supported Hillary will get a great visual to recall when allegations about BHO being "elitist" are made.

Unless McCain has a "Macaca Moment" like former Sen. Allen of VA did, I don't see BHO getting back the voters he's shedding. And, with Sen. Biden, there's always the chance he'll have a "Macaca Moment" (or, start talking about being the first person in his family to go to college, coming from a family of coal-miners, or other truth-challenged events). So, instead of a "bounce", it may be that the issue becomes whether BHO or JSM picks up the voters BHO is now shedding, or whether they stay home (or vote for Bob Barr).
8.27.2008 5:52pm
Lonely Capitalist (mail):
Indonesian upbringing

The 234,000,000 people of Indonesia would be very angry to hear that an upbringing in their country would be a negative to American voters.
8.27.2008 5:54pm
Curious Passerby (mail):
The 234,000,000 people of Indonesia...

get how many votes?
8.27.2008 5:57pm
Oren:
CP, the fine people of Indonesia don't have to have votes in the American system for it to be rude for you to insinuate that an upbringing in their country is, of itself, a negative quality.
8.27.2008 6:24pm
Justin (mail):
Hoosier, I directly addressed "Third Option" in my post. Thanks.
8.27.2008 6:39pm
Nunzio:
I give Obama credit for addressing head-on some issues affecting blacks. Almost 70% of black kids are born to unmarried parents (25% for white, which is also a very high number). It's hardly racist to say this is a problem but someone like Obama (who's dad walked out on him when he was a baby) has some credibility here that white politicians just won't have.

Since the Democrats are usually the ones who want government to intervene into these social areas, it would be pretty irresponsible not to confront this issue. But until Obama, they really haven't.
8.27.2008 6:59pm
Anderson (mail):
But the small percentage of blacks in the nation as a whole means that Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will have to be very close for this to make a difference. Right?

Agreed. Tho by all expectations, Ohio is *going* to be that close. Like, Oprah should move to Cincinatti right now.

Also interesting is the prospect of a surprise state like GA or NC breaking for Obama. Bob Barr may suck a few votes away from McCain, which + increased Dem turnout might give us a Deep South Shocker. (Not that I am betting my children's college funds on that happening, n.b.)
8.27.2008 7:41pm
Anderson (mail):
Finally, there will be BHO making an acceptance speech in front of a faux Greek temple

Wfjag, spit out the Kool-Aid, okay?

I have yet to see anything like a McCain number of "gaffes" from the Obama campaign. I mean, right now McCain is reduced to out-&-out lying (the "tiny Iran" commercial). How much better is it going to get for McCain?
8.27.2008 7:44pm
Hoosier:
"Justin :
Hoosier, I directly addressed "Third Option" in my post. Thanks."

No you didn't. You dismissed it. (cf. "It also can't be simply a matter of simple agreement with the idea, for the same reason - also, none of this comes with any idea or need for a polich change. ") That's simply a statement of your opinion, backed by nothing.

Why not *address* it now?
8.27.2008 8:03pm
Lord Nazh (mail) (www):

I mean, right now McCain is reduced to out-&-out lying (the "tiny Iran" commercial). How much better is it going to get for McCain?

What lies exactly? (curious)
8.27.2008 10:30pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
"What lies exactly?"

See here.
8.27.2008 11:12pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
curious:

but when middle America hears about …


What do you think is going to happen when middle America hears about how McCain left his kids and disfigured wife to run off with a beer heiress barely half his age (video)? Who he had been cheating with for months while living with his first wife? And how he then got a marriage license for Cindy while still married to Carol?

Then again, maybe that pesky liberal media will keep doing what they've been doing so far: almost never mention it. After all, it's much more relevant to spend a few days obsessing about the adultery of someone who isn't actually running for president.
8.27.2008 11:21pm
Psalm91 (mail):
"You mean "Are there Hints of an Obama Bounce after 3 straight days of fawning coast-to-coast coverage by the DNC's primary PR arms: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and all their national and local affiliates?""

What networks how you been watching? Most of the coverage has been dominated by critical snarking commentators. Not to mention the speeches which Fox cut away from (how convenient that Fox won the coin toss for the job of censor).
8.27.2008 11:59pm
Chester White (mail):

The Gallup Poll is of registered voters, not likely voters.

It is therefore meaningless.
8.28.2008 12:03am
Syd Henderson (mail):
It's not meaningless. You just have to figure our how to interpret it.

I don't think the likely voter polls are that great in this particular election, either.
8.28.2008 2:55am
CRW:

You mean "Are there Hints of an Obama Bounce after 3 straight days of fawning coast-to-coast coverage by the DNC's primary PR arms: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and all their national and local affiliates?"

ABC might not be all that friendly towards the DNC after the treatment of ABC producer Asa Eslocker although it is curious that what was a top story at the ABC website earlier today and which embarrassed the DNC has now been relegated to rather minor status.
8.28.2008 2:58am
Brian Mac:

What do you think is going to happen when middle America hears about how McCain left his kids and disfigured wife to run off with a beer heiress barely half his age...Then again, maybe that pesky liberal media will keep doing what they've been doing so far: almost never mention it.

Yeah, if only that damn media would make this election about character and biography, Obama would walk it!
8.28.2008 8:24am
completelyofftopic:
jukeboxgrad,

Did you read any of the comments from your link - Tapper is getting torn up a bit there. Obama called the threat posed by Iran (and several other rogue countries) "tiny", in comparison to the threat that the Soviet Union posed during the cold war.

Many of us believe that the McCain ad correctly interprets Obama's meaning. I mean, read his quote and then put yourself in Iran's shoes - are you a little insulted... or a lot insulted. Generally, it is a bad idea to refer to rogue states as tiny - it tends to piss them off and then they do things to prove you wrong.

Imagine a football coach, a week before the Super Bowl saying, "Their offensive line is tiny in comparison to the teams we played in the Playoffs, so I really don't think we need to worry about them..." Think that clipping would be posted in the opposing locker room?

Obama is careless with his words... especially when talking about Iran for some reason. Loose lips are scary in a senator, but they are dangerous in a president. Now, let the attacks on Bush's loose lips begin... and thereby prove my point about how bad loose lips are.
8.28.2008 9:34am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
brian:

if only that damn media would make this election about character and biography, Obama would walk it!


Indeed, if the media showed nearly as much interest in McCain's adultery as they did in Edwards'.

The media is also not terribly interested in talking about McCain's long, close personal relationship (video) with someone who became a convicted felon and ended up costing the taxpayers $125 billion. Rezko has a long way to go before he catches up with Keating's achievements.

That's also a story about "character and biography."
8.28.2008 9:55am
wfjag:
Anderson: Read completelyofftopic's comment, above.

I find it amusing that progressives now resort to O'Reillyisms. BHO has to get the "lunch pail Democrats" votes, or he looses Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and likely several other states. In the past few months, several "safe" blue states have moved into either only "leaning" or "toss up" categories as BHO shed support. The only 2 demographic groups BHO hasn't been shedding support in are African-Americans and 18 to 29 year old voters. Neither of those have traditionally voted Republican. So, all BHO is doing is holding his own in a couple of traditional Democrat bases.

BHO's "gaffes" -- remember the "clinging" to their guns and religion comment he made in San Fran? Now, add that to the visual of BHO before his faux Greek temple. The rap on BHO is that he's another Democratic elitist. It's the visuals, stupid.
8.28.2008 10:14am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
completelyofftopic:

Did you read any of the comments from your link - Tapper is getting torn up a bit there.


Sorry, but I'm not interested in analyzing 340 comments. If you think there's something substantive in there, you should tell us what it is.

Obama called the threat posed by Iran (and several other rogue countries) "tiny", in comparison to the threat that the Soviet Union posed during the cold war.


Indeed. And no rational person can claim he's wrong. We are now the most powerful military force that has ever existed in the history of the world. We spend more on arms than the rest of the world combined. Nevertheless, the GOP's corporate overseers have reaped billions in war profits by inciting irrational bedwetters like you.

Many of us believe that the McCain ad correctly interprets Obama's meaning


Thanks for the laugh. When even Tom Maguire admits that McCain is using "distortions," that's pretty damning.

it is a bad idea to refer to rogue states as tiny - it tends to piss them off


You mean it's kind of like saying "bring them on?"

Anyway, it's nice to know that your idea of a strong, self-confident policy toward Iran is to make sure that we don't say anything "to piss them off." That shows a lot of spine on your part.

Loose lips are scary in a senator, but they are dangerous in a president


Indeed. We certainly wouldn't want a president who has a long track record of losing his temper and saying things he later regrets.
8.28.2008 10:26am
Brian Mac:

Indeed, if the media showed nearly as much interest in McCain's adultery as they did in Edwards'.

I know, you'd think that it happened a generation ago!


The media is also not terribly interested in talking about McCain's long, close personal relationship (video) with someone who became a convicted felon and ended up costing the taxpayers $125 billion.

Even more flagrant media bias! They act as though he'd been exonerated by an ethics inquiry!
8.28.2008 10:27am
Hoosier:
completelyofftopic: I do see your point, and the coach analogy appeals to a Notre Dame alumnus. Naturally.

But my understanding of Obama's comment is that he called the threat "tiny" (in comparison), not that he implied that the nation itslef was insignificant.

I suppose you want to avoid using phrases like "tiny" threat when discussing nuclear weapons. And one can argue about the rationality of Ahmadinejad, as opposed to, say, Brezhnev. But it's important to understand what candidates are saying.

I didn't like the dishonesty of the "100 years" quote that Obama used to throw around. And I don't want to engage in the same thing to him. (I can't say whether the McCain add distorts the quote or not. I saw the add only once, before I knew there was debate about the use of "tiny." So I don't recall. Need to watch it on the 'Tube when I have a chance.)
8.28.2008 10:28am
Hoosier:
Now, add that to the visual of BHO before his faux Greek temple. The rap on BHO is that he's another Democratic elitist. It's the visuals, stupid.

Yeah. I just don't get why his campaign managers thought that would be a good idea. I'm willing to grant that the symbolism is meant to evoke the neo-classicism of DC, and not to imply that BO is a Greek God. But that is the real stumper: Do you run a campaign for the presidency by trying to link your candidate with the image of Washington? Isn't this a no-no?
8.28.2008 10:31am
Hoosier:
Nevertheless, the GOP's corporate overseers have reaped billions in war profits by inciting irrational bedwetters like you.

That's just partisan trash. Come on, juke, you can do better.
8.28.2008 10:32am
Hoosier:
Sorry--I just watched the Obama speech in question again.

He did say that the countries were tiny, but in a context that still--I think--implies he discussing the threat they pose, and not their significance as nations.
8.28.2008 10:39am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
jag:

or he looses Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia


I wonder where you get your facts from. No one ever projected that Obama would win WV. Yes, OH is a close race. PA is not that close. The last time McCain showed a lead in a poll there was in April. And in MI, McCain has not led in a poll since May.

all BHO is doing is holding his own in a couple of traditional Democrat bases.


All Obama is doing is leading the race in almost every national poll taken in the last three months. RCP lists 58 polls taken since 6/1. Obama leads in this many of those polls: 52. And McCain has shown a lead of more than 5% on this many occasions: zero. Not bad, considering the fact that a black man named Barack Obama is running against a war hero.

the visual of BHO before his faux Greek temple


I guess you're talking about "the visual" that looks a lot like the visual that Bush used. IOKIYAR.
8.28.2008 11:24am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
brian:

you'd think that it happened a generation ago!


Yes, McCain's adultery happened "a generation ago." But if you're claiming that things that happened "a generation ago" don't matter, you've just removed the core of McCain's campaign: his POW-ness. If we're supposed to be interested in what he did before he came home, we should also be interested in what he did after he came home.

And you would have more of a point if most Americans already knew about McCain's affairs. Trouble is, they don't. Try this exercise: see if you can find any mention of it in recent MSM. I know of a few instances, but mostly it's pointedly absent. This is especially noticeable given the huge fuss they made over Edwards. Unlike Edwards, McCain is currently running for president.

They act as though he'd been exonerated by an ethics inquiry!


Yes, the committee said McCain violated "no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate." That's nice, but it's far from sufficient to erase the years McCain spent being exceptionally cozy with a future felon. If the media was not in love with McCain, they would be talking about this. Let me know if you can find an instance of this happening, recently. The story is out there, but it's not getting much emphasis.
8.28.2008 11:24am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier:

Need to watch it on the 'Tube when I have a chance.


McCain's dishonest ad is here.

What Obama actually said is in a video here.

In about two minutes of watching those two videos, you can learn everything you need to know about McCain's integrity. The level of honesty he displayed is very similar to the level of honesty often displayed by his supporters on this blog.

That's just partisan trash. Come on, juke, you can do better.


Speaking of integrity. You have no credility. Zero. Zip. That became painfully obvious here.

He did say that the countries were tiny, but in a context that still--I think--implies he discussing the threat they pose


You're still misquoting him. He didn't say they pose a tiny threat. He said they pose a tiny threat compared to the threat that was once posed to us by the USSR. If Americans are too thick to grasp a simple distinction like this, we'll get exactly the government we deserve. Likewise if Americans care so little about honesty that we pick a candidate who desperately indulges in distortions.
8.28.2008 11:24am
Brian Mac:

But if you're claiming that things that happened "a generation ago" don't matter, you've just removed the core of McCain's campaign: his POW-ness.

I wasn't. I was suggesting that affairs which happened a generation ago tend to get less media coverage than affairs in the here and now.


That's nice, but it's far from sufficient to erase the years McCain spent being exceptionally cozy with a future felon. If the media was not in love with McCain, they would be talking about this. Let me know if you can find an instance of this happening, recently. The story is out there, but it's not getting much emphasis.

A quick newsbank search for "mccain and keating" in the elite US papers of the past year turns up 38 results, whereas "obama and rezko" over the same period returns 126 articles. That doesn't seem disproportionate when you consider when the stories date back to. Might not be fair on Obama, but it's not evidence of media bias in and of itself.
8.28.2008 11:49am
Bart (mail):
The only thing the current tracking polls are saying is that Obama lost his lead over the last weekend and the race is tied.

For the magnitude of the inevitable bounce from the DNC news coverage, look at the Gallup and Rasmussen polls next Monday covering the three days after the DNC. Obama should bounce up a few points if this is an historically average convention.

However, the DNC news coverage bounce is likely to be short lived as the RNC immediately follows. For the net of the convention bounces, look at the tracking polls about a week after the RNC concludes and the media frenzy fades from short term memory.

I expect the polls to remain essentially tied at that point. The Dems have had a middling convention and I do not expect any better from the RNC. Unless McCain screws up the VP selection or somehow commits a gaffe in these highly scripted events, the effect will probably be a wash.
8.28.2008 12:07pm
Hoosier:
juke--I'm just giving up with you. I try to enage in discussion here at VC. But you are only interested in flacking for your candidate and flogging McCain. The references to Cindy's drug problem should have given me all the information on your M.O. that I needed. (You didn't answer my question, by the way: Since you make a point of noting that she stole drugs, I was wondering if Obama got his drugs legally. Did he?)

As to my "credibility" : I finally found my copy of 'Nightingale's Song.' I checked your comments against the text. Quickly, but even with a cursory look, it is clear that you never read the book. You said you "searched" it online. It would appear that you didn't search it carefully enough.

For anyone interested in this little debate: Have a look at the chapters on McCain in "Nightingale's Song". You may then want to ask if juke has been giving us correct information about McCain's injurines, when and how his limbs were broken, whether Bush's standards for torture would be met by the Viet Minh treatment of McCain, etc., etc., etc.

Don't take either of us at face value. Just read the book. Then decide whose description of McCain's torture is more accurate.
8.28.2008 1:36pm
Frog Leg (mail):
...And the bounce is more significant today:

Obama 48 (+3)
McCain 42 (-2)

a 5 point bounce in just one day. This might actually be significant.
8.28.2008 2:56pm
JosephSlater (mail):
OK, a serious answer. Whether it was luck or planning, I think the Dems can reasonably hope for a decent bounce for Obama in *Colorado*. Colorado is key for the scenario in which Obama wins without having to get either Florida or Ohio (the most recent polls on electoral-vote.com have those two states tight: McCain +1 in both).

But Colorado plus two of these three -- NV, NM and/or Iowa + Kerry states = victory. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see Obama losing any Kerry states. And NM and Iowa are looking pretty good for Obama right now. And, per the most recent poll on electoral-vote.com, Obama is up 2% in Colorado. If Colorado voters feel better about Obama after the convention, that could be huge in the election as a whole.
8.28.2008 3:14pm