Blowing August: Will The Convention Give Obama The Big Bump He Needs?
I'm a pessimist. I admit it.
I always assume that the Republicans have the advantage because they will stop at nothing to win. And because the media (pretty much all Democratic except for Fox) has the desperate need to show balance by screwing our candidate and sucking up to theirs.
So....all things being equal, the GOP wins.
That should not work this year but it looks like it might. As I have written before, I do not believe the polls which show Obama a few points ahead. With a candidate like Obama (black) or Clinton (woman) -- running against a standard white male -- we better be ten points ahead. And we're not. We are not winning.
For Obama, August has been utterly flat.
The convention offers the possibility of turning it around but only if the VP choice is absolutely terrific. Who would that be? I don't have a clue. A surprise choice would be good simply because anyone other than the expected ones would produce some excitement.
As for Obama's speech. It will be great. But in this country -- where mediocrity is celebrated except when it comes to important things like sports -- it will be dismissed. Obama's biography? Everybody knows it and it is not a plus anymore.
So what will do it? A great VP choice combined with a convention that systematically tears the Republicans (and John McCain) to shreds. Americans need to fear for their personal futures if the economic status quo continues. They need to worry about the value of their homes and their 401k's. They have to worry that McCain will drag us into another pointless war.
A feel good convention will be worthless.
FDR said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Not any more. We need to fear the sheer stagnation and decline another four years of Republicans offer us. If we can't convey that, we don't deserve to win.
If I had to bet the house right now, I'd put my money on McCain. After all, you can never go broke betting on the American peoples' proclivity to vote against its own interest (especially when the issue of race is involved). We have 90 days or so to turn it around.
Will we? Not if September and October resemble August.
Polls as reason for pessimism? You could use a stronger measure than polls as a reason to get bummed out.
Polls use an inherently flawed methodology and have been worse than usual this election year. Cell phones make "modern" polling obsolete as long as turn-out is high among new voters. The primaries have shown that turn-out this year could set records.
I would suggest optimism as a better response to the current state of the Obama campaign.
August 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go again.
MJ - have some faith in your man! And he is your man. Have at least enough faith that when the guy takes a family vacation - correction - has the cojones to take a family vacation in the midst of the campaign - he just might know what he is doing.
Last week we were talking about Obama fatigue. So maybe it was a good thing for him to get out of the public eye a bit?
While I am not as sold on the policies of Obama as you are, I am more sold on the political skills of the man than you are. It is likely he'll come roaring back next week.
In the meantime - sure - take none of the polls for granted. But enough with the hand-wringing.
August 15, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why? What evidence is there for optimism?
As for the polls, since 1948 the polls have come very close to predicting every single Presidential election. It is, in fact, the only tool we have.
August 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ
Read the evidence at this link:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/persistent-myth-of-bradley-effect.html
August 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've read Nate's post, AND I was a campaign worker in Bradley's ill-fated gubernatorial campaign. I think one reason why the Bradley Effect didn't seem to show up in the primaries is because choosing either the black guy or the white woman in a poll were both "acceptable" and/or "PC" choices. Different story when the poll choices are the black guy or the white guy.
There are other factors in play this cycle: "cell voters," "Diebold/Sequoia," and the Caucasus Surprise, among others. I don't know how large a factor the Bradley Effect will (or won't) be, but: it's early, Obama has money to fight back with, and Bush has tarnished the Republican brand. I think we should be concerned, but it's definitely not time for full-on-panic mode. Yet.
August 15, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the first year since 1948 where a healthy percentage of "likely voters" don't have home phones and rely exclusively on cell phones.
Also, polls can become self-fulfilling prophecies given the media penchant for giving polls way too much attention. I certainly wouldn't use history as a measure given the changing demographics this year and the current realities of the electorate.
Finally, this is the first time since the Great Depression that so many people are hurting so badly in this country. Those numbers don't waver and don't bode well to whomever is perceived as the incumbent, which John McCain is trying desperately to establish.
August 15, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? What evidence is there for optimism?
As for the polls, since 1948 the polls have come very close to predicting every single Presidential election. It is, in fact, they are the only tools we have.
August 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have polls before the convention been shown to be especially good predictors? That is an honest question, not a rhetorical one. I seem to remember reading somewhere (a dangerous lead up to a statement, I know) that polls before the convention have little predictive value, but that could simply be a case of poor remembering on my part.
August 15, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama also outperformed his polls in the Midwest and the West (although there is not much data to go on in the latter case). The one region where Hillary Clinton overperformed her numbers was in the Northeast, bettering the pre-election trendline by 1.8 points. Recall that the Bradley Effect phenomenon describes covert rather than overt manifestations of racism. It may be that in the Northeast, which is arguably the most "politically correct" region of the country, expressions of racism are the least socially acceptable, and that therefore some people may misstate their intentions to pollsters. By contrast, in the South and the Midwest, if people are racist they will usually be pretty open about it, and in the West, which is nation's most multicultural region, there may be relatively little racism, either expressed or implicit.
The good news for Barack Obama is that, among the Northeastern states, only New Hampshire appears to be competitive -- and Obama would gladly trade a Bradley Effect in New Hampshire for a reverse Bradley Effect in a state like North Carolina. (Pennsylvania, it should be noted, is also defined by the Census Bureau as being in the Northeast, but in terms of political demography, it shares far more in common with the Midwest).
So why do we keep hearing so much about the Bradley Effect? Apart from the fact that it is a good way to fill column space on a slow news day, it seems that there are three or four reasons why the myth perpetuates itself:
August 15, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
99.23% of all statistics are made up.
August 15, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, for repeating. I tried to fix the grammar.
Well, I was optimistic about Gore and Kerry. But that was before I realized the kind of people we are up against.
August 15, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
that was before I realized the kind of people we are up against.
This could apply equally to the Republican party or the voters.
August 15, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard,
exactly what I thought when I read MJ's post.
August 15, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! But I said it first! Nyah, nyah, nyah.
August 15, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. I'm with MJ on this one. My head says, "Obama," but my gut says, "McCain." I just don't see how you go from Bush to Obama in one election. (I didn't think Hillary could win either.) Contrary to popular opinion, our primary featured the weakest set of candidates since 1992. 1988 was our last good crop, we just blew it by picking Dukakis. The Baby Boomers think they know who will take care of them. They're getting old and scared and they will reflexively vote for someone who reminds them of their parent's generation.
August 15, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
HRC's failure to accept her defeat gracefully and honorably will probably cost us the election in November. That is Billary's plan. Screw the country, the Clinton motto.
August 15, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out of 33 comments so far, yours is the only post to blame Hillary. Your post is stupid. Your grapes are sour.
August 15, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
prmco: if you can't deal with reality you are better qualified to be a Republican than an American... best wishes
August 16, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed that it is too close for comfort right now! But less hand wringing over Obama's prospects, and more neck wringing of McCain would seem to be in order.
August 15, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree! Dems must be prepared for mudslinging, gutter-dwelling, voter disenfranchisment and outright thievery on the part of the GOP. They are not going to give up easily.
That's why Obama must get +15% of the vote, that will counteract the 10% they plan to steal. Gotta have a mandate!
August 15, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
CParis,
the Republicans KNOW FOR SURE that the only way they can win the White House this time is to steal it. The new Voter ID law in Indiana (designed to keep Democratic voter numbers down) was passed and given the OK by the right wing Supreme Court. Its deja vu all over again.
Forewarned is forearmed.
August 15, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can only handwring. It's up to the campaign to neck wring.
August 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
2. Confusing Past with Present.
There is fairly strong academic evidence that the Bradley Effect used to exist back in the 1980s and early 1990s. However, the evidence is just as strong that it does not exist any longer. The people who vouch for the existence of the Bradley Effect are not wrong so much as they are relying on dated evidence.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/persistent-myth-of-bradley-effect.html
August 15, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am betting on the reverse of the Bradley Effect. They tell pollsters that they won't vote for Barack and pull that lever for the only logical choice once they are alone. That choice isn't John McCain.
August 15, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, friends, perhaps it's less hand wringing and more check writing that would seem to be in order.
August 15, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
dnegri - YES!
MJ, max out or pipe down! And then organize others to do the same. Or make calls! Or use THIS PULPIT you have to mobilize voter registration efforts. Or call attention to this year's attempt to once again purge the voter rolls of likely Democratic voters.
In other words...please do ANYTHING except spread the MSM meme that Obama is "under-performing". Please.
August 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Check writing is critical. Absolutely.
August 15, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this unity thing doesn't work, with putting Hillary's name up for canonization, the bump coming out of the convention will be on her and her supporter's heads!
August 15, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where on earth did you get that idea??
The mainstream media has a corporate bias, and, as such, leans pretty strongly toward the Republicans, not the Democrats.
I think maybe you've been listening too much to the right wing radio talking points. Might I suggest an excellent book by Eric Alterman, "What Liberal Media? The Truth about Bias and the News".
(I'm sorry, I haven't even read the rest of your post yet. I couldn't get past that WHOPPER right at the beginning.)
-- ARG
August 15, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I mean the individual reporters (Dana Milbank is typical) are overwhelmingly Dems but kiss the butt of the GOP to be "fair."
The companies are Repubs but it's the reporters who write these disgusting stories.
August 15, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ - relax this is an electoral vote game not these silly tracking polls. Read the article below:
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=3081
The ground game excellence of our cmapign is going to get the job done and the converntion bounce will include the 5% of Clinton Dems who have held back now that HRC gets her name put up.
The debates are going to be critical, esp, the first one. Do you really think that people aren't going to come away impressed by Barack and depressed by McGaffe? Just the physical impression of youth and vigor and height (6-7") alone tells a compelling visual.
This will be hard fought but when the EV's are counted it will be Obama 300++.
August 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
John,
excellent analysis.
August 15, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is true that reporters write stories, but they do not make decisions about which stories are published or aired, nor on their placement in the paper, magazine, or newscast, nor on the wording that the public sees.
August 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ said:
Four thoughts;
1- About 2 months ago I suspected Obama had peaked too early. Time will tell.
2- As to Dana Millbank. Think back to David Schuster saying Hillary was pimping Chelsea.
Reporters and commentators today seem to feel they can say anything about Democrats and suffer no backlash, though he did have to apologize. But he felt he could say it. I had claimed in the past that Obama's real enemy won't be the Republicans, it will be the press. Check Tom Brokaw's two weeks of hosting MTP.
3- I think (hope) Obama's campaign is sitting on a warehouse full of opposition research, most of which we haven't seen yet, and I hope they're cocking the gun as the election nears; Early/Mid-September?
4- McCain has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Obama and he's still behind. As I've said before, the story isn't that McCain is gaining or that he's tied with Obama, the story is that a young black guy, unknown until about 18 months ago, and with little experience is beating someone with McCain's standing in so many polls.
MJ, I'm sure Obama will will make a commercial tattooing that picture of McCain hugging Bush on McCain's forehead as a voice over quotes McCain supporting Bush.
Lets wait and see if Obama starts firing that oppo research and takes a page out of Rove's playbook; tear down your opponents strong point.
August 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
John, I don't think you can lump commentators and reporters together. Commentators can say anything and always have. Grant-it the lines have been blurred over the years, with real reporters sometimes acting in the capacity as commentators, like Schuster was on this occassion. And when Hillary sends her 27 year old daughter out to have coffee with a 21 year old super-delegate, while shorting after arriving receives a call from Bill Clinton on Chelsea's phone, I don't think it's overreach to say, she was pimping out her daughter. She was! Every bit as much as McCain was pimping out his wife, when he suggest at a biker rally that she should be entered in a nude bikini contest.
August 15, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
GTF,
I know the difference between reporters and commentator/columnists, but as you say, the line has been blurred over the years.
My problem is with the supposed professional using the word "pimped" n referring to a U S Senator and Presidential candidate's daughter out campaigning for her mother. This is a word I expect to hear from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, not a supposed professional journalist working for one of the major media outlets.
And my other point, of a mindset among today's "journalists" who seem to feel they can say anything about a Democrat,as when Chris Matthews said Al Gore would lick the bathroom floor clean to become President, and never say anything even close about a Republican.
Again, Obama's problem will be with the media more than with the Republicans.
August 15, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree that the news media have absolutely no fear of saying any dumb thing about any Democrat, but they mess their pants at the mere thought of mentioning the reality that is John McCain. That won't change until we finally get a Democratic president who has the balls to make the members of the news media who do that suffer.
Obama has to be willing to campaign against his opponent, McCain. So far he hasn't been. He has, instead, tried to emulate Gore's successful run for the presidency by emphasizing how great he will be as president. We live in this century, not back in chivalrous times. McCain is the opponent. Obama needs to accept that until McCain is flat on his back with the accumulation of evidence that he, McCain, is a senile dunce, with no recognizable morals, McCain will be the winner. Will Obama wait, like Gore did, until this is proven to him?
August 15, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you have a successful campaign, you win 270 electoral votes and your home state. Gore did neither. Remember Gore's VP choice? How brilliant was that?
August 15, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy Mackerel, Kingfish! You mean Gore hasn't been our president for the past 8 years?
August 16, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink