OK, OK, the numbers continue to favor Barack Obama as the first debate recedes into whatever it's receding into, and it seems like I'm saying "it's too soon" to something every day, but it has appeared that in these three-day rolling tracking polls, you don't really see the impact of a significant event until day two. So while today's results generally show the continuation of the trend towards Sen. Obama, probably safer to wait until tomorrow or even Tuesday to get some early comfort as to the public response to the first debate. I say "early comfort" because feeling about the winner of a presidential debate has sometimes in the past taken weeks to resolve. That being said, three of the four daily tracking polls now show Obama with 50% of the vote, while McCain runs between 42-44%; the gap remains the same in Diageo/Hotline and Rasmussen, but grew by a point in Research 2000 and fully three points in Gallup (the largest and, at least to me, the least comprehensible of the four). So, on with the show:
Not a lot of movement in internals, where we have internals, though a slow shift in independent and unaffiliated voters continues in the R2K poll, where Obama now leads 48-42 among independents and 48-40 among the elusive "other" category. The R2K poll does include Barr and Nader, but seems to be pushing a little too hard to force responses out of subjects, as only 1% are considered undecided. There's such a thing as including leaners, but this seems a little extreme. The weighting in R2K is also apparent in the net favorables, where Obama is at +27 and McCain only +1. Sorry, that probably shouldn't make sense, even to the Obama partisan. Of the 39% that consider themselves independent or "other/refused," one wonders exactly where on the political spectrum they were recruited, particularly as that segment gives 4% of the vote to Ralph Nader, which argues that there might be too much of this sample that comes from significantly left of Obama.
Rasmussen has readjusted its weightings again, but only from a 5.5% Democratic advantage to 5.6%, so there shouldn't be much to discuss, or much of a shift in the results themselves as a result of the weighting shift. Diageo is a little baffling, not because of the five point difference between the two candidates, exactly the same as yesterday, but because it would appear that each candidate has lost a point, and I'm not sure if anything legitimately would have caused people to drop away from a candidate and into the undecided column, so I'm going to assume it's sample error and see if the total is back where it was later in the week.
Gallup had a couple significant findings, most notably that Sen. Obama has opened up an eight point lead, two of which comes off McCain's score after the debate, which would tie in with their poll showing Obama as the debate winner by a 46-34 margin. I'd probably be closer to the 20% that didn't pick a winner, but between expectations being exceeded by Obama in the foreign policy debate and some unpleasant personal actions by McCain, I can see why more people moved the way they did. 30% of respondents said they had a more favorable view of Obama after the debate, while just 21% said they did of McCain; the negatives were equally striking, as 12% said they had a more negative view of Obama afterwards, compared with the same 21% of McCain. This was considerably magnified in a question regarding whether respondents had more or less confidence in each candidate's ability to deal with the economy, where Obama had a net posltive of eight points, while McCain's favorability on the economy dropped by 14% (23% saying they had more confidence in his ability and 37% less). And there's your victory, particularly among independents.
For the next couple debates, Sen. McCain is going to have to keep his obvious contempt for his opponent in check. This is not personal opinion: in-debate tracking showed that people's feelings about McCain dived every time he told Sen. Obama "you don't understand" on one issue or another. If there's anything at all i'm prepared to take out of this, it's that the nation is not buying the "country before politics" meme that Sen. McCain has been repeating non-stop for months; as he has only stepped up his politicking while saying it, the American public may not be so easily gulled.
The McCain campaign's tactical flip-flopping (oh, that word) continues unabated, even after the "will I or won't I" stunt fades: the senator was on This Week this morning denying any responsibility for the House Republicans holding up the financial plan until and during the time he swooped down and injected himself uninvited into the proceedings; as he had not attended a roll call vote in the Senate since April, I might suggest the business of the nation continued unabated without him. I remain convinced that there should have--and would have--been a deal on Thursday otherwise, as the Senate Republicans were generally onboard with a modified plan including the restrictions and checks on Treasury power that both parties (and the American public) wanted. Instead, we have a public that believes that there is a plan being forced down their throats that will cost them money and give the Treasury unlimited power--a Rasmussen poll shows 50% of the public are against the plan, though if 5% of them could actually tell me what the plan comprises, I'd be stunned.
He Said, She Didn't Said (Again)
Gov. Palin seemed to approve Sen. Obama's support for strikes inside Pakistan against terrorists if necessary. "If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said, when asked. Seems fairly straightforward and, truly, sensible. It's that last adjective that can't be allowed to stand. On This Week this morning, Sen. McCain, ummm, retracted his running mate's statement, apparently on the grounds that it's scary and unfair to ask the Vice Presidential candidate questions she hasn't been fed in advance. I quote the GOP Presidential candidate directly: "In all due respect, people going around and… sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that's—that's a person's position… This is a free country, but I don't think most Americans think that that's a definitve policy statement made by Governor Palin." In point of fact, sir, with all due respect, many of us do actually think that the answer to a question on policy is not entirely unlike a policy statement.
Jerry Springer For President?
The Times of London--a not disreputable rag, despite its ownership--reports that the McCain/Palin campaign may try to shift the narrative by having the Bristol Palin (and I know I promised myself I'd never mention the name) wedding before the election. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4837644.ece if you don't believe me, and honest to gosh there's no conceivable reason you should. That being said--are you seated comfortably?-- “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.” Shut down the race for a week. Yes, shut down the race for a week. Hands up who doesn't believe they're out of touch. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Rumors that catering of the reception with Old Milwaukee and pork rinds are unsubstantiated at press time but a virtual certainty all the same.
Quote of the Day
Hendrik Hertzberg in The New Yorker on the Palin/Couric interview: The whole thing reads like something rendered from the Finnish by Google Translate.
It looks like there's a deal in Congress. Oh, ye of little faith.
And, last but not least, the Herbert Hoover Quote Of The Day (TM):
The ancient bitter opposition to improved methods on the ancient theory that it more than temporarily deprives men of employment... has no place in the gospel of American progress. (Campaign speech, 1928)
No comments:
Post a Comment