Bump-De-Bump-Bump
Presumably, when Obama was at 41% in Rasmussen tracking poll, this was also deeply meaningful. Or maybe not, since things have now swung back the other way. The general election is likely to be very close, and I think we can expect seesawing national polls for the next several months. If Obama loses ground over the summer, it does not mean that he is doomed, and if McCan takes the lead it is not at all certain that he can actually win. What is certain is that it should never have been this close. So it is interesting to see how much importance Obama boosters are putting on the risibly small “bump” that Obama has received from effectively securing the nomination. They must be a little concerned that their candidate keeps running behind the generic Democratic ballot (at least when not counting leaners) and cannot seem to expand beyond the boundaries of the old Gore-Kerry coalitions despite incredibly favourable circumstances.
Update: John Cole questions my claim about Obama boosters, so I should provide some links that show the kind of thing I mean. Yes, this post was mostly a response to Sullivan and to some of my more Obamaniac commenters, and so I should have specified that I was really referring in this case to one particular Obama booster. So let’s leave aside the business about Obama boosters. In any case, isn’t it surprising (and, from an anti-GOP perspective, depressing) that in this most Democratic of years the Democratic nominee has reached 50% for just the first time in national polls against the representative of a deeply loathed party?
Not all pollsters think the national ballot will be close:
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=300
“Unless Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama commits political suicide…” begins this poll released this week. It finds Obama leading McCain 50-35 among likely voters, with “no specific reasons tto believe John McCain can win.”
Other pollsters aren’t that certain. But the assumption that the race is close and likely to seesaw back and forth is, indeed, an assumption. Quite a few folks think Obama has a lead he will keep all the way to November, like countless other down-ticket Democrats.
[...] C’mon, Larison- you are better than this: [...]
I think its worth noting, Daniel, that neither Bush nor Kerry ever had a 7 point lead–as Obama does now–at any point in the general election in 2004.
Nevertheless I think this is like 1980 with the parties reversed. It will be relatively close until the final week, when theres a huge break to Obama.
Much like 1980 the country wants to punish the party in power, but is nervous about the replacement which they see as too inexperienced and radical. In the end, they’ll decide to break for change in spite of these concerns.
It’s true, 2004 was exceptionally close all year, and we are already seeing greater volatility in the numbers this year. That may bode well for Obama. On the other hand, in 2000 Bush had sizeable leads around this time of year and then frittered them away/lost them over the summer and fall. Gore was down by as many as 17 points before his convention, while Dukakis once led by as many as 10. Gore very nearly pulled off a comeback (or, in the view of many, did pull off a comeback), and Dukakis collapsed. Things can shift around quite a lot.
High fives all around. My only objection is to the notion that it shouldn’t be this close. I think this overestimates the hype about this being an incredible year for Democrats. In spite of the disaffection with Republicans, the underlying poltiical dynamics that have kept the parties fairly evenly divided for the last 20 years haven’t much changed. Gas prices are high, the economy is weak, but let’s face it, we’re not in the middle of the Great Depression. I’ve always felt that people end up returning to their basic orienation by the time elections actually roll around, with only a small amount of “give”, Which means to me that the expectations are really not much more than a 4-5 pt Democratic victory. Any variation from that will tend to diminsh as we get down to election day. If it goes over that, it’s a sign that Obama has run a very good campaign. If he loses, it’s going to be a very close and heart-breaking loss. I don’t think it would be much different for any other Democratic candidate.
The obvious advantage Obama has over both Dukakis and Gore is that he’s a much more appealing and charismatic candidate. The hidden advantage he has is an incredible organization which has demonstrated phenomenal turnout capabilities. I mean, in many primaries the vote for Obama was greater than the vote for all Republican candidates combined. And this turnout drive is only increasing for the fall. It’s the factor that makes accurate polling so difficult, because there’s no real template for interpreting the raw polling results.That’s where the potential for a big Dem victory comes, as well as big house and senate pickups. That’s also why all the superdelegates wanted Obama on the ticket, and not Hillary.
Patience.
Here’s my question:
If these sorts of numbers really don’t mean anything this far out, why does everyone keep talking about them non-stop?
That’s a good question. The one good reason I can think of is that they do gauge something about the current state of public opinion, and they can point out weaknesses in the candidates with certain parts of the population. They serve as something like a political weather report. As with weather forecasting, they are useless for predicting what will happen weeks or months from now, but they can give a reasonably accurate picture of current conditions. In fact, the only people who care about these numbers are political junkies and bloggers, because obsessing over trivial minutiae of campaigns is just what many of us do.
BTW:
So much for that bump, eh?