The Biden Bounce, Part Deux
Gallup daily tracking: dead even.
The latest update includes two days of interviewing following Obama’s selection of Sen. Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate, and neither day showed an improved performance for Obama. Thus, Obama does not appear to have gotten the same type of immediate “vice presidential bounce” as have presidential candidates in recent years. That could reflect a somewhat muted national response to the Biden selection, or competition for the nation’s attention with the Olympics.
Hmmm…that’s an interesting theory. So the Olympics caused people to change their vote to McCain? Wow, who knew?…
Barack Obama’s selection of U.S. Sen. and former presidential candidate Joe Biden as his running mate is not generating a momentous immediate reaction from the nation’s voters. Just 14% of registered voters interviewed in a new USA Today/Gallup poll say Biden makes them more likely to vote for Obama in November and 7% say less likely while 72% say he will not have much effect on their vote.
This results in Biden potentially having a net positive impact on voter support for the Democratic ticket of +7 percentage points — small by comparison with other recent vice presidential selections.
A net 17% of nationwide registered voters said they were more likely to vote for John Kerry in 2004 on the basis of his selection of John Edwards as his running mate (24% more likely and 7% less likely).
A net 12% of voters reported being more likely to vote for Al Gore in 2000 on account of his choosing Joe Lieberman (16% more likely and 4% less likely).
A net 18% of voters indicated they were more likely to vote for Bob Dole in 1996 on the basis of his choice of Jack Kemp to complete the ticket (26% more likely and 8% less likely).
A net 25% of voters were more likely to vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 on account of Al Gore (33% more likely and 8% less likely).
The only recent vice presidential choices to spark less voter reaction than Biden were Dick Cheney in 2000 (net 4%, with 14% more likely and 10% less likely) and Dan Quayle in 1988 (net score of 0, with 10% more likely and 10% less likely).
Wow – Cheney and Quayle! He’s up there with the greats…
Let me close by saying something positive about Biden – I’ve been picking on him a lot lately, but I expect his speech to be the highlight of the convention. With the platitudes coming from Michelle Obama, Hillary, and Barack Obama (the last two presumably, based on their prior work), it’s hard to imagine otherwise!…
Of course when Quayle and Cheney were nominated those tickets won. Biden does not help him, might hurt him down the road with his boring, shoot from the hip blather.
I saw one poll from before the pick comparing the effects of the various potential VP’s and Biden actually had a net negative of 2% (11% more likely and 13% less).
BTW, Mark, I saw that we both made the credits on Best of the Web today.
Hey, I didn’t notice..that’s cool – a link would have been nice, but at least he gave credit, right?…I’ve always loved Best of the Web…
Gallup’s tracking poll has had Obama between 44 and 46 and McCain between 43 and 45 for the last 2 weeks. It’s a bit disingenuous for you to pretend like there’s something new to talk about here.
As far as Vice Presidents go, are we really expected to believe this notion that any vice presidential picks make people more likely to vote for a candidate? Maybe less likely, to be sure, but more likely? Got any data to back that up? Sure, people may say it, but do they do it? Can you really imagine somebody actually saying, “Well, I was gonna vote for McCain over Obama, but knowing Joe Biden is gonna be sitting in the OVP just made me change my mind.”
Well, if the standard is “sure people may say it, but do they do it” then I recommend we stop talking about polls all together.
I do agree, bounce data aside, that the VP pick is interesting political theater, but of little to no consequence in the November result.
I think the lesson to be learned from those polls is that nothing matters. The one that did the best (Clinton/Gore) won, the two that did the worst (Bush/Cheney and Bush/Quayle) also won, the next worst (Gore/Lieberman) won by the standards of a Gallup tracking poll, and the other three in the middle lost. That seems like a lot of… well, non-information.
Of course, if you want to construct a news story out of this, here goes:
Polls show that a winning ticket is one with either a really great vice presidential nominee or a really terrible one. Experts, however, are divided about whether Biden is terrible enough to win the White House for Obama.
I dunno, Fargus.
Back in 2000, I recall people saying, “Yeah, sure, Bush is kinda inexperienced, and maybe he’s a bit of a lightweight. But with the steady, experienced, hand of Dick Cheney backing him up, everything will be just fine.” I don’t know how many people were, in fact, reassured by the choice of Cheney, but that was an oft-cited meme at the time. And in a close election …
I think that VP choice worked out quite well, don’t you?
Polls even now are still worthless. Its still not Labor Day.
Starting in mid September, after the conventions are done and the “bounces” settle down, they become somewhat useful. As a guide to trends.
Events can still upset trends.
Look at 2000 and the late DUI leak. The polls pointed to a comfortable Bush win and we see how that worked out.
Or 1980, Carter was doing ok in the polls until Reagan did so well in the one debate.
Fargus, the Gallup Poll compared Biden’s impact on likelihood to vote with the last 3 zillion candidates, give or take a zillion, and only Cheney and Quayle did worse. It’s not like there’s no context here to say the public is less than thrilled with this choice.
But if you still say there’s no story, how about today’s Gallup poll, which actually shows McCain ahead(!) on the eve of the Democratic convention for the first time since Obama clinched the nomination:
There’s no convention thread, so I’m posting here.
This convention is a disaster so far. If the Democrats continue refusing to go on the attack, they are going to lose this election badly. Mark Warner’s keynote was boring awful pablum. You can’t beat Republicans by pretending they don’t exist.
I was waiting…I didn’t watch Warner’s speech, but I will be watching Hillary…
I suggest you watch Warner’s speech and compare it to the keynote Giuliani is going to deliver next week. I can predict right now that Giuliani will do far more heavy lifting for McCain and will run rhetorical circles around Warner.
Sorry for the posting flood, but I am utterly disgusted with the Democrats right now and looking to vent spleen. I think the current state of the Republican Party is immoral and wicked and wrong in virtually every way, but the reason I refuse to call myself a Democrat is I still hate them for their cowardice.
Do I seriously have to vote for Bob Barr?
I don’t know if I can force myself to watch Warner’s speech…The AP said the Democrats were on the attack against McCain all day, wave after wave (much earlier today, well before Warner)…were they wrong? I’m asking honestly, I didn’t turn it on until just now…
Started a thread for you…
An excellent idea for you. Its the right thing to do.