Diminishing Returns
Kerry received, in effect, no bounce in the polls from picking John Edwards.
The Bush campaign was borrowed a page from the Clinton notebook, predicting a very large bounce; Any jump less than the prediction, naturally, is spun as a minor victory.
It may not have been necessary:
Tad Devine, a Kerry campaign strategist, said he does not believe Republican claims about "a double-digit" bounce of 12 percentage points to 15 percentage points.
"We've gotten the bounce already that we're going to get," Devine said. "If you look at the Democratic vote, it has already consolidated behind John Kerry."
And that might be the best news of all; there might not (I emphasize,
might not) be any big reserve of voters to jump to the Kerry camp before the big shaking-out of the undecideds in the weeks or days before the election.
Both Devine and Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd said on "Fox News Sunday" that they have detected slight gains for Kerry in the polls after the Edwards' choice.
Kerry's announcement Tuesday was followed by a tour of several states by the candidates and their families.
Kerry has "gotten a slight uptick, whether it's temporary or not," Dowd said.
But those looking for a Kerry surge in the polls after the Edwards pick saw a shift of a few points, often within a poll's margin of error.
An AP-Ipsos poll released Thursday offered an early hint there would not be a post-Edwards bounce for Kerry.
Bush had a slight lead over Kerry as voters expressed increasing confidence about the economy. Bush was at 49 percent, Kerry at 45 percent and independent Ralph Nader at 3 percent, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
The bouncing isn't done, of course; the media is going to keep carrying the Kerry campaign's water (they're getting millions in free publicity on "Sixty Minutes" as I write this), and the convention will be a media love-fest for the Democrat ticket.
But it's a decent sign; maybe Kerry/Edwards' absolute, maybe terminal vapidity might be finally sinking in after all.
Posted by Mitch at
July 11, 2004 06:27 PM
| TrackBack
Speaking of 60 Minutes, The GOP should get the rights to show that interview at every campagin stop. Mrs. Kerry came off as aloof, with a "don't hate me because I'm rich" attitude. They couldn't answer the question as to whether or not Iraq was a good idea. They chastized Bush for thanking God while announcing the Kerry/Edwards' ticket at a religous convention.
This should be a fun few months ahead.
Posted by: JerryLeigh at July 11, 2004 08:17 PMFun indeed! With DeLay soon to be under numerous indictments for blatantly illegal fundrasing and Rove (possibly even Cheney) being investigated for illegally and treasonously "outing" a CIA agent, with the Florida board of elections already under investigation for the "purging" of voter roles and the vice president having degenerated to the level of a schoolyard pottymouth, the country stuck in a war the more and more americans realise was ill timed at best and predicated on false pretenses at worst, with some of the highest unemployment since the great depression, massive deficits, and democrats who (finally) have ceased to "turn the other cheek" to the uncivil attack tactics of the right.
I, for one cant wait!
Posted by: JasonDL at July 12, 2004 01:24 AMAgain, Jason - do you actually read anything? It seems Plame may have outed herself. If you're going to be parroting DNC spin, at least parrot the new stuff. Rove and Cheney are clean as a baby's ass on this; the DNC keeps the spin alive because it's all they have.
You can't wait huh? Good thing you don't have to.
Posted by: mitch at July 12, 2004 07:08 AMJason,
Is your tin foil hat on too tight?
Here is one fact for you to try and grasp: Unemployment is currently at 5.6% (I am not asking you to trust me, here is a link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics):
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
When Bill Clinton was running for re-election in May 1996, the unemployment rate was… 5.6% (In fact, CNN considered that a “low” unemployment rate. Link here):
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/05/jobless/
So with that in mind, how can we be experiencing what you call, “…some of the highest unemployment since the great depression…”
You see, 5.6 unemployment was "low" when Clinton was President. Now you want us to believe the exact same unemployment rate is some of the highest in the past 60 or 70 years. How do you figure?
Before you go off on another emotional screed, try a little research.
Posted by: Trudger at July 12, 2004 02:41 PM