Well, it’s come time for the annual Teixeira family vacation so I’m going to give blogging a rest for a bit. I will return with my usual data-obsessed ranting and raving on or about August 30 (just in time to catch the fun at the GOP convo!)
In the meantime, to hold the fort, as it were, the EDM team will be providing links to, and brief excerpts from, new polling data and reports as they become available. Hopefully, you’ll find this feature of use, but let us know either way.
See you soon, with my batteries recharged and ready for what promises to be an intense fall campaign!

Yesterday, I criticized Newsweek for passing off its poll as a measure of Kerry’s bounce from the convention, when it didn’t provide the right data for doing so–the “before” poll was too early (July 8-9) and, most important, the “after” poll wasn’t really after since half of it was conducted Thursday, before the end of the convention and Kerry’ speech. Since Newsweek‘s own poll indicated that Kerry did much better in the second half of their poll, after his speech, than before and since other data indicated that Kerry’s pre-convention support was probably less than that indicated by their July 8-9 poll, it seemed to logical to me that their measure was probably an underestimate of Kerry’s true bounce.
But now we have Gallup data that were collected entirely after the end of the convention (Friday and Saturday) and compared to a poll reasonably close to the beginning of the convention. And, quite oddly, they show, if anything, less of a bounce than that measured by Newsweek. Newsweek, in the RV Kerry-Bush matchup, had Kerry’s support level going up a point and his margin increasing by 2 points. In Gallup’s data, Kerry’s support level also goes up a point in this matchup, but his margin actually decreases by a point.
Huh? How did that happen, when Gallup’s polling on two days that should have been very good for Kerry and Newsweek only caught one of them? And beyond the bounce, how does Gallup wind up with a 50-47 Kerry lead, while Newsweek has the race at 52-44 for Kerry? After all, in early July, when these two polls were conducted at about the same time, they wound up with virtually identical results (51-45 Kerry in Newsweek; 51-44 Kerry in Gallup) in this matchup.
Apparently, there was something about that Saturday when Gallup polled. Gallup reports, consistent with the Newsweek data, that Friday was quite a good night for Kerry. But Saturday came in very differently, with quite good results for Bush–hence, the horse race results they reported.
Maybe this was just the shortest bounce on record–it only lasted one night! But I don’t know; it’s hard to think of a good reason why this would be so. What could have happened on Saturday to turn things around so quickly?
Also, just to deepen the mystery, other results from the Gallup poll suggest a good bounce for Kerry in almost all other respects. Compared to their pre-convention poll, Bush’s approval rating went down and his disapproval rating went up. By 57-39, the public now agrees that Kerry “has the personality and leadership qualities a president should have” (up from 53/41) and by 52-43, the public now says they agree with Kerry on the issues that matter most to them (up from 49-42).
On who can best handle specific issues, Kerry’s lead on the economy has gone from 8 to 11 points; on Iraq, he has gone from -5 to +2; on terrorism, from -18 to -12; on health care from +17 to +21; and on taxes from +2 to +3. Kerry has also regained the lead over Bush on who can manage the government effectively (+1); increased his lead from +8 to +15 on “cares about people like you”; reduced his deficit from -19 to -9 on who is a strong and decisive leader; took the lead over Bush on “is a person you admire” (+2); increased his lead on having an optimistic vision for the future from +3 to +11; took the lead over Bush on being honest and trustworthy (+5); and registered a large lead on “will unite the country, not divide it” (+13).
And how about this one: Kerry is now preferred over Bush, 51-46, as the candidate the public trusts more to handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief of the military. And he has a higher net rating than Bush on being capable (or not) of handling the commander-in-chief resonsibilities (+30 vs. +21).
Heck, Kerry even went up on having a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq, so that his net rating on having a plan (-14) is now actually a little bit better than Bush’s (-16). Before the convention, Bush’s net rating on this issue (-9) was a great deal better than Kerry’s (-23).
But, somehow, all this didn’t affect the horse race much. Hard to figure out. It must have been a very strange Saturday.
Well, we’ll see what the other polls have to say. And Gallup apparently is going to stay in the field for a third night (Sunday night), so we’ll see what happens with that. In the meantime, bounce or not, Kerry still seems to have helped his general political position by the convention which, as I’ve argued here a number of times, is the really important thing.

Newsweek is first out of the box with a poll and story on Kerry’s bounce from the convention. There’s just one slight problem: the data they report in the story don’t really measure Kerry’s bounce at all.
Check this out. Newsweek‘s last poll before the convention was on July 8-9 and Kerry led Bush, 51-45. In the current poll, conducted July 29-30, Kerry leads Bush, 52-44. From this they conclude Kerry got a “baby bounce” from the convention (1 point on support level, 2 points on margin or, if you look at their Kerry-Bush-Nader data, 2 points on support level, 4 points on margin).
But, as their story sheepishly admits, half of their poll was conducted on Thursday night, before Kerry had delivered his acceptance speech! Moreover, their results differ on the two nights, with Kerry leading by 2 points in the pre-acceptance speech data and by 10 points in the post-acceptance speech data.
What possible excuse can there be for presenting these data as measuring Kerry’s bounce from the convention, when the effect of the most important event of the convention isn’t included in half the data? Perhaps there is one, but I can’t think of it.
And that’s not all that’s wrong with their bounce measure. To make their sin even more egregious, the previous poll they use as a point of comparison is way too long ago (July 8-9) to be a real before/after comparison. What if the race was closer before the convention than it was on July 8-9? Then using July 8-9 as a point of comparison would further contribute to understating Kerry’s bounce from the convention.
And in fact that appears to be the case. In the Gallup poll, Kerry was leading 51-44 on July 8-11 but only 49-45 on July 19-21. So using July 8-9 as the comparison period probably knocks several more points off Kerry’s bounce.
In short, Newsweek‘s analysis is totally bogus. Before we pronounce on the bounce, I suggest we wait until we’ve got some data that actually measures it.

Pretty darn good, I’d say. Kerry’s speech was on the high end of my expectations, as indeed was the convention as a whole.
Let’s look at what he did right. As David Kusnet puts it on The New Republic (TNR) website, he gave a “good”, but not great, speech that smartly took the fight to the enemy and preemptively pushed back on the ways Bush will try (is trying) to portray him: weak on national security, too liberal on social issues and pessimistic about America. And did an excellent job of doing so.
John Judis, in his article, “Smart Defense“, also on the TNR website (incidentally, kudos to TNR for having such extensive and generally very good coverage of the key speeches–which, after all, was pretty much all the real action going on at the convo), ticks off many of the specific defensive moves Kerry made: anti-pacifism (bolster military, willing to use force); anti-cultural elitism (“band of brothers”, stem cell research not gay marriage); anti-tax and spend liberalism (middle class tax cut, roll back tax cuts for the rich, spend on popular programs in health and education); anti-flip flopping (“some issues just aren’t that simple”); and anti-doom and gloom (“America can do better”).
And, critically, he set the stage for some themes that will be key to success this fall. For example, he pointed out, in a number of different ways, how Bush is now a divider not a uniter and emphasized how he would bring Americans together.
He also dwelt very pointedly on how the country had been misled into war by Bush, how Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity and, for the first time, indicated that he could “bring the troops home” from Iraq and Bush could not. This is just the beginning, of course, of what Kerry so urgently needs to do: putting a clear plan for Iraq and bringing the troops home on the table.
But it is an important first step. If he can combine such a clear plan–and it should more be on the level of compelling, intelligible soundbites than detailed mechanics and elaborate schedules–with his solid domestic program and a catchy summary phrase about where he intends to take the country (in the manner of “putting people first”), he will be in good shape to build on whatever advantage he receives from the convention.
And that’s the key thing. It’s not the bounce from the convention that’s important (and certainly not its exact size, which I suspect will be rather modest), but rather the extent to which Kerry has set himself up for a successful fall campaign.
Looked at from that perspective, I think it’s been a very good convention indeed for Kerry and the Democrats.

Really, who knows? The average bounce from a challenger’s convention is 7 points; if you take out the outlier 1992 Clinton convention, it’s 6 points. But this year there are fewer undecided voters and Kerry’s already doing quite well in the polls, relative to average challenger performance, so it will be harder for him to post big gains.
But if you want a good summary of the things to think about as you listen to Kerry’s speech tonight that may affect the bounce and, more importantly, the campaign in general as we move forward, you should definitely check out Frank Newport’s Gallup analysis of the political context for Kerry’s speech.
Newport makes a number of good points. I particularly liked his questioning of the alleged necessity for Kerry to focus heavily on assuring voters he’d be a strong leader in the fight against terrorism. Newport points out several reasons to be skeptical:

First, most recent polling shows that terrorism is in fact not the single most important issue for voters this year. Terrorism usually falls behind the economy, and in some polls, Iraq, when voters are asked to choose from a list of concerns.
Terrorism is not considered to be the most important problem facing the nation today. The top problems are the economy and Iraq.
More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that while Republicans place the greatest importance on terrorism as a campaign issue, Kerry’s core Democrats and the vitally important independents do not. The latter groups are more interested in domestic issues such as the economy and healthcare.

So, Iraq, the economy and health care are all, arguably, deserving of more attention than the war on terror.
On Iraq, Newport has this to say on Kerry’s handling of the issue:

….it is clear from the available poll data that Kerry has yet to take political advantage of this Bush vulnerability. For example, only 45% think that Bush has a clear plan or handling the situation in Iraq, but an even smaller 33% believe that Kerry has a clear plan for handling the situation there. Furthermore, when asked which of the two major candidates can do a better job handling Iraq, Bush edges Kerry by a 49% to 44% margin.
Thus, the data suggest that Kerry has yet to convince Americans that his approach to Iraq — if elected — would be that much better than Bush’s.

Finally, Newport ticks off three reasons why the political payoff from emphasizing the economy could be high:

The public’s rating of the economy’s direction is significantly worse in states that are considered to be Democratic or battleground states than in states considered to be safe for the Republicans. In other words, the economy has a high probability of being of the most importance in precisely the states Kerry must win in order to become president.
As noted, independent voters are more likely than Republicans to say the economy is the top problem they will consider in their presidential vote.
There is evidence from data analysis from three key showdown states that voters’ perceptions of the economy in their state is related to their propensity to vote for Kerry.

Is this guy right or what? Sure hope the Kerry campaign visits the Gallup website every once in a while.

Just-released Annenberg Election Survey data indicate that Kerry is making progress among persuadable voters and independents, who continue to be very critical of Bush.
For example, Kerry had a 7 point lead (37-30) among persuadable voters (undecideds or those who favor a candidate, but say they might change their mind) in early June as the candidate who was rated higher on “cares about people like me”. Now he has a 41-27 lead.
Where Bush had advantages on candidate characteristics in early June, a number of these advantages have dimished–for example, on personal likeability and experience. And Bush had a tie on “shares my values” which has now turned into a small Kerry lead. Perhaps most intriguingly, Bush used to have an advantage on “says one thing, does another”, but now Kerry has the advantage–more of these voters now think that phrase applies to Bush than think it applies to Kerry.
Independents generally favor Kerry over Bush by more than persuadables and on more characteristics (for example, “inspiring”, “trustworthy” and ” has the right experience to be president”). Independents also give Kerry a large advantage in favorability ratings–he gets a 41 percent favorable/31 percent unfavorable rating, for a net of +10, while Bush gets a net rating of -3 (42/45). And Cheney gets a net of -17 (29/46) while Edwards is +18 (38/20).
On a number of other measures, both independents and persuadable voters are quite negative about Bush and the results of his policies, with persuadables tending to be particularly negative. For example, persuadable voters overwhelmingly believe the country is off on the wrong track (55 percent), rather than going in the right direction (31 percent). They don’t believe economy is doing well (78 percent rate economic conditions as just fair or poor). And they give Bush just a 40 percent approval rating on the economy with 54 percent disapproval.
But it is on the war with Iraq that these voters seem most disaffected with Bush and his policies. They give Bush a dreadful approval rating on Iraq of 36/59 and, even on handling the war on terrorism, they only give him a 40/54 rating. By 60-34, they don’t think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over and, by 67-20, they believe the Iraq war has increased, not decreased, the threat of terrorism.
They also overwhelmingly believe that Bush does not have a clear plan for bringing the Iraq war to a successful conclusion (69-23). Unfortunately, they strongly feel that Kerry doesn’t have a clear plan for concluding the Iraq war either (54-15). And I’d have to say the Democratic convention so far has likely failed to change that opinion.
If I was Kerry, I wouldn’t wait ’til October to try to bring some clarity to this issue. The future is now: persuadables and independents are waiting.

Gallup released a report today on Kerry vs. Bush on the issues. Based on the July 19-21 poll, their data indicates that Kerry has work to do to overcome Bush’s lead on international issues, particularly handling the Iraq situation–something I have highlighted repeatedly in my posts–as well as to capitalize on and, ideally, widen his lead on domestic issues.
According to the Gallup poll, Kerry leads (or deficits) on which candidate can best handle specific issues are: health care (+17); the economy (+8); education (+7); taxes (+2); the situation in Iraq (-5); and terrorism (-18). Compared to Gallup’s poll one month previously, Kerry’s leads on the issues are about 4-5 points smaller in this poll.
The poll also asks about specific candidate qualities and Kerry’s leads include: cares about the needs of people like you (+8); shares your values (+3); and is honest and trustworthy (tied).
Kerry’s ratings on these issues and candidate qualities are generally pretty close to what we’ve seen in other public polls recently….with one big exception: the new ABC News/Washington Post (WP) poll, which gives Kerry much more negative ratings than anyone else.
The WP poll was taken right after the Gallup poll, July 22-25, but boy are these results different. Here are Kerry’s leads over Bush on who can best handle different issues: health care (+3); education (+1); the economy (-1); taxes (-6); the situation in Iraq (-12); and terrorism (-18). And on candidate qualities, we have: understands the problems of people like you (+4); shares your values (-6); and honest and trustworthy (-6).
Amazing. In the space of a few days, the WP poll has Kerry’s leads on most issues, compared to the Gallup poll, shrinking by 7-14 points. Kerry’s leading by only 3 points on health care? And suddenly Bush is ahead by a point on the economy? Ahead by 6 points on taxes and values? By 12 points on Iraq?
It’s also worth noting that this WP poll, compared to previous WP polls in the last month, shows shifts double the size or more (8-18 points) of those contained in the Gallup poll.
In short, the results of this poll stick out like a sore thumb. Could it be that the WP poll is using registered voters (RVs) and that accounts for the difference? Nope, the WP poll’s own data show that using RVs or adults makes essentially no difference to these measures. Note also that several other recent public polls–Quinnipiac and Time–polled RVs at about the same time Gallup was polling adults on these Kerry-Bush comparisons and found results that were virtually identical to Gallup (an 8 point lead for Kerry on the economy and a 17 point lead on health care; a 4 point Kerry deficit on Iraq).
That leaves only the survey dates as a benign explanation. Did the world really change that much from July 19-21 (Gallup’s survey dates) to July 22-25 (WP’s survey dates)?
I’ve got my doubts. Big doubts.

What should John Kerry say? As David Kusnet, one of the Democrats’ preeminent wordsmiths, wisely points out:

Pundits are saying John Kerry’s acceptance speech needs to be “the speech of his life,” when he “reintroduces himself,” sounding more like a “regular guy” and less like a JFK wannabe–and, Peggy Noonan helpfully adds, “He might take this opportunity to actually redefine what liberalism is.”
None of this is true. Kerry need not try to give a great speech; he should try to give a good one.

And then Kusnet goes on to give a cogent summary of the ingredients for such a good speech, all sensible and all well within Kerry’s rhetorical capabilities. Check it out.
And while you’re at it, also check out Kusnet’s excellent analysis of Clinton’s excellent speech last night. A lot there for Democrats to play close attention to!

Matt Bai’s article in The New York Times Magazine, which I cited in my Sunday post, has generated a slew of commentary in Democratic circles. That’s a good thing, but the tone of some of the commentary bothers me a bit. Markos Zuniga of The Daily Kos, for example, questions whether there will or should be much of a role for the Democratic party as an institution in the future, given developments like the Phoenix Group, the 527s, online fundraising, etc.
I guess I don’t really see the point of discarding the party and relying entirely on the new institutions that are starting to evolve. There’s no logical reason why the new and old institutions can’t me made to work together and evolve in tandem (as, in fact, happened within the Republican party–see Michael Tomasky’s excellent column on the Bai piece where he makes this point and others very crisply). This will take some time, but then again evolving and perfecting the new institutions that are starting to emerge will take some time as well.
In other words, a little patience may be in order–though it appears SEIU head Andrew Stern, for one, is running out of his. David Broder quotes Stern as saying “if John Kerry becomes president it hurts” chances of reforming the party and that he doesn’t “know if it [efforts to create new institutions] would survive with a Democratic president”.
Whoa there, Andy! That’s not saying if we’ve got lemons, let’s make lemonade, that’s asking for wall-to-wall lemons! People like to win and, if Kerry does, a feeling of triumph will suffuse both the party and the emerging institutions Stern supports, giving them both a burst of energy. Losing, on the other hand, will deflate both and will be an obstacle, not an aid, to moving forward.
So, to review:
1. The party is not dying and we don’t need to kill it.
2. Winning is good.
Repeat these points to yourself several times and you will find yourself feeling calmer….more peaceful….and refreshed.

Yesterday, our tour of the political landscape on the eve the convention included results from national polls and from polls of Hispanics. Today, I’ll take a look at a recently-released poll of black voters and another one of college students.
The Hispanic polls discussed yesterday indicate that the Kerry-Edwards ticket is running strong among Hispanic voters and appears poised to do better than the Gore-Lieberman ticket did in 2000. The other big component of the minority vote, of course, is black voters and a new poll by BET/CBS News suggests that Democrats will replicate their traditional strong performance among these voters in this election.
The trial heat question in this poll gives Bush only 10 percent support among black voters, compared to 79 percent for Kerry. That 10 percent support is the average GOP presidential support in the last three elections and is unlikely to grow much, if at all, before election day since, based on historical patterns, pretty much all the undecided voters in this group should be allocated to the Democratic candidate.
And you can see why given the incredibly negative views of black voters on Bush and his administration. They give Bush an 11 percent approval rating, with 85 percent disapproval (!) Only 6 percent of blacks think the country is going in the right direction, compared to 92 percent who feel things are off on the wrong track. Just 9 percent think Bush has the same priorities for the country as they do, while 84 percent think he doesn’t. And, by 90 percent to 8 percent, black voters don’t think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the associated loss of life and other costs.
That 10 percent sounds more and more like a ceiling on Bush’s support among black voters.
The new Harvard University/Institute of Politics poll of college students shows Bush in deep trouble among this group as well. Since March, Kerry’s already-wide lead over Bush among students has increased by 8 points, from 53-40 to 58-37. Bush’s approval rating among this group has sunk to 40 percent, while support for the US having gone to war in Iraq has fallen to 42 percent, with 56 percent opposition. And, at this point, by 50-31, college students feel the Kerry campaign is talking about issues that young people care about, while, by 61-26, they feel the Bush campaign is not.
Sounds like a tough sell for the GOP among the nation’s students!
Tomorrow: the white working class and the 2004 election