At least that’s if you believe Matthew Dowd’s assertion that “historical analysis suggests John Kerry should have a lead of more than 15 points coming out of his convention”. That assertion of Dowd’s has been mentioned again and again in recent news stories on the campaign, particularly since Edwards was selected by Kerry and appeared to give the ticket a bounce.
Every time I’ve seen this Dowd prediction, I’ve scratched my head and thought: “that’s completely nuts–it can’t possibly be true that a 15 point lead is normal”. But I’ve been a bit busy and never got around to doing the spadework to show how nuts that prediction is.
And now I don’t have to. Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio has helpfully provided the relevant data in a piece on the National Review website, blasting Dowd for, essentially, predicting Bush is going to lose.
This is because:
1. Since 1960, no incumbent president has come back from being 15 points down at the beginning of August to win re-election. In fact, no incumbent’s come back from being 10 points down to win.
2. The average bounce from an incumbent president’s convention since 1960 is about 6 points. Therefore–contrary to Dowd’s assertion that the Republican convention would even things up–a 15 point lead after the Democratic convention would likely leave Bush still 9 points behind after his convention.
Another interesting angle on the Dowd prediction: given that the average bounce from a challenger’s convention is about 7 points, does that mean Dowd now believes Kerry is up by 8 points–since otherwise how could Kerry come out of his convention with a 15 point lead based on “historical analysis”?
I suppose it’s all about the expectations game: predict some outlandish bad outcome for your candidate and then when it doesn’t occur claim things are going your way. But has it come to this: to make their candidate look good, Republican spinners now have to predict that his situation will soon be hopeless?

A number of polls were released today indicating a positive reaction to Kerry’s selection of Edwards as his running mate and suggesting an immediate boost to the Democratic ticket. CBS News, for example, found the Kerry-Edwards ticket besting Bush-Cheney by 5 points (49-44) among RVs, while Kerry alone was leading Bush by only a point (45-44) 10 days ago.
That poll also finds Cheney with a heavily net negative (-20) favorability rating–only 27 percent favorable, compared to 47 percent unfavorable. Edwards is not rated by many respondents but those who do view him favorably by an even larger margin (38 percent favorable/9 percent unfavorable, for a +29 net rating) than Cheney is viewed unfavorably.
Even more impressive, in NBC News’ overnight poll, Kerry-Edwards leads Bush-Cheney by 11 points (54-43). Moreover, 24 percent day Edwards’ selection makes them more likely to vote for Kerry, compared to just 7 percent who say that selection makes them less likely.
Could Edwards be president? The public thinks so, even if Bush (“Cheney can be president, next”) does not. By 45 percent to 38 percent, voters pick Edwards over Cheney as the one who do the better job running the country. And, by 49 percent to 28 percent, voters pick Edwards over Cheney as one who is more optimistic about the future of the country.
The poll also finds Bush’s approval ratings still languishing at 45 percent approval/48 percent disapproval. But at least he’s doing better than Cheney who only receives a 44 percent approval rating.
Gallup’s polling doesn’t include a horse race question, but has some very interesting data anyway, particularly comparisons with earlier years. For example, 28 percent of voters rate Kerry’s choice of Edwards as “excellent” and 36 percent as “very good”, for a 64 percent positive rating. By contrast, Bush’s selection of Cheney was rated positively by 55 percent (including just 10 percent excellent) and Gore’s selection of Lieberman was rated positively by 53 percent (including 18 percent excellent).
In addition, 22 percent of voters (40 percent of Democrats) say they are “enthusiastic” about Kerry’s choice of Edwards and 48 percent of voters (also 48 percent of Democrats) are “satisfied”.
In an identical finding to the NBC News survey, 24 percent say they are more likely to vote for Kerry because of Edwards’ selection, compared to 7 percent who say they are less likely. That’s a more positive effect than either the Lieberman or Cheney selection elicited in 2000 (though not as good as the Kemp selection in 1996 or the Gore selection in 1992–a pattern that runs through much of the other data).
Edwards also is rated qualified to serve as president by as many voters as rated Cheney qualified in 2000 (57 percent) and by more than rated Lieberman qualified (52 percent).
Similarly, Kerry’s choice of Edwards is rated favorably by as many voters as rated Bush’s selection of Cheney favorably (64 percent) and by more voters than rated Gore’s selection of Lieberman favorably (57 percent).
Finally, are voters going to look askance at Edwards because he’s a trial lawyer? On the contrary, according to the Gallup data people overwhelmingly (67 percent) see Edwards’ trial lawyer experience as a strength (major/26 percent; minor/41 percent), rather than a weakness.
So score that opening round for Kerry-Edwards.

The Washington Post on Tuesday had a long profile of Steve Rosenthal, the head of America Coming Together and former political director of the AFL-CIO. I have some acquaintance with Rosenthal and I think the article fairly captures both his personality and his devastating effectiveness as an organizer.
So, if you’re wonder where else to send your money besides the Kerry-Edwards campaign, send off a check to Rosenthal’s organization. Believe me, they will use your money well.

I only wrote one post about the vice president issue and it was this one: “Edwards for Vice President“. Guess it worked.
I’m pleasantly surprised that Kerry had the good sense to do what seemed like the obviously best thing to do. For months, I’ve been joking with people that Edwards as vice president is such a good idea that of course Kerry will never do it. I couldn’t be happier to be proved wrong.
My views on why this move is likely to pay off haven’t changed much since I wrote the post linked to above, so allow me the liberty of quoting myself:
I believe [Edwards] would make a substantial contribution to increasing the ticket’s appeal among white working class voters in culturally conservative swing states, especially where it is most necessary–outside of the unionized working class. Even if one assumes that Gephardt has appeal to the unionized rank-and-file of the working class, as opposed to labor leaders, that still leaves out the vast majority of the white working class–well over four-fifths. And it is among these non-unionized white working class voters that Democrats have had the most trouble and where Gore got really hammered in 2000.
One particular trouble spot is among those with some college–the upwardly striving working class. Because of severe underperformance among whites with this educational credential, Gore lost the group as a whole by 6 points in 2000. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, won them by 8 points in 1996.
If John Edwards can help Kerry get close to Bill Clinton’s 1996 performance with these voters, there’s the election.

What should John Kerry do? I wrote recently on the recent jobs report and how that and other factors suggest that voters’ views of the economy are unlikely to brighten fast enough to be a net plus for Bush’s re-election efforts.
That said, the level of economic pessimism as we approach the election is highly unlikely to be as low as that Bush’s father had to struggle with. Kerry, as Louis Uchitelle pointed out in an excellent article in the Sunday New York Times, is therefore likely to have to emphasize domestic proposals like his health care plan rather than simply dwell on how bad the economy is. Uchitelle goes on to give perhaps the best and most complete summary of Kerry’s domestic program and its relation to Kerry’s macroeconomic strategy, including deficit reduction, that I have seen. Highly recommended.

The Annenberg Election Survey recently released their latest batch of data, covering June 16-30. Their theme for this release is the under-rated marriage gap–which, as they note, in some cases is larger and more significant than the more familiar gender gap.
But not in all. Careful scrutinizing of their own data reveals that the gender gap is larger than the marriage gap on some important issues (guns, right direction/wrong track, the Iraq war) and, generally speaking, married women are more liberal than married men and single women are much more liberal than single men.
But, if they don’t quite make their case about the marriage gap overwhelming the gender gap, they’re still right that the marriage gap desevers more serious attention than it generally gets.
The latest Annenberg data also show Bush’s approval rating sinking in the second half of June, wrong track going up and views that the Iraq situation wasn’t worth going to war over strengthening–all consistent with other recently-released public polls (except for that zany bunch down at Fox News, of course).

I have devoted some effort to debunking the administration’s claims of a booming economy and the deplorable tendency of the press to fall into line and parrot these claims without putting them into context. Now here comes the new jobs report which should tax the ability of the administration and the press to claim the economy is going like gangbusters.
Here are the key findings:
1. The economy only added 112,000 jobs in June, well below expectations and far short of the numbers generated in the last three months (which, incidentally, were revised downward slightly). As Representative Pete Stark (D-Calif) correctly points out: “Despite 10 months of job growth, there are still 1.1 million fewer non-farm payroll jobs than there were when President Bush took office. There are 1.8 million fewer private payroll jobs, including 2.7 million fewer manufacturing jobs”.
2. Manufacturing employement contracted by 11,000 jobs, ending a short spurt of job growth in that sector.
3. Average hourly wages went up only .1 percent in nominal terms last month. That means real wages (wages adjusted for inflation) almost certainly went down last month–again. As EPI’s Job Picture points out, that means “real hourly earnings will be down in real terms over the past year, and will have fallen in six of the past seven months”. In fact, as a recent EPI Economic Snapshot observes, real wages are now the lowest they’ve been in two years.
But what does President Bush have to say? You guessed it: “…the economy is strong and getting stronger”. Trouble for him is, voters, living as they do in the real economy, don’t agree.
The recent NBC News poll asked voters how strongly they agreed, on a five point scale where 5 is totally agree and 1 is totally disagree, with the following statement, which is, almost verbatim, the standard Bush riff on the economy:
Our economy is strong and it is getting stronger. America has added more than one-point-four million new jobs since last August. The rate of home ownership in America is at an all-time high, business investment is growing, the stock market is improving, consumer confidence is increasing, and personal incomes are on the rise.
Just 16 percent gave it a “5” (totally agree) and another 19 percent gave it a “4”. Not so good. And here’s the other statement NBC News gave to voters, which sounds like it came out of a Kerry speech:
The net loss of one-point-two million private-sector jobs is a serious challenge for the American economy. Middle-class families are also increasingly being squeezed by the rising costs of health care, college tuition, and gasoline at the same time that wages and incomes are stagnating and personal bankruptcies are at a record high.
This one sounded way more plausible to voters–46 percent gave it a “5” and another 19 percent a “4”.
And you know what?–it not only sounds more plausible, it is more plausible. Let’s hope this latest jobs report wakes up the press to that reality.

Another major poll, another boatload of bad news for the Bush campaign. Here’s the latest from NBC News/Wall Street Journal on what the public thinks, very consistent with other recently-released data.
1. Bush is doing a lousy job. His overall approval rating is 45 percent, with 49 pecent disapproval, lowest ever in this poll. His approval rating on the economy is identical, an improvement from NBC News’ May rating but still net negative and about in line with their March rating, which pre-dated almost all of the recent job growth. His foreign policy rating is lower at 44/52 and his rating on “dealing with the war on terrorism” is now under 50 percent, with approval (48 percent) barely higher than disapproval (47 percent). The last time NBC News asked this question was in January and it makes for quite a contrast. In January, Bush was a net +32 on his war on terrorism approval rating (63/31). Now he’s down to +1–a big, big change.
2. The country’s not going in the right direction. In the NBC News poll, just 36 percent think so, up 3 points from May, but still down 7 points from March in this poll.
3. The economy is still in trouble. A strong majority (57 percent) continues to think that “the signs point to an economy that is going to be in trouble–jobs are moving overseas, the budget deficit is growing, and too many jobs do not have health insurance or pensions” rather than “the signs point to an economy that is going to be strong–jobs are being created, inflation is low, and the stock market is up”.
4. The war wasn’t really worth it. The number who believe removing Saddam from power was worth “the number of US casualties and the financial costs of the war” is down to 40 percent, the lowest ever in this poll, with a majority (51 percent) saying it wasn’t.
5. The war hasn’t made us safer. A majority (51 percent) thinks the threat of terrorism against the US has been increased by the Iraq war, compared to only 14 percent who think it has decreased.
6. Bush lied or at least exaggerated. A majority (53 percent) now say that Bush “exagerrate information to make the case for war” rather than provided the most accurate information (42 percent). Three months ago, this question returned a 49-49 split. Also, for the first time, a plurality (47 percent) say Bush “deliberately misled people to make the case for war” rather than gave the most accurate information (44 percent). That’s a reversal from three months ago when, by 53-41, people said Bush did not deliberately mislead people.
7. Let’s try to get out of here, shall we?. By 53-37, the public worries more that we will stay in Iraq too long than that we will leave too soon. A majority (55 percent) either want to leave immediately/as soon as possible (24 percent) or according to a specified timetable but within 18 months “regardless of the situation at the time” (31 percent). And 74 percent say that, if Iraqi civilian leaders can’t govern effectively, the US should not take back control but rather let the Iraqis work things out for themselves.
That’s what the public thinks. Over to you, John Kerry.

Pretty darn far. Yesterday, I mentioned that Bush’s approval rating on Iraq among independents is now a sizzling 29 percent.
Here’s some more data from that CBS News/New York Times poll that shows how extremely unhappy the public (especially independent voters) is with the Iraq situation. I was particularly struck by this finding: the public, by more than 3:1, thinks that US involvement in Iraq is creating more terrorists who are planning to attack the US (55 percent), rather than less (17 percent). Wow. More potential airline highjackers, bioterrorists and what have you, rather than less. That’s really an amazing finding and shows how far the administration’s strategy for the war on terror has sunk in public esteem.
Similarly, by about 4:1, the public thinks that US military action against Iraq has increased (47 percent) rather than decreased (13 percent) the threat of terrorism against the US. Looked at another way, 85 percent think the Iraq war has either made no difference or increased the threat of terrorism.
Moreover, by about 2:1 (60-32), the public believes the result of the war with Iraq has not been worth the associated loss of American life and other costs (that result skies to 65-28 among independents). And we’re edging toward a majority saying we should have stayed out to begin with (and we’re already there among independents).
But will the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis get views on Iraq headed north again? I doubt it, unless the situation on the ground in Iraq improves dramatically, which seems highly unlikely. And keep in mind how the public is viewing this handover: they’re for it, but they regard it as a sign of failure, not success, for Bush’s policy. A just-released Gallup poll finds 60 percent saying the handover, given that stability has not yet been established, does indicate that US policy is failing, compared to 32 percent who think the handover means success (and it’s 66-25 among independents).
Note also that 70 percent now think significant numbers of US troops should remain in Iraq for only two years or less, but just 36 percent believe such a deadline will be met. Food for thought for John Kerry, who, so far, has not been able to open up a significant lead over Bush–despite his horrific numbers–on who can best deal with the Iraq situaiton.

It’s been a busy day but I couldn’t let it go by without a few comments on the new CBS News/New York Times poll. It would be easy to miss, or not understand fully, how negative this new poll is, coming as it does, on the heels of a number of other strongly negative polls. Also, the horse race result (Bush down by a point) is indeed better for the president than the same poll’s result last month (a Bush deficit of 8 points). But Bush, while behind by less, is still behind and is registering only 44 percent support, a catastrophic level for an incumbent seeking re-election.
As Frank Newport of Gallup recently put it:
None of the five presidents who won re-election [since 1956] were behind their eventual opponent in any trial heats after January in the year prior to their election.
So, one point deficit or 8 point deficit, Bush is still following a losing pattern.
And, as Newport also put it:
Based on historical patterns, Bush’s [under 50 percent] job approval rating is thus underperforming the pattern of presidents who have won re-election.
Check again on the losing pattern. Bush’s approval rating in this poll is a miserable 41 percent with 51 percent disapproval. And his approval rating among independents is a breathtakingly bad 34 percent.
Moreover, Bush’s approval rating on the economy, despite some increase in economic optimism registered by the poll, remains mired at 40 percent approval/52 percent disapproval. And independents give him the same abysmal 34 percent they give him overall.
But that’s better than Bush fares on Iraq, where he receives only a 36/58 rating, with independents downgrading him further to 29/62. He does little better on foreign policy in general, receiving a 39 percent rating from the public as a whole and a 32 percent rating for independents.
Only on the campaign against terrorism does he get an approval rating over 50 (52 percent) and, even here, independents still give him a sub-50 rating (48 percent).
And here’s more trouble: wrong track (57 percent) is 21 points higher than right direction (36 percent) and is more than 2:1 among independents (62-28).
Yup, it’s a referendum on the incumbent and these are terrible numbers to have if you’re an incumbent–especially as we shade into July of an election year.
More on this poll tomorrow.