Lobbying of Supers - Part 4 of 4

Pre-endorsement: I made the decision to endorse shortly after Perdue's primary election on May 6th.  A day after the election, I flew up to New York for some media work with CNN, and while I was crossing one of the bridges from La Guardia I got a call from Governor Richardson by phone from Mexico (old Mexico, not New Mexico).  We chatted about the race, and I decided I would endorse Senator Obama in the near future.  On the morning of Friday, May 9th, I called my contact at the Obama campaign to let them know that that I would be endorsing on Monday.  The response was something along the lines of "we need you now, man."  So I was set to endorse on that day.  But I told them I had some work to do first.

Being from Southern California, the LA Times had asked to break the story first.  So I had to call them and give them the go-ahead (this was common for all Supers around the country - their local papers wanted to break the news first, and in most cases they did).  The next three calls I made were to the Clinton campaign, two of them were people I had worked with the most and the other was a man whom I had just spoke to the night before.  It would be about an hour before the news broke, but it had already leaked to some folks I know.  I received a few text messages right away.

Announcement: The announcement came on a day when 8 other Supers endorsed, which I believe was the biggest swell of endorsements with the exception of June 4th.

But the lobbying continued on the Clinton side.  Not long after I endorsed Senator Obama, I started getting hand-written letters and emails from people all around the country.  Some were very nice, some were angry - a few contained threats.  About 700 pieces of mail in all.  To be honest, the most off-putting part of all of this was that the campaign had distributed my personal email address, not my public address, to these masses.  So much for spam control.

I'm sure there are some things that I am forgetting, but that's pretty much the major sum of the story of the lobbying and how this particular endorsement came along.

Even through this morning, June 11th, I am still getting email from activists encouraging me to switch my vote.  Clearly these are folks who are either on the fringe or who are so truly endeared to their candidate that they feel a need to continue to push, but even Clinton is supporting Obama now.  So, that's that.

Last in a series of four.

Comments

[suekzoo]

Mr. Super, it might be interesting to hear how you came to your decision of who to endorse, what were the factors, etc. That is...if you are comfortable divulging your thinking on this. :o)

[greg]

Fantastic set of posts, Mr. Super.

[Chris O.]

I think these may have been the most interesting posts I've read on the blog. Very glad you did them.

[Joe]

I don't usually link to ABC because they've been rather biased and none too accurate, but this one is too hilarious to pass up, probably because it's talking about Colbert & McCain :)

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5047667&page=1

"By speaking in front of a green screen, John McCain issues a bold challenge to Americans to make him seem interesting," [Stephen Colbert] said.

[Joe]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/there-probably.html

The sad thing is that I seem to remember predicting something rather like this in another post on this site from a long while ago...

[Joe]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5832027.html

This is foolish of the Republicans, IMHO, because it cuts both ways by giving pro-life people no reason to support McCain.

[Truth]

Joe, the far left will vote Obama and the far right will vote McCain. The first one to the center wins (ask Bill Clinton). That article should be brought to the attention of approximately 18 million voters if McCain wants to win.

[Truth]

I agree with suekzoo that Mr. Super should talk about how he came to support Obama between approximately 1/10/08 to 3/21/08. I'd imagine being in his 10,000 guaranteed vote position would allow him to request an extraordinary amount of detail on each candidate's platform.

[Truth]

Following Joe's lead on news stories:

Tax Hike On Oil Profits Blocked
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061000143.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Makes one proud to be an Independent when you see totally clueless people deciding our future. Don’t get me wrong. I can’t stand the oligopoly, but everybody knows what is going to happen. If you guys argued that the oil companies would just eat up the “gas tax holiday” savings when that doesn’t touch their pocketbooks, what do you think this would do? I will oversimplify this, but it would actually be worse than I’m illustrating. I hear the 6% margin thrown out there. That means they make $6 for every $100 of income. Taking an extra 25% out of that means they get to keep $4.50 for every $100 now. Of course they will want to keep their profits at $6 for every $100, so they will now have to raise their margin to 8%. $100 x 8% = $8 less 25% new tax = $6. So this means $4 gas will be $4.09 for the same profit using the 8% margin. It will actually be more because there are more “middle men” in there putting their margin on the baseline raised margin. That is of course if they just want to break even from the tax. They may have increased overhead handling the tax change, so it may be a 10% margin or $4.00/gal = $4.18/gal. Regina was actually dead on when she brought up the fact the gas tax was a regressive tax, so this windfall profits tax is regressive on steroids.

I’m with Ron Paul that the way to cut spending is here:
http://www.nonviolenceworks.com/usmilitaryglobal.pdf
Start funneling military expenditures to a DARPA-like alternative energy fund and get serious about this. Clinton/Gore started this. Clinton has carried it on post-office with the Clinton Foundation. Hillary has already stood up to the head of DARPA’s funding branch. Obama voted for the Cheney energy bill and is now engaged in what he himself described as pandering in 2006.

[Truth]

House Fails To Extend Jobless Benefits
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061101977.html?hpid=moreheadlines

So glad this didn’t get passed (as of yet). If somebody can convince me this wouldn’t be detrimental to our economy (and therefore every citizen), then I will change my tune. I’ve already discussed what intelligent unemployment benefits would be.

This is just like the GI Bill. When you look at it like a 2 year old, you see evil government hurting our troops. The 16% new enlistment is great and a goal to achieve, but raising the re-enlistment (or at least keeping new losses to 0%) is smart. The GI Bill causing 16% turnover was just “dumb”. I don’t oppose a GI Bill. What I am opposed to is a dumb GI Bill. Weakening the combined experience of our troops actually hurts our troops.

[Truth]

Libya's Moammar Gadhafi criticizes Barack Obama
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ipfkgvZrcUIK2w1l7QK_t92MzlNQD9184K700

The Republicans are handling this (Castro, Hamas, etc) all wrong. They should jump on the fact that they are already turning their back on Obama and he isn’t in office yet, so how is he going to deliver on his diplomatic fairy tale once in office? They are going the opposite route by calling them endorsements which falls on deaf ears. Fortunately for the Repubs, Obama is also handling it 180 degrees incorrectly. Obama should accept what praise he gets to strengthen his long lost “talking with our enemies” point. But now that I type this out, the Republicans are in fact not as stupid as they sound. They are basically using reverse psychology to get Obama to distance himself from one of his strongest platform points.

[Truth]

NBC/WSJ Poll: Post-primary bump for Obama
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25096620/

If you go from leading McCain by 3 points to 6 points that is a 3 point bump, not a 6 point bump. That is pretty weak for a clinching the nomination bump and should bring pause.

On the electoral map, the only real change has been Missouri made a swing from McCain +3 to Obama +1. The other side of the story is that from June 3 to 11, Strong Dem wilted from 190 to 175 while Strong GOP grew from 124 to 153. Even worse, Barely Dem augmented from 32 to 53 while Barely GOP diminished from 36 to 17. Translation, if something big doesn’t happen it will be another extremely close election.

[Truth]

Obama: The Movie
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004472149_michelle12.html

I know many Obama supporters loved to reference “Hillary: The Movie” as if it was gospel. Well the tables have turned and the very same person that created this movie is putting together “Obama: The Movie”. I will find it intriguing when I see the same people that loved his first 2008 election movie recoil in disgust over his sequel.

Let me know when talking about the issues in enough detail to nurture an intelligent choice by the candidates begins. It is already apparent that Obama will try to avoid as many debates with McCain (Bush like?) because he feels he does better at media length with no counterpoints to immediately tackle. It is probably a smart decision to help win the election, but is that what we want from our leaders? Don’t allow our Presidential Elections to sink into this abyss.

[Truth]

The Unvetted Vetter
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103170_2.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

But what is important here is what this incident says about Obama, not about Johnson. The senator's initial reaction was to portray himself as too busy to keep up with the obscure financial doings of people who are not significant to the campaign and to belittle the media for asking him to "vet the vetters."

To treat Johnson, Holder and Kennedy suddenly as mere fact-checkers is as disingenuous as it is ungracious. Obama is clearly the most intelligent candidate of either party since Bill Clinton. But he can outsmart himself if he goes on expecting the media and the public to accept just about any explanation he gives.
--------------

In other words, eventually the public will stop asking for the Kool-Aid and get serious about both candidates.

[Joe]

Truth:

You're a bit behind on the news. Obama has a larger bump now (same as Clinton's, last I heard).

They don't have to vet a vetter, he resigned (I *really* don't know how you missed that one, either).

And the Republicans are going with the guilt by association tactic full-bore, they're probably not going to flip-flop on that because policy positions are too hard to sell to the public, anyhow.

Finally, after all your talk about wanting an experienced politician, you don't seem to realize that the Republicans have been forced to vote against everything McCain has claimed to be for: the troops, lower gas prices, and economic relief.

Maybe they were bad plans, but how do you think they'll sell those issues now? McCain is already being branded a flip-flopper. And he has changed positions on almost everything this election.

A while ago, you were terribly worried that he probably wouldn't win.

[Joe]

http://news.slashdot.org/news/08/06/12/1211204.shtml

I wonder if this is what McCain had in mind when he asked people to stump for him on blogs?

I love the use of the word 'effluent' ...

[Blame]

OBama looks like doing all the right things.

From the signs I think he is going to drop "Change" for "Its the economy stupid".

Better still His team of economists looks like being slightly left of centre. Realists rather than idealists.

Some will disagree with what he wants to do with the economy, but I will bet that soon they will believe he has the people to do it with competance. That should be enough.

I doubt if McCain would know a competant economist if one bit him. He certainly has no respect for them. How else could we explain the gas tax holiday?

And if that is not enough good news, Obama is pushing hard with his registration drive. No complacency there. He is going for every advantage possible.

Will Obama win? wrong question!

Will Obama, Plouffe & Axelrod win? Yes. This is a campaign run with precision.

You want to know why the Super Delegates abandoned Hillary for Barack? They didn't. They abandoned Penn for Axelrod.

[suekzoo]

Ben Stein and Paul Krugman were on Larry King last night. I only saw part of it, but it was quite humorous to see them agree wholeheartedly that McCain's tax plan is trash.

[suekzoo]

What I found most interesting about the WSJ/NBC poll was not the size of the bump, but the demographics, and especially these:

Hispanics: Obama 62 McCain 28
Women: Obama 52 McCain 33
Blue Collar: Obama 47 McCain 42
Clinton voters: Obama 61 McCain 19

Sure, he still has work to do on older women and white men, but this is not a bad place to start from.

Rasmussen today shows NC tightening with McCain ahead by only 2. If that kind of trend continues and McCain has to spend time & money defending red states...well...it just doesn't bode well for him.

[Blame]

suekzoo

Sounds like fun. What was McCain offering this time. Free air miles?

[Regina]

Not sure about the bump, at least in the NBC/WSJ poll. Obama is now definitely ahead by a wider margin than before Hilllary conceded (margin of +6 now compared to +3 in the previous NBC/WSJ poll). But Obama's number is now at 47% and it was at 46% in the last poll. The 'bump', if that's what you want to call it isn't a bump for Obama, but a bump away from McCain with more people saying undecided now. Kind of weird. Could McCain's bad speech in New Orleans on Tuesday cause the McCain decrease (while Obama is basically not increasing nor decreasing)?

There may be other polls where Obama has actually increased his own level of support, but he hasn't in the NBC/WSJ poll.

[Regina]

Well, I just checked Gallup and Rasmussen daily tracking. With Rasmussen, there appears to be a bump in favor of Obama between today and last week of a couple percentage points (from 47% to 50%), and a very slight decline for McCain.

But with Gallup, there is no bump. Obama had been steady at about 46% last week against McCain, and he is now at 48%, statistically w/in the margin of error and identical to last week. Obama is slightly ahead, but not because of a bump. He was ahead of McCain last week slightly too.

So, outside of Rasmussen, there isn't really much evidence of Clinton people moving to Obama. Just evidence of McCain losing a couple % points to undecided. But we'll see if a bump occurs next week with Obama's numbers.

[suekzoo]

"So, outside of Rasmussen, there isn't really much evidence of Clinton people moving to Obama."

From the WSJ/NBC poll:

"In the poll, however, voters who chose Sen. Clinton in the primaries said by a 3-to-1 ratio, 61% to 19%, that they plan to vote for Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain in November. "Hillary's embrace of Obama really made a difference," Mr. Newhouse says."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121322048693265737.html

[Truth]

Joe: You're a bit behind on the news. Obama has a larger bump now (same as Clinton's, last I heard).

I only get the numbers from this dimension Joe. I clearly stated Obama got a 3 point bump not a 6 point bump. RCP averages
June 3 – 46.7% to 45.2% = +1.5% Obama (clinches nomination)
June 12 – 46.8% to 42.5% = +4.3% Obama
2.8% bump (ok, I exaggerated the 3% so I guess his bump was actually lower)

So Joe, tell me where I’m ignorant.

Joe: They don't have to vet a vetter, he resigned (I *really* don't know how you missed that one, either).

Where did you get the idea that I *missed* it? If you want to play that game, I can tear apart just about every post you make. You must have not read the article because the point was we are starting to get tired of Obama thinking he can just constantly give out excuses that only work on the extremely uninformed before it will catch up to him. Obama went after Clinton’s campaign on Countrywide connections. He says the VP will be one of the most important choices he will make (as a way to blow off Clinton). It is so important that he chose badly on one of only two people (Kennedy is window dressing) to make this important decision. Then he tried to pretend he doesn’t work for him (so how does he resign? Or better yet, he assigned this incredibly important decision to a lowly intern?) Jim Johnson is the same guy that leaked Kerry approached McCain for VP btw, and picked Ferraro (you guys all hate her). He acts like it is not a big deal, followed by a “resignation”. You’ve got to be kidding me. The funny thing is Obama brings this stuff on himself because he started the whole campaign member gotcha game. Now that it is backfiring on him, he wants to take his ball and go home.

Suekzoo: you must have missed the part where the people’s view of the Iraq is shifting back to McCain’s point of view, same poll. You must have missed Ben Stein stating he will vote McCain and that both of them agree McCain (or even Bush) did not create these economic conditions and that Obama is benefitting (unfairly) by the high gas prices. I’ve already demonstrated how his windfall tax profit would raise prices, so with actual thought the gas prices should be Obama’s albatross.

"Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn’t"

"For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy."

You mean that Paul Krugman? They both said the problem is gas prices (energy prices) and health care. Krugman admits Obama isn't as good as Clinton on energy or health care. So good job Obama voters. You gave us a choice between moron A and moron B.

Once again, we seem to get caught in innuendo. I bring up specific issues and nobody wants to discuss them with any meaning. Joe brought up the pro-McCain nuclear energy. I actually think we can already run a campaign of “new change”; the change from Obama-McCain.

[Regina]

Suezkoo, you are right. I misspoke. I meant to write that there's not much evidence of a bump. About 75-80% of Clinton supporters supported Obama before she dropped out, and still are based on the polls. But there is a pretty big gap that had not and is still not moving over. That 20% or so of defectors to McCain is why there's not much evidence of an Obama bump.

[Regina]

Looking at that WSJ poll again, it shows only 61% (!) of Hillary supporters are supporting Obama. That's really low. I'm one of those people in the 20-some % not sure who she is voting for. But 19% for McCain + about 20% undecided. Obama has work to do to win over Clinton supporters. If this holds, I think (and hope) he'll have to pick Clintona s VP.

Si se puede!

[suekzoo]

"You must have missed Ben Stein stating he will vote McCain."

No, I didn't. I stated what I thought was humorous, not what I found obvious and not surprising.

[Truth]

suekzoo, I'm glad you find that we have two economic morons as our choice for president humorous. I find it depressing.

Can anybody explain how making the price of gas go up even faster, paying people not to work, creating an additional 16% turnover in the military, choking investment, small tax breaks for only the poor, supporting corn ethanol, a doomed health care plan, etc, etc is a "good plan"?

[Joe]

Truth: Ok, I saw that you didn't mention it, but I can see that you said it was his 'initial reaction'.

I was looking at the Rassmusen poll when that came out, but even if it's not reflected in the other polls, this is looking pretty good: http://electoral-vote.com/

Even though something tells me you'll focus on Florida.

Anyhow, as far as I'm concerned, the vetter stuff is not relevant. I'm sure that McCain intends to go after all of his VP vetters with anything he can find, because he wants to cast as much doubt on the process as possible to hurt Obama. It's a game. I don't care what kind of mortgages that guy had, the only question at hand is how good he is at vetting VP candidates.

I'd call "how good the vetter is" the only actual issue and the rest fluff, no matter what any random campaigner, media outlet, or even Obama himself has said.

It's funny, because I remember not long ago when they were reporting how Obama had hired some of the best in the game, who, naturally enough, were Washington insiders. I think it would be hard to find people who can do that who aren't, honestly.

Moreover, I'm not bound to everything the Obama campaign has said, you know. You point that out during my mention of nuclear power, but fail to appreciate that it applies here, as well :)

If you want to talk hypocrisy, we'll be here forever. I assure you, in politics, there's enough to go around. I've been consistent in my opinion, however, that Obama has _less_ of it. I don't think that perfect candidates exist, in spite of how often I'm told that I'm some kind of "far left" idealist :)

Heck, I still consider myself a conservative at heart, just more pragmatic in how I go about it.

[Joe]

Truth:

Can anyone explain to me how we can justify tax breaks for oil companies, not doing anything to help those who have been laid off, denying our soldiers help in going to college because they might leave the service, keeping the current capital gains tax rates, denying tax breaks for the poor and small businesses, supporting alternative fuels (which can be made from switch grass, among other things, and grown in areas corn cannot be), a health care plan that has a better chance of passing than Hillary's did because it's voluntary, even if it doesn't provide as good a coverage, etc. is a "bad plan"?

[Truth]

Joe, I think you are making my point about one of the things I hate most about Obama. He rode the wave of "new politics" and pointed out everything about his opponents' candidates that wasn't "illegal" but the public might jump on. When the same game gets played on him he calls distraction time out.

"It's funny, because I remember not long ago when they were reporting how Obama had hired some of the best in the game, who, naturally enough, were Washington insiders. I think it would be hard to find people who can do that who aren't, honestly."

That is the point. Obama is the most guilty of this game without question. But actually, Jim Johnson is a horrible vetter. Look at his record.

So let's take one thing at a time. Do you think oil companies will raise their margin (prices) if the windfall tax prices passes? Doesn't that mean we just pay for it? If it goes up $0.18 to $0.27 overnight directly related to this new "cost", won't that $0.27 hurt you more than the "fat cats"? This is the regressive tax Regina is talking about. I've already seen major "fuel surcharge" increases on the raw materials I buy for BOTH businesses. Eventually I will have to increase prices or decrease costs elsewhere. So you tell me how this is a good plan.

It is the equivalaent to throwing a tantrum and beating up your TV. It might give some immediate emotional release, but you are screwed when you are finished and even more pissed off.

[Joe]

Truth, I think Obama is less guilty (but more vulnerable) to the hypocrisy charges. People give the others a free pass because they have lower expectations. And whenever someone *tries* to do right, they get nailed for it.

If you can understand the metagaming of a fuel tax (oddly enough, using exactly the logic I used to argue against it last time without explaining why they would've lowered prices then, when taxes are figured into the at-pump price) I don't see why you can't understand the rules that create a culture of hypocrisy in Washington and punish anyone who bucks the flow.

You're probably right about the effects of the new gas tax bill, but it was good politics (it gives a retort vs. those who don't delve into the issue) though I'm a little miffed that the anti-price gouging part didn't pass, either.

But it's funny, because I don't think I disagreed on that, and if I seemed to, it was unintentional. I believe I said they were good politics in that part, not a good idea :)

[Truth]

Gas problem solution. The prices aren't going to go down anytime soon, so you need to make the $/mile go down instead. Hence my Chevy Volt example. Prius plans to be PHEV just around the corner. Obviously the government can't buy everybody a Volt, so they help drive the price down with a huge federal line purchases. That isn't a subsidy because there is a value on our tax dollars. Michigan may like it too. Step 1 - check.

Step 2 - push the car on a global level ... working class economic support check

Step 3 - working class can buy the Volt and possibly even set up a big refundable tax credit paid for an increase in the "gas tax" because now it has less effect $/mile.

Step 4 - After 3-4 years, phase out the gas tax funding PHEV purchases and shift it to solar, wind, nuclear, etc. for the next big step ... pure electric cars.

Just announcing the plan with some authority would drive the speculation price on oil down.

Seriously, I'm tired of politicians that can't even think on these simple terms. Oh wait, Clinton (both) understood this. It makes me angry. John McCain angry (that one was for you).

[Truth]

Next thing you brought up ... people being laid off. You didn't like my example of "subsidizing" employment with unemployment funds instead of paying people to not work? Explain how paying people to not work will help the economy. Talk about a vicious circle that would create: explode unemployment and therefore implode the economy ... more unemployment ... round and round. It is a bad idea no matter how you cut it. And these are Obama's opening salvos on the economy. Scares me like a Dick Cheney heart attack.

[Truth]

As far as ev.com
Clinton’s last posting (before what would have been her “bump”)
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html
312 to 168 winner Clinton with states over 5 point lead

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Jun12.html
234 to 221 winner Obama with states over 5 point lead
207 to 198 winner Obama with states over 5 point lead May 12 (month ago)
27 to 23 point gain for the month. (4 point swing)

33 to 56 gain for McCain in states with 10 point lead (23 point swing for McCain)

So yes, on a superficial level Obama is doing better than last month. On a critical level, Obama is still the wrong choice. But don’t worry. If this election continues to be led by generalities, personalities and emotion, Obama will win. This is the 2008 election and I approve the methods – GW Bush.

[Tony in MI]

Truth writes: "On the electoral map, the only real change has been Missouri made a swing from McCain +3 to Obama +1."

Truth used to cite electoral-vote.com.
I'm wonder why he skipped that one this time?

Here's what's on electoral-vote today's:
Obama 304 McCain 221

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA MO NM OH
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): (None)

[Tony in MI]

Regina writes: "But with Gallup, there is no bump. [...] Obama is slightly ahead, but not because of a bump. He was ahead of McCain last week slightly too."

I'm looking at http://www.gallup.com/poll/107830/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-McCain-42.aspx

The latest is Obama 48, McCain 42
Going back 7 entries, it was Obama 45, McCain 46.

That's a 7 point shift, Obama +3, McCain -4.

How much do you need to call it a bump?

[Tony in MI]

I didn't read all of Truth's posting before I replied. I see he did cite electoral-vote.com here:

"http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Jun12.html
234 to 221 winner Obama with states over 5 point lead
207 to 198 winner Obama with states over 5 point lead May 12 (month ago)
27 to 23 point gain for the month. (4 point swing)"

I'm calling blatant cherry picking.

For the May 12 numbers, here's the URL:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May12.html

Obama 237 McCain 290

And today's:
Obama 304 McCain 221

This is not a "4 point swing."

[Regina]

Quoting Tony in MI: "I'm looking at http://www.gallup.com/poll/107830/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-McCain-42.aspx

The latest is Obama 48, McCain 42
Going back 7 entries, it was Obama 45, McCain 46.

That's a 7 point shift, Obama +3, McCain -4.

How much do you need to call it a bump?"

Tony, that's my point. Obama is +3, which is within the margin of error. Look at Obama only, not McCain to assess the bump. Is Obama GAINING ground? No, he is the ssame (48, 47, 45 are all within the margin of error).

McCain has done worse (-4 as you point out), but that is not a bump for Obama. As I implied before, it looks like Obama is statistically holding steady in the mid-to-high 40s. This was true before Clinton dropped out and after Clinton dropped out. What has changed since Clinton dropped out is that LESS people are supporting McCain (-4, just around or outside the margin of error).

So weirdly, in Gallup, there is no statistically meaningful bump toward Obama since Clinton dropped out. But there is a statistically meaningful drop in McCain support. People who last week supported McCain are now undecided. It was a bad week for McCain, but Obama has not gained (at least with Gallup) since last week. There is no post-Clinton bump in SUPPORT for Obama.

[Tony in MI]

Regina, Gallup lists a margin of plus or minus 2% in that poll.

[Regina]

As you all might be able to tell, I've taken statistics and am pretty familiar with polling.

The +/-2 only applies to the full poll (the Obama respondents, the McCain respondents, and the undecideds in total), not partial samples.

The 48% of people supporting Obama in the most recent poll is only a subset of the full poll, and thus the margin of error is larger. Gallup doesn't report this sub-sample MofE, but we can guess it is bigger than the 2% point gap between Obama 48 on one day and Obama 46 on another day. In the entire month of June, Obama has been at either 46% or 48%, statistically indistinguishable and no bump (yet at least, it might happen later this month).

And even if it weren't a partial sample and you wanted to apply the +/- 2 MofE to the data, that would mean Obama might really be at 46% instead of 48% (48 - 2 = 46%). This would be indetical to the other polls in June where Obama's poll estimate was 46%.

In sum, Obama has not gained nor declined according to Gallup throughout the entire month of June. Clinton dropping out did not add any supporters to Obama. McCain has lost supporters during the same time, though, which is probably due to his pretty bad performance last week in New Orleans.

Now that I've written all this, watch the new Gallup poll will come out with Obama at 55% today, making my post moot!

[Regina]

Gallup tracking update. Today, Gallup tracking has Obama at 46%, again statistically indistinguishable from the 48% from the last tracking poll, and from the entire month of June where he has ranged between 45-48%).

There is no post-Clinton concession bounce:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107992/Gallup-Daily-Obama-46-McCain-43.aspx

[Truth]

Tony in MI: I'm calling blatant cherry picking.

I call blatant ignorance. Why don't you read my post again and read previous posts. I've quite frequently stressed the importance of the over 5% lead states.

Missouri - I did use ev.com for that statement.

I used the RCP averages to show the 2.8% bump (or as Regina correctly states - 2.8% loss for McCain). You guys frequently just want to use 1 poll when it suits you.

The fact is Obama's EVs are mainly hanging on by a thread whereas McCain's are strong.