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. (The candidates who got vice presidential bounces in 1996, 2000, and 2004 announced their choices before or after the Olympics took place in those years.)
The Gallup poll sampled registered voters, not likely voters. The likely voter sample tends to be skewed a bit more to people who will vote for the GOP. Thus, among the people polled who will actually end up voting in November, McCain probably has an advantage of a few points.
The ostensible reason for Obama picking Biden is Biden’s foreign policy experience. However, Biden got to be Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee entirely because of his long tenure in the Senate, rather than his judgment or experience concerning the Committee’s jurisdiction. In this respect, everyone should read this commentary in The Washington Post on Biden’s lack of judgment concerning Iran, including his vote against designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. (Indeed, it sounds like Biden has the same foreign policy advisor as Bishop Chane.)
Question: If Obama is the candidate of change (?), how is tapping a man (?) who has never done anything since he was 29 (and he’s now 63) but be a U.S. Senator, who is completely in the party mainstream, a change or even reflective of “change?”
#1 : Can you figure Rasmussen’s rationale for polling? They seem to poll more self-identified Democrats rather than a purely random selection. I think this skews things too – as in 2004.
My bad – I was thinking of Zogby.