Rasmussen's Robots Reset?

(Crossposted to Redstate)

Polls and me... well, I never much trusted them to begin with, and after the way they failed to map the 2002 Congressional elections I decided to simply ignore any of them that tried to project more than 72 hours in the future.

Except for Rasmussen's daily poll, of course. I dunno whether it's because the poll is accurately reflecting reality, or because it happens to reinforce my own opinion that very little out there that actually affects an election. Day after day, the numbers kept popping in; essentially tied, with Bush and Kerry exchanging the nominal leadership in the polls on a regular basis. I've grown accustomed to seeing them as a sort of seismograph: something isn't anything if it doesn't skew the Robots.

If the above is correct - and it's just a rule-of-thumb I've hacked together, with absolutely no justification beyond 'well, it sounds about right' - the latest poll is good news for the Kerry campaign, because it suggests that the bounce from the Republican convention is going to die down pretty soon. 'Course, it's also bad news, because it'd also mean that, strictly speaking, the entire election cycle thus far has had little if any effect on the Senator's election prospects. The campaign is now really starting, oh my ObWi/RedState droogies: and this is where things get interesting.

Not to mention loud, bitter, vitriolic, absurd and the Platonic Form of "humorlessly, obssessively single-minded", of course. Fifty eight days and counting...

Comments

[Chuchundra]

Sad to day, but a lot of the people who will actually decide the election probably haven't been paying attention to the campaign. Everything up to this point has just been prelude.

Although my feeling is, for the incument to not be solidly ahead at this point in the game is very good news for the challenger.

[lightning]

Everything up to this point has just been prelude.

Yup. The attention span of the electorate is about two months unless the media is really pounding on it, which they aren't now. The people who have been paying attention have made up their minds; now it's a matter of getting out the base and getting the few remaining undecideds.

The interesting thing about this campaign is the very small number of undecideds. It's gonna be all about the base this time.

[Anarch]

The interesting thing about this campaign is the very small number of undecideds. It's gonna be all about the base this time.

If that's right, we're gonna be drowned in enough red meat to tailgate a Big Ten football game. Batten down the hatches, everyone, 'cause it's gonna get ugly.

[marguerite]

To prepare for the trying weeks ahead, sign up for the occult and hermetic order of the shrill here.

I nominate hilzoy for:

"As far as I can tell, the Bush administration asserts that in time of war, the President is essentially an absolute monarch. He can imprison any one of us at will, and need only show that there is 'some evidence' that we are enemy combatants; once he does so, we have no right to appeal. He can violate laws and treaties whenever he judges that he needs to, and need not inform anyone about it. This is not just wrong; it's dangerous. And why conservatives who care about small, non-intrusive government are not appalled by this -- appalled enough to think of it as a serious election issue -- is beyond me."

And Edward for:

"Emphasis mine. This is horrifying to me, just so you know. No hyperbole...I see these people as a direct threat to my family."

This is of course a high compliment. But unfortunately I am not invested with the power to utter the ancient words:

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Hilzoy and Edward R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn! Aaaaiiiiii!!!!

[Trickster]

Marguerite: in regard to characterizing hilzoy as "shrill," I'd like to see some more specifics to back your generalization. Granted, the argument for the objectionability of "absolute monarch" is obvious, but what specifically is your complaint as to the rest of the quote?

[marguerite]

As I said, it's no complaint at all; it's a compliment. "Shrill" is sarcastic. The term has been used to deride harsh, but quite accurate critiques of Bush. DeLong etc. have adopted it as their own.

Though I had to search a little to find a post of Hilzoy's I could characterize that way, she's almost too fair. I'm WAY more shrill than she is.

[Trickster]

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm aware of the comic overuse of the term "shrill" in regard to Krugman and I'm sure he's not the only one.

[hilzoy]

Trickster -- I think one has to be a consistent reader of Brad DeLong to appreciate the very real compliment Edward and I have just been paid ;)

marguerite -- thanks. For what it's worth, I think it would be hard to overestimate the depth of my opposition to Bush. I have just never seen the point of talking to people I disagree with in ways that will give them good reasons to discount what I have to say.

[Anarch]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Hilzoy and Edward R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn! Aaaaiiiiii!!!!

Iaaaa! Bush Niggurath!