"SURFACING THE LURKERS"--The new Republican theme song this moring has got to be "Don't Stop Believing. The release of the report: SurveyUSA: Momentum Shifts to Bush; Big GOP Bounce After RNC Convention signals the beginning of an eruption about to take place under the Democratic Party that will echo Krakatoa. The report states [emphasis added]:
The number of Americans who think George W. Bush will be re-elected in November has suddenly jumped 10 to 20 points in dozens of cities around the country, according to SurveyUSA tracking polls conducted before, during and after the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.As some marketing maven once said, "Perception is everything."SurveyUSA has been asking respondents not who they will vote for, but rather: who they think will win the presidential election in November. This question is more sensitive to changes in sentiment, and is designed to capture "momentum" swings more precisely than preference questions asked of likely voters. Tracking polls released today, 9/3/04, the day after the Republican National Convention ended, show sizeable swings in the public consciousness.
Examples:
-- In New York City, the number of adults who say Bush will win jumped from 39% on 7/22 (the week before the DNC) to 58% today: 19 points up for Bush, 17 points down for Kerry.
-- In Los Angeles, the number who say Bush will win jumped from 38% on 7/22 to 59% today: 21 points up for Bush, 18 points down for Kerry.
-- In Pittsburgh, Bush went from 44% to 64%: 20 points up for Bush, 19 points down for Kerry.
Kerry's problem now becomes something other than just trying to get the famous "undecideds" in the infamous "battleground states" to vote his way. His problem is now getting his base to the polls in the first place and stopping Nader leakage.
If the more fanatical Bush-Hate base perceives that Kerry is history, they'll start to vote their "principles" and not their hate. That means a certain number go over to Nader since a vote for Nader is more clearly a "vote against the machine." Still others, wallowing in their alienation will get to the place where they say, "It doesn't matter" and just spend election day on the couch bitching between bong hits.
The Republicans who, if they do bong hits at all do them after the work is done, will not take a large Bush lead as a reason to stay home. The Republican's, motivated by Hugh Hewitt's book, will know "If it's not close, they can't cheat" and come out in record numbers in order to drive the wooden stake through the heart of the Democratic Party for good.
Another reason this sort of "Who do you think will win" survey is significant is that it does what online discussion groups know as "surfacing the lurkers."
A lurker, in online discussion groups, is a person who tends to view the discussion but keeps silent so as not to reveal is presence or his own personal views. When something is said that causes a post to begin, "I've been following this for months and didn't comment, but...." a lurker has surfaced.
Asking for a forecast of who will win is not at all the same as asking for information on which candidate a person intends to vote for. All the same, the number you get contains that information from people who usually decline to state a preference -- the famous "undecided" voter.
Typically, for good reasons and bad, a lot of "undecideds" have actually decided, but don't want to talk about it. This could be, for example, voters in heavily Democratic families or professions who don't want to go on any record as saying they are about to secretly vote for George Bush.
(And now please pardon me while I take a moment to preen.)
I looked at this large block of "stealth Republicans" in an essay here on 29 July:
American Digest: The Inevitable Bush BlowoutA week earlier I observed:Did I say the Democrats were going to lose? Why, yes, I think I did.
Why? Well, the long form is at American Digest: Jumping the Gun, but here's the laminate card version:
1) 95% of everybody who voted for Bush in 2000 is going to vote for him again. The other 5% will proclaim they won't but will split 60/40 for once they're in the booth and confronted with the name "John Kerry."
2) A significant number of Libertarians outside of the hard core is going to vote for Bush.
3) Some of the people who voted for Ralph in 2000 are going to vote for Bush, out of sheer dementia.
4) A jumbo chunk of those "swing' voters are going to vote for Bush. You can swing in your lifestyle but not in the voting booth. That's an either/or.
5) The most significant block of new votes will be the "stealth" Democrats who are now, or shortly will be, lying about voting for John Kerry. There are going to be a lot of these and neither the polls, nor the party, nor the friends or family of these voters will be detect them. Remember that the essential nature of the ballot is that it is "secret." You think they'll tell the exit pollers? Think again.
American Digest: Jumping the GunFrankly, I don't know why I'm not fighting off offers from Karl Rove right now. If only to shut me up.We'll have intense and random acts of bizarre behavior, city wide exhibits of advanced tattoos and body piercing, chants bubbling with hate, obscene signage, unattractive displays of nudity, and random violence throughout Manhattan for days, all with the Democratic Party Seal of Approval. I'm sure it will play a major role in swinging a lot of voters into the Republican Camp. Depend upon it.
And then, and only then, will we have the President's acceptance speech.
If Bush and his advisers are savvy politicians, and we have a lot of reasons to believe they are, they will wait until this moment to bring out "the positive, substantive side of the campaign" that the editors of the National Review are so eager to get on the record. Any sooner and you're just playing into the enemy's hands.
(Okay, preening moment over.)
Seriously, it isn't hard to look at how campaigns crumble and predict things like this. Nobody remembers if you're wrong and, when you're right, nobody notices you're just one of the multitude standing around waving your hands in the air. And that's just fine with me.
A couple of days back I quoted Disraeli's saying "My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me." Today I'd modify it to say, ""My idea of an agreeable country is a country that agrees with me."
Posted by Vanderleun at September 5, 2004 9:42 AM | TrackBacklol
Now it feels really good knowing that I but a simple commoner living a normal non political life sees that you agree with my own observations.
The other day they were interviewing Matthew Dowd the chief campaign guy for Bush and Hugh Hewitt asked something about what John Podhoretz had said. Matthew noted that Hugh was talking to the smart guys in reference to John.
Now I have emailed back and forth in agreement with John about the very issues you discussed in regards to the campaign. So in the end the Bush folks along with the two of us are seeing the same thing.
Many think I am nuts and crazy when I tell them about my prediction of a blow out. If I am wrong I will be the first person to email you and remind you.
Posted by: ovi at September 5, 2004 1:16 PMI haven't thought of this before, but you have a point. There are many stealth Bush supporters who don't dare say their preferences for fear that they may suffer from their friends, family and co-workers for it. They may very well represent a large chunk of the electorate.
Posted by: FH at September 5, 2004 5:01 PMAgree. I am among those who think the president will win with a comfortable margin. My toy blog is only a few days old and already I am crowing about being at a forward edge of something. Imagine that! I think they call it "Find a parade and get in front of it..."
http://hootsbuddy.blogspot.com/2004/09/into-final-stretch.html
At this point I would not be surprised that the Sage of Laguna Beach nailed it back in mid - July. In your "Jumping the Gun" essay just substitute "There were" for "We'll have" and you have a fine capsule review of last week's doings. Great call.
My sense is that the Democrats threw most, if not all, of their lethal hardware at Bush over the past year: Bush is Hitler, a liar, a betrayer, an AWOL deserter, starter of war for personal gain, an incompetent, unofficial sponsorship of Michael Moore's feature-length lie, etc. Whackos and august senators alike hurled bespoke slime cannonade. Now Democratic operator, Susan Estrich, is calling for more detailed, more vituperative personal attack on Bush. But once you've called Bush Hitler what do you do for an encore? Circulate rumors about "W" getting smashed in college? Too many drinks on the links?
The Democrats put a lot of faith in misrepresentation and now they find themselves in copraphagestic straits.
Posted by: Doug Anderson at September 5, 2004 7:22 PMYes, but about the "stealth Bush supporters." Why would they apparently lie to the pollsters. No one needs to know how you answered a poll, just like no one needs to know how you voted.
Posted by: Bob Diethrich at September 6, 2004 10:09 AMAs we all know from our own introspection, we all have secrets that we tell no one no matter what the conditions of anonymity. And, in general, people lie to pollsters all the time just as pollsters can slant the polls by the phrasing of the questions. It is said that the statistical nature of polling "corrects" for these things and this gives rise to the phrase "3 point margin of error either way." But what if, by the nature of the question as stated or the issue under scrutiny, that margin of error is more one way than the other?
Posted by: Van der Leun at September 6, 2004 11:16 AM"Sage of Laguna Beach"??!! Hah, that fits. A very small sage for a very small town.
Posted by: Van der Leun at September 6, 2004 11:16 AMAdding another item to your list, a non-negligible percentage of voters treat elections like horse races: they want to pick the winner. The evidence for this is in post-election polls, which consistently find that a greater percentage of respondents say they voted for the winner than actually did. So some people will decide to vote for Bush simply because they think he's going to win.
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 6, 2004 1:31 PMReminds me of 1980. I was working for a small company in San Francisco that measured air pollution. The boss/owner was a big fan of Jimmy Carter (half our business was from the EPA), and the gay meteorologist was not so much pro-Carter as intensely anti-Reagan. (He may have voted for Anderson, for all I know.) I was the only open Reagan voter. The interesting thing: EVERY ONE of the other 6 or 7 employees came up to me at some time or other in the last month or two before the election and said "don't tell [the boss] but I'm voting for Reagan, too". When the press called that election "too close to call", I knew it was going to be an easy win. I just wish I'd thought to make some bets on the outcome. I knew a U. Chicago professor who took several hundred dollars off his colleagues betting on Reagan that year.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil at September 6, 2004 4:52 PMTo the Sage of Laguna Beach:
How about a "Grand Sage" from a "Grand Place" (you agree that Laguna Beach is small in geography only, no?). Don't worry this is not to butter you up Gerard. Half the Sage-Granting Committee was against it. "He's far too good-looking to be a good writer much less a Sage," they said.
"Hear hear," cried the Nays.
After a half-day ajourment to review your blog the Yeays came back and carried the day. So there it is.
Posted by: Doug at September 7, 2004 1:32 PMI guess I'll have to accept that since I don't have the thyme to parsley it.
Posted by: Van der Leun at September 7, 2004 3:04 PM"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.