Three Polls Show Obama With Convention Bounce

Three poll results are out today, showing a substantial convention bounce for Sen. Barack Obama and Joe Biden..

A CNN poll shows no bounce. The question is, will it hold and what will McCain's be? Gallup says McCain went up 2 points because of his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, while there was no increase for Obama selecting Biden.

Some analysis of convention bumps is here. I like the Obama campaign's position that it is not interested in polls, only in the battleground states and getting out Obama voters. I've always thought the big battleground states are the key to this election.

< Cindy McCain, Laura Bush Address RNC | I'm Rubber, You're Glue >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by JAB on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:48:22 PM EST
    What's interesting in the CBS poll is that while Obama inched up a bit, his favorables stayed the same and his unfavorables went up by 2 points. This, after people saw him speak. There seem to be posters who are good with reading the polls - why do you think this is?

    Small enough to be statistical noise ... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by eustiscg on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:10:02 PM EST
    ... especially since Obama's topline number remained the same.  Otherwise, how could this also be true (from the same CBS poll): "Before the Democratic convention, McCain enjoyed a 12-point advantage with independent voters, but now Obama leads among this group 43 percent to 37 percent."

    Here are a couple guesses, based on the rest of the poll, as to what may have changed:

    1. Perhaps the most helpful statistic is that the convention positively affected voters' opinion of Barack Obama by a margin of 39-7.  Many of these may be people who already felt favorable about him on a personal level, but weren't sold on a political level.

    2. Since this poll is totally post-Palin, the shift in independents may be attributable, in part, to the veep-selection.  After all, Biden is running 37-16  Fav/Unfav, whereas Palin is getting 22-11.  Also, Biden makes people more likely to vote for Obama by a 15-4 margin (i.e., a net 10% are more likely to vote for Obama/Biden than Obama/???) whereas Palin's nomination, so far anyway, seems to be a wash: 13-11 (net 2% more likely).

    3. Michelle Obama saw a spike in favorability, going from 28-18 to 41-21 (Fav/Unfav).  I'm not saying this directly influences people's choices, but it may shape their gut-level feeling about the ticket.

    PS (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by eustiscg on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:13:41 PM EST
    To back up #1, perhaps those hypothetical charmed-but-not-sold voters were the ones who can account for the HUGE shift in positive assessments of Obama's "toughness."  When asked "Is Obama tough enough?" People answered yes by a 58-29 margin, as opposed to 48-39 less than a month ago.  In other words, he went from +9 on toughness to +29.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:50:07 PM EST
    the battleground states are the ones that are important. It has always been that way. As BTD has posted on before, the swing states this year are the same swing states from the last several years.

    I think national polls are important for mostly trends.

    It's going to be a close, down to the wire election. After the GOP convention we may be able to get a better picture of where things are.

    That's pretty much (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TomStewart on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:50:07 PM EST
    what I expected. I see Fox is pushing the 'no bounce' polls over everything else. As to McCains bounce, that will depend on whether he has a convention to have a bounce from. I see that some repubs are breathing a sigh of relief that Bush and Cheney decided not to show. Maybe that will help McCain...

    I think he'll have a convention (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:03:43 PM EST
    tonight was the main thing to get past  ;)

    How about we all send a donation to a hurricane relief fund for being spared the speeches and the constant news replays of them. I think I'll send one to a children's group (Bush) and one to an animal group (Cheney).


    Already sent $100 (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by domerdem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:06:47 PM EST
    in response to an Obama request

    Keeping my money to myself this time (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:13:09 PM EST
    Anything from Obama, I trash.  I've heard what he has to say.  He ain't saying anything different from before, just re-hashed stuff.

    I'm waiting for November.


    The money goes to the Red Cross (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by domerdem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:14:53 PM EST
    not Obama

    Yes, to the Red Cross (none / 0) (#70)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:36:17 PM EST
    I sent money after Katrina.  I would hope that Americans would reach out without encouragement from Obama or McCain.

    I give blood. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 09:07:19 PM EST
    It's a lot harder to misuse blood.  Blood won't go to line anyone's pockets.

    Besides, I figure I may as well give as long as I am healthy enough to.  Eventually, I'll have to stop.  There's a 70-something gentleman volunteer who still gives blood - even after multiple surgeries and stents.  


    Did you get an email? (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:08:50 PM EST
    Just curious because I haven't.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by domerdem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:14:25 PM EST
    The header was " Help Gulf Coast residents and first responder"

    Me, too...... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by michitucky on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:36:11 PM EST
    I received the same email...Sent off some $$$.

    Don't be fooled...Obama cares about polls (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:05:02 PM EST
    And while those numbers seem good on the surface, they aren't much different from a week ago.  Obama has been ahead of McCain by about 5 points, on average.

    More important, how are McCain's numbers within the Republican Party since Palin's announcement?  That's more interesting.

    Those 6 points showed up before (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:07:11 PM EST
    his big speech. It was a Hil n' Bil bounce!

    McCain's support among republicans went up (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:09:39 PM EST
    To 90% after the Palin announcement, according to Rasmussen polls.  McCain's campaign took in over $12 million in 72 hours following the announcement.  The right wing loves her.  The far right of the party was the group of republicans who McCain needed to capture and he did that with Palin.  That's huge for republicans.  That is the most zealous group in terms of money and support.  

    Talk of a convention bounce (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:05:14 PM EST
    has never been of great interest to me. Each side plays down their own bounce while preemptively claiming the other side will get a huge bounce.

    A bounce even by it's name is like a ball. You bounce up then you bounce down. The long term trend, rather than a bounce, is a poll watcher's nectar.

    Of course, a bounce the first week of November is another story entirely.

    This seems to be the ... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:12:41 PM EST
    critical quote from your link on convention bounces:

    A 6-point convention bounce represents par. If a candidate gets a bounce larger than 6 points, that can be considered to be a good sign. If the bounce is smaller than 6 points, that can be considered to be a bad sign.

    The polls average a 7 point bounce if you discount CNN as an outlier.

    So a hair better than average.  Not what I was hoping for.

    I don't think this is right (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Valhalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:50:36 PM EST
    Jeralyn's numbers show the spread, not the bounce.

    If Gallup had Obama up by 2 before the convention, and up by 6 after, then the bounce is 4.  This is what Gallup's reporting, in fact.

    The one CNN polls that only shows Obama up by a point needs to be compared to a CNN poll right before the convention, if there is one.  I don't remember any CNN polls that were 0 or 1, so we might be talking a negative bounce.  (or a positive bounce mitigated by the Palin announcement).  Ras is showing only a couple of points bounce, if any, doing a before and after.

    To really calculate the bounce you need before and afters, and the average of those, not the average spread.

    The avg spread is separately significant too, just not the same thing.  All in all we have to see what comes out of the Repub convention and then wait a while for things to settle down.


    CNN was even before the convention (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Prabhata on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 09:17:29 PM EST
    even MORE telling (none / 0) (#84)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:12:15 AM EST
    is that the numbner for Gallup right after the convention was 8 and now it has gone DOWN two point to 6.  The same thing happened with Rasmussen.  Went up to 6 after conventon, now fell back to 4.

    On thing worth noting ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:23:45 PM EST
    Obama's speech was viewed by 38 million people when it aired live.

    That's about the same number of people as voted in the Democratic Primaries.

    How many turned in just to see what (2.00 / 1) (#54)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:03:42 PM EST
    the hype was about, i.e. the venue?

    Was the spectacle more memorable (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:21:48 PM EST
    than the speech?  I hope not, but I fear it was.  

    Some of the pundits said he spoke (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:54:15 PM EST
    about many things that needed to be addressed, but not how he was going to do it...no solutions, as it were.  

    Palin will increasingly be a drag on McCain (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:30:17 PM EST
    The more people learn about her, the more they will think she's not up for this job.

    Also, I think it's important to note that even among evangelicals, the group she is supposed to appeal to, there is controversy about whether she is "biblically qualified" for the job:


    LOL! I know BTD hates it when we talk about (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by steviez314 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:35:35 PM EST
    Palin's experience, but "biblically qualified" just brings that to a whole new level.

    I could have quoted more conservative blogs (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:47:56 PM EST
    for that post. I wouldn't claim it's the majority view, but there is a significant group of evangelical conservatives who believe a woman should not hold political office.

    These are not household names among Democrats, but believe me, people like Voddie Baucham and Doug Phillips will be heard in thousands of households on the religious right.


    Those people are pathetic. (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by hairspray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:11:36 PM EST
    Views of Palin (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:08:35 PM EST
    You know what? I'm thinking that the VP debate could be quite interesting. Lets see how the next few weeks play out. For example: If Palin is severely underqualified--whatever that means in this TV centered age--it will show up fairly soon.

    And if she isn't...? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 09:11:10 PM EST
    Hillary's popularity boomed in the end of the primary because people found that they actually liked her.  Palin is still a known unknown.  This is her first time on the national stage and there is much to discover about her.

    I Just Hope (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:42:18 PM EST
    That whatever their feelings about him personally or stylistically, and whaveter their feelings about his most zealous supporters...

    I just hope people remember how they felt when they heard him declare, last Thursday night: "Enough!"  It was a great moment for him, because that sentiment was relatable for over seventy percent of the population.  

    As BTD always says, The Bush's third term stuff is as effective as it is true.  And McCain has hemmed himself into it now more than ever.  Keep thar rhetoric going, too.

    I Just Wish (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:02:06 PM EST
    obama had said Enough about the denigrating of Hillary, his fellow dem, when it came to mysogeny, sexism and her being called a racist...that might have really meant something..

    Obama's messge I fear is growing thin (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:04:28 PM EST
    People need more than 'hope' and 'change'.  Voters need more specifics now.   He can't just promise that everyone will get everything.  We need to know more specifics about how he will increase jobs, fix health care, end the war, etc.   Personality only takes a candidate so far.  Many people aren't emotional voters and they want specifics.  

    Gallup (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:34:36 PM EST
    said that the bounce from Fri through Sunday was 4 pts. So I guess the extra 2 points are the lingering bounce from both Clintons.

    This is a bounce? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kenosharick on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 10:17:03 PM EST
    The polls have been shifting by this much most every week. I think they expected a 10+ point bounce, so I would not get too excited about any of these polls. To call this a "bounce" is kind of sad.

    ITA that working in key states is (none / 0) (#1)
    by Valhalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:45:37 PM EST
    more important than worrying about polls, but it takes all the fun out of pollwatching for us!

    there are state polls you can watch (none / 0) (#85)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:15:50 AM EST
    for example, the latest poll in Minn just showed Obama's lead there drop by 3 points.  He was ahead by 5 and now it's only 2.

    Will McCain get a bounce? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:46:52 PM EST
    I am not watching the GOP convention.
    But if the talking heads are like this AP headline

    See also Greg Sargent's recap of the news stories.

    This could kill any bounce among independent voters.

    No discussion of Palin's personal life is allowed (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:49:22 PM EST
    here. Period. Zero tolerance. Please do not link to it or discuss it.

    Be all means delete (none / 0) (#7)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:51:31 PM EST
    There are other stories besides the personal issues listed there, but I am more than willing to play by the rules you set.

    Yes, he will (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:58:49 PM EST
    She's going to be circulating, MSM can only beat her up so much on the same ol', same ol'. We've been spared the worst part of the convention with the cancellations. I'm sure they've already started her quick study on FP, so we may hear a bit of that during her speech. All she needs to do during her speech is be convincing as people aren't expecting much. By Friday, most of what we're hearing now should take a back seat to the actual convention and clean-up in the Gulf. And the couple of new storms they're tracking. I suspect McCain to give a decent speech. He seems a bit more energized these days. He was pretty relaxed at Saddleback, and he's going to be in his element again at the convention.

    I didn't watch the DNC Convention (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:08:14 PM EST
    and I won't watch the RNC either.
    It's all a farce anyway.

    However.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:52:11 PM EST
    ....these things are relative. They have to be put through the prism of "expectations" and precedence. The bounce seems kind of muted relative to the fabulous job they did at the covention, and against a truly hideous incumbant party.
    I hope the spread remains, but it just shows that the forces that have kept this race pretty close so far, remain.  

    So (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:54:31 PM EST
    if you take all polls into account it was about a 5 point bounce. I don't know if that's good, average or what.

    Speaking from only a hype perspective, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:05:05 PM EST
    I am sure they expected a bigger bounce.  What is bothering is that you can't just say polls don't interest you if they don't favor you, but they get touted when they are in your favor.  It all comes out in the wash, is what it is, and you can't change the outcome.

    I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:08:09 PM EST
    they did but McCain stole their thunder and threw a monkey wrench into their plans. Obviously, they were caught totally off guard by the Palin announcement for VP.

    Overall, things are tied up and they have been for quite a while. Really not much has changed and I don't think that the GOP convention will change much either.


    No they are not tied up (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:22:41 PM EST
    and it is inaccurate & misleading to say they are.

    The (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:26:24 PM EST
    EC is tied up with swing states tied up. When we get some new polling then we can discuss it.

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#68)
    by michitucky on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:34:53 PM EST
    Just as inaccurate as your statement that WJC got a 6 point bounce after the convention.

    It is my opinion (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Jeannie on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:13:43 PM EST
    for what it is worth, that the great speeches by Hillary and Bill and the spectacle of the last night don't mean a thing. For after the lights go out - Obama is left standing alone. And he is still the same person he always was - no better, no worse.
    People have to like him and trust him in order to vote for him.... and that is proving difficult for many people.

    This may just be projection ... (3.00 / 0) (#39)
    by eustiscg on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:20:50 PM EST
    Based on every poll I've seen, people already like him by decent margins, and the CBS poll at least (I haven't read too deeply into the others yet), shows they're beginning to trust him more (esp. on "toughness"; see my comment above).  Of course, I'd be interested if you can dig up a counter-example.

    No, I don't have an example. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Jeannie on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:26:55 PM EST
    But if people really liked him and trusted him, there would be more enthusiasm (other than at the far left blogs, which don't count at all in the grand scheme of things). He has a core group of fans, who will love him no matter what. Many other libs will vote for him because of the D and not because they really like or trust him. There is a lot of soft support.

    C'mon! (none / 0) (#81)
    by eustiscg on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 10:18:46 PM EST
    The messenger with facts gets shot.  The commenter who admits having no facts to back up her gut feeling gets uprated.  Lovely.  

    You can argue that you're happy or sad about those facts, but please don't downrate me for pointing them out.


    What? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jeannie on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:41:57 PM EST
    I have never downrated you.
    And my gut feeling is at least as good as yours.

    Sorry, it was PssttCmere08 ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by eustiscg on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:21:03 AM EST
    ... whom I've since decided is a troll of some sort.

    I wasn't comparing gut feelings.  I was asking for something beyond them.  No hard feelings.


    No kidding (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:01:28 PM EST
    even if for nothing other than set decoration.

    I believe Bill Clinton got 6 points in 1992 (none / 0) (#10)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:56:08 PM EST
    but don't rely on my memory.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by JAB on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:59:24 PM EST
    I think Bill Clinton got 16

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:00:48 PM EST
    One of the biggest in history though, that's not the norm.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by JAB on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:02:13 PM EST
    Reagan got 13.

    The average is around 6, although most don't last past 10 days out from the convention.

    Kerry is the only one in recorded history who showed a negative bounce after his convention.


    in '72 (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:37:05 PM EST
    McGovern got no bounce at all!  Was that like Kerry's negative bounce or did Kerry actually lose points?

    Kerry (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by JAB on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:24:52 PM EST
    actually lost a point in the first 10 days after.

    And look how that turned out.................. (none / 0) (#60)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:17:35 PM EST
    Our biggest loss, ever.  :(  

    and you would be correct JAB (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:02:13 PM EST
    No, (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:01:02 PM EST
    other posters were stating that he got a 19 pt. bounce. IIRC, it was pretty big.

    Also, I think 5 points is about what Kerry got in 2004. I think Gore got about 10 pts. in 2000 but I know for a fact that Clinton got a huge bounce from the convention.


    Gallup convention bounce history (none / 0) (#79)
    by Prabhata on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 09:27:08 PM EST
    I understand (none / 0) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:01:24 PM EST
    its substantially below previous "bounces." But, like I said, everythings relative.

    Ross Perot withdrew the same day Bill gave (none / 0) (#16)
    by steviez314 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:02:11 PM EST
    his acceptance speech, so it's very hard to compare 1992's bounce with this year's.

    BC (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by JAB on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:03:21 PM EST
    still had a 12 point gain after 10 days out - unheard of before or since.

    Perot withdrew? (none / 0) (#65)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:30:28 PM EST
    How odd that I don't remember that.  I do remember that he was in the Presidential debates and got nearly 20% of the vote.  

    Yeah, he withdrew ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:43:52 PM EST
    claiming that the Bush campaign was going to release fake photos of his daughter that would disrupt her wedding.

    But at the time many thought the Democratic convention had influenced his decision.

    He got back in the race in October, and stuck to his story about the photos.

    This erratic behavior and bizarre story destroyed the seemingly real chances he had once had of winning the election. Thank goodness.



    Eh (none / 0) (#30)
    by nell on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:10:55 PM EST
    Bounce, no bounce, doesn't much matter anymore. After the pick of Palin and seeing how vicious the media has been towards her (John King was LIVID on CNN that the media had not yet had a chance to interview her and Blitzer almost bit off Bennett's head when he suggested Palin's personal problems were personal), I think Obama will be the recipient of the kind of positive media he got going against Hillary, and so long as someone else can be the victim of the media's derangement syndrome, Obama will win. The PDS is not yet out in full force, but it will get there soon, I think.

    And will probably (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jeannie on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:16:52 PM EST
    backfire. The Obama fans are trying to put out demented nasty ugly rumors about Sarah and her family.

    Maybe should be preferenced with a qualifier (none / 0) (#45)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:29:04 PM EST

    As in some Obama fans....

    Others are trafficing only in verified non- personal stories.
    e.g. Trooper-gate; the heretofore ties to Senator Stevens; the heretofore denied bridge to nowhere story.  


    Those are "some" loud persistent (none / 0) (#77)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 09:17:22 PM EST
    Obama fans.

    I find the phenomena to be painfully familiar.  It just reinforces my opinion of some Obama fans.  Hillary Clinton, Cindy McCain, Sarah Palin, John McCain, John Edwards....who will be next?


    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:24:08 PM EST
    I think this is the kind of behavior that McCain is banking on to win. If the media continues this behavior, the scabs from the primary will not heal and Palin could become a very sympathetic figure despite her stances.

    And (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:31:11 PM EST
    as has been noted elsewhere, the Republican base admires someone the more that person is attacked by the MSM - call it their "Anti-Media" Darling.  I think if the media were all in a swoon the base would be mighty suspicious.

    AH, how said, the press didn't get to weigh in (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:19:43 PM EST
    first and now they are all pouty.  Grow up.  The MSM just can't stand it when they don't get to control the news rather than just report it.  Silly me, I thought the later was their job.  

    The Sunday Shows were ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:20:13 PM EST
    pretty crushy on Palin.

    I think the media is playing it by ear.  

    Plus, I've never seen them go out full force against a Republican in an election year.

    But we'll see.


    What does crushy mean? (none / 0) (#63)
    by hairspray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:22:00 PM EST
    As in they have ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:32:57 PM EST
    a crush on her.