Well duh. Anything can always be statistical noise and so they always have this disclaimer. The point of MoE is to get a handle on how likely this is to be purely statistical noise and the probability of that is likely somewhere around or just south of .05.
The Ras tracker with leaners has moved 3 points in a single day exactly one other time since the beginning of June.
Its far from the end of the world and the big thing is that we put on a good convention and see good numbers coming out of the convention, but let's not just dismiss this for the sake of convenience. The smart money suggests that picking Biden hurt Obama in the very short term. There's really no way of getting around that.
Obviously we cannot say for sure that it is Biden and noise is always a factor. But it should be noted that the Ras poll with leaners has only moved 3 points in a single day once since the end of primary season. Moving 3 points is big because it actually means that the difference between Friday's data and Monday's data was 9 points (since the polls released today and yesterday share data from Saturday and Sunday). If its just noise, its pretty big and rare noise. Its much more likely that something happened between Friday and Monday that negatively affected Obama's poll numbers (his own support dropped six points between those days and helped McCain) and the choice of Biden rather than HRC is the pretty likely explanation.
1. Acknowledge, at length, the historic nature of Hillary Clinton's campaign, her many achievements prior, and the partnerships he hopes to make with her during the next four years, especially as they work together from the executive and legislative branches toward health care reform.
2. Acknowledge, again at length, the positive aspects of Bill Clinton's presidency and legacy. "He presides over a balanced budget and robust economic growth, both of which GWB has trashed. Under Clinton, our alliances ere strong, we were respected around the world, and we were safe. And GWB has trashed that too. Part of "change" involves building on the successes and accomplishments of the past, and nobody in the last decades has done more to bring those successes and accomplishments to the American people than Bill Clinton."
I agree completely incognito. I have long speculated that if Clinton was involved in any horse-trading at all regarding the VP selection and her role helping Obama in the fall, it was most likely that she expressed her preferences through back channels that a Warner-type not be selected. I'm not saying that happened or that it would have necessarily influenced Obama if it did happen, but that's where her biggest interest clearly lies.
Regarding how an Obama loss might help or hurt Clinton in the future, I think you are correct as well. I would also add that even if Obama loses, he will emerge with a huge amount of clout and organizational muscle from this process. Were he to run again or decide to throw his support and all that entails behind another candidate in 2012, it would make Clinton's life pretty difficult.
Which is the only reason I remain somewhat annoyed that he didn't pick Clinton, although I understand that there were a lot of factors in play.
In any case, what's done is done and the pick was much better than many of the other possibilities floated near the end. The bottom line is that its time to get to work for Barack, Joe, and the Democratic Party.
Being Obama supporters doesn't mean we can't think a bit critically about how this all went down.
For my money, Biden was a very good pick and clearly better than all the other finalists (I don't think HRC was really a finalist).
But the rollout was not particularly well handled. Telling your supporters that they will be the first to know and then letting the news leak first is almost by definition a botch. And texting millions of people at 3 AM is just not a good idea, as much as some younger people might have enjoyed it.
Perhaps more importantly, if Obama wasn't going to pick HRC the campaign should have definitively killed off speculation a long time ago. It simply wasn't productive that you had every pundit asking whether HRC might be the surprise pick and then you had a story breaking yesterday about her not being vetted and big headlines on Drudge and Politico like "Hillary Gets Dissed!" The whole point of the next week is to get a lot of those remaining Hillary holdouts back into the fold and this was not a good way to start.
I wouldn't read too much into this. Its clear that if Obama tabs her as VP, he wants it to come as a shocker. In that case, I don't think its implausible that they would have excluded her from the list of people being "officially" vetted. Its not like you can't vet somebody more informally as well. Plus, vetting for her is much less involved because so much of her life and her records are already public.
Yeah, this seems ridiculous. I don't really understand what the IOC is getting out of taking a stand on this issue. The rationale about diluting the value of medals seems like total BS and this kind of publicity can't be good. Gender equality really should be a principle they are looking to actively uphold.