Nate Silver thinks the poll changes so far suggest Obama might get a 5-point bounce from the DNC

[highplainsdem]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/sept-7-polls-find-hints-of-obama-convention-bounce/

It’s certainly important to be cautious when interpreting one-day changes in the polls. But so far, this data is tracking toward a decent-size convention bounce for Mr. Obama. It’s quite unlikely, in fact, that the movement in the polls reflects statistical noise alone.

I looked for previous instances in our database in which both the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls each moved toward Mr. Obama by at least two points on the same day, and found only six other occasions on which they did so, out of about 140 days on which they were both published simultaneously. The Ipsos poll has started to be published only recently, but the fact that it moved toward Mr. Obama also further strengthens the case.

Instead, that Mr. Obama has gained two or three points in polls conducted essentially halfway through his convention suggests that his gains could eventually be larger, perhaps on the order of five points, once the surveys fully reflect post-convention data. Typically, the bounce grows over the course of the convention, peaking in interviews conducted just a day or two after it.

The caveat is that — and yes, this reflects my personal, subjective view — I thought the speeches delivered by Mrs. Obama and Mr. Clinton were stronger than the one given by Mr. Obama himself, and that Democrats’ momentum seemed to peak on Wednesday night rather than on Thursday. Then, Mr. Obama got a mediocre jobs report on Friday.

-snip-

But there is the risk of getting too lost in the technical details, when the calculus is actually fairly simple. Mr. Romney entered the conventions in a narrow deficit to Mr. Obama. The fact that he only pulled into a rough tie in the polls after the Republican convention was a bearish sign for him. If Mr. Obama emerges from the conventions in a stronger position than he entered them with, Mr. Romney’s position will have become a bit difficult.

-snip-

[Jennicut]

1. Let's hope so.

The conventions were certainly very different from each other. The Dems just sold their message very, very well. Clinton's speech beat football, MSNBC actually beat CNN and Faux for coverage one night (amazing).

[LynnTTT]

2. Sorry, I'm a Democrat

but I still think family members should be given a pass. Let then candidate speak for him or her self. I don't think even a spouse needs to set policy.

[ArizonaLib]

3. I agree, but I didn't see any policy by either spouse

I think both spouses helped the candidates, and if they are able to help engage more people to watch who would otherwise not be engaged, it benefits the process. When I watch clips of the old conventions, a lot more work is required to get through them. The spouses get dragged in to the campaigns, and white house responsibilities anyway. We might as well get to know them better, especially if after the election, they take on high exposure policy aspirations like Hillary did with healthcare, or some of the activities Eleanor Roosevelt undertook while FDR was in office. Truman's wife didn't stay much at the white house during his tenure.

I think it would provide more information to prospective voters to have candidate's political advisors to give speaches. If more prospective voters knew that Romney was using many Bush 43's foreign policy advisors, including at least one who was not able to obtain senate confirmation (Bolton), it would impact voter decisions.

[ProSense]

4. Nice red herring.

Where does it say anything about spouses setting policy?

In other words, what does that have to do with the OP?

[WillyT]

5. And There's This:

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021300298