Why is it that analysts expect the "market" to discount certain broad negative trends, such that small negative bumps do not affect shares of companies, but we do not expect the same thing from the voters, who form more or less the same "market"?  Phil Gramm was a bitter old coot twenty years ago and ten years ago when he ran for President; McCain has already been discounted as an old coot himself.  Unless he actually demonstrates signs of advanced dimentia, none of these "gaffes" will make a difference in his standing.  Remember the first debate in 1984, when Reagan appeared to have gone gaga?  It made not one bit of difference in his standing: the people had already discounted his age and the fact that he might be gaga ...

As for Czechoslovakia - well, frankly, to expect this to have an impact on the polls is just silly.  First of all, I wonder how many good citizens of Omaha or Des Moins or Waco actually know the country split up, or know the country existed in the first place.  Second, who cares?  Chamberlain described Czechoslovakia "a faraway country [and] people of whom we know nothing"; you don't seriously expect the American people to worry about McCain's "gaffe" on this issue?

And who's Maliki?  Or Merkel, for that matter?

These are all superficialities and, I suspect, the average voter has more important things on his or her mind than whether McCain remembers that a small European country split up fifteen years ago, or whether Obama speaks in front of the Brandenburg Gate or the Victory Monument.  You guys need a break to clear your heads.

Obama starting his trip on a weekend cost him some press coverage; I don't know a person who doesn't obsess about politics who cares about how badly John McCain screws up on the names of foreign countries, besides, the press give McCain a free-pass on mistakes / senior moments; I think a lot of Americans think that Czechoslovakia is still a country -- this is primarily Slovakia's fault for not having a city as cool as Prague; the surrogate "issue" mattered when people were directed to picayune details by the press during the arduous primary season -- it has mattered significantly less since; The Maliki comment was missed by a lot of people because there was a Batman movie to see.

Perhaps Americans are not paying attention to those "issues" as much as people on this blog are (it wouldn't be the first time).

And perhaps you're paying too much attention to daily tracking polls (again, it wouldn't be the first time).

The numbers might move a little while Obama is overseas and after he returns, but I don't anticipate that there will be a significant swing until running-mates are named (that's the lay topic du jour -- not to sound like William Raspberry, but people were discussing running-mates at 8am Sunday morning on the Q train). And if they don't move then, they will once it is convention time and people start finally paying attention to the general election. The American people seem to want a campaign that is shorter than the one the press wants us to have -- thank God.

McCain on ABC:

"I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border," said McCain, R-Ariz., said on "Good Morning America".

I think he's lost it, even if he ever had it, which I doubt.  It's not his age - my 90-year old grandmother is as sharp as a tack and fills me on the news every time we meet (I don't watch the news - any news shows - on TV).  McCain is the war "hero" that every American yearns to have as President in a time of war and so they pour into him their hopes for a simpler and more certain time.  These gaffes, which are now coming at the astonishing (for a Presidential candidate) rate of one or two a day, will do nothing to dent his popularity.  What Obama needs to do is to uncenter McCain, to demonstrate that the image of war "hero" has nothing whatever to do with McCain's suitability for the office of President.  

Clark was right - and his statement to that effect was the classic Kinsey gaffe: speaking an inconvenient truth - inconvenient because no one is prepared to admit that a "hero", a tortured one at that, is not fit to be president on the sole basis of his war heroism.

icarusr, I hope you are right, I am afraid most of McCain's support is that he is not Obama, and if he wins on that basis his Presidency is going to be a disaster. People will wake up on Jan. 21 and then finally look at him and realize they are stuck with an old codger for the next 4 years (if he lives that long). In some ways I would feel sorrier for McCain if he wins than if he loses. The sense of despair, in a large minority of Americans, and the rest of the world at his victory, coupled with very little enthusiasm among most of the people who voted for him, alone will be tough to overcome, add to that the most uninspiring agenda and leadership style and an America in the midst of a deep recession.

Barnacle:

"this is primarily Slovakia's fault for not having a city as cool as Prague."

Man is this ever an understatement.  Bratislava - which is really a suburb of Vienna - is only marginally less ugly as a Soviet horror show than Minsk; and the Slovaks had a tendency to elect megalomaniacal autocrats until the EU Commission put a stop to it (they do with trade what the US does with the Seventh Fleet, arguably with better results).  Is it a wonder many Europeans, let alone cranky old American politicians, are trying to forget the Velvet Divorce?

I agree with Barnacle: I think a lot of people who were paying attention during the primaries are taking a break for the summer (I'm certainly not as attentive as I was all winter and spring), plus there are a whole lot of people who haven't yet started paying attention to any of it. This primary campaign has been way too long. People cannot sustain the intense attention required for two whole years (which is what it will have been by November).

Things will pick up in Sept.

Tracking polls in July and August reveal....nothing.  As someone who has worked with polls for a long time, they only measure which uber-political geeks are paying attention when there is so much other, more fun stuff, to be following.  From a political/emotional perspective, voters really do not sway at all this time of year in the absence of some gigantic event that pushes them.  From a logistical perspective, as people go on vacation or stay away from their phone later in the day (more sunlight, better movies to go see, more stuff to do) pollsters have an almost impossible time getting a balanced sample.  

My advise - don't read another poll until after the Democratic convention.

Scire's right - and, of course, there is the other thing: who actually stays at home in the summer months?  Most affluent urban dwellers get out of town - and they are far more likely to vote for Obama.

I think poll-results should come with a "called and no answer" ratio - so that we have a better sense of the sampling.  If, for example, you have a 10% hit (called and answered) in February, and only a 2% hit over the August long weekend, that tells you something - to wit, don't trust the poll, regardless of the sample size.

An anecdote from memory:  during either the 1980 or 84 presidential campaign, a reporter quizzed a voter  -- in a  bar, barber shop, doesn't matter -- about Reagan's frequent gaffes.  The question was along the lines of "does it bother you as a voter that Reagan often says the wrong thing, screws up the facts. "

The voter replied, "I don't care, I like the way he says it."

Dan

His lead on rasmussen AND gallup has been stable. His numbers have gone down, but so have McCain's.

A possible explanation is the same one that accounts for "Grandma Pelosi" and Reid's Congress achieving even lower ratings than Bush: neither candidate inspires great confidence when the scale of our economic mess is considered.

icarusr, do you mean to suggest that the good folk of Omaha, Des Moines (note the spelling) or Waco are somehow more ignorant than Vinny from da Bronx or Valley Girl Val?  'Cuz I'm pretty sure I could round up a whole lot of folks in Noo Yawk or LA who have no more clue about nonexistent Czechoslovakia ...

And of course, after we all (well, most of us) make these insightful comments, Obama opens up a six-point lead in the Gallup tracking poll. Quick, everyone, make like Mitt and change your stories!

I believe that McCain is suffering from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which would be understandable based on what he went through when he was attacked by a mob when his plane was shot down and then his time as a POW for 5 1/2 years.  He exhibits many of the symptoms, e.g., irritability, anger, memory lapses, changing positions on various issues, day-to-day radical changes in behavior (one senator remarked that one never knew which McCain would show up each day), his is need to go to any part of the globe where there was a war going on when he had no reason to be there, and his continued denial that he made statements even after he was shown video of him making the statements (Meet the Press).  Has anyone checked his medical records to see what psychiatric or psychological treatment he has received or is still receiving?  Has anyone asked McCain about the medical evaluations that must have been made related to his mental health? Is he well enough to be president?  

"lowest level" was a point lower than the previous. Today's gallup has him up 6. I think focusing on the daily perturbations is kind of beneath Michael.