Boing
Bush's numbers get the bounce that was was declared a thing of the past after the bounce-free Democrat convention, according to Time. Chuck at Big Mouth puts the numbers in a convenient table.
How is the blogging left - which seems to have been obsessing over polls for the last six months - reacting?
It's only one poll, but this is definitely bad news for John Kerry: Time has Bush up 52% to 41%. Ouch.
Oliver Willis, who has thankfully dropped his "Like Kryptonite to Stupid" tagline, and who would seem to have learned to be careful at parroting DNC spin, as we see below:
Looks like Bush is getting a pretty good convention bounce, up 52-41 in this new Time poll (and probably others that will follow). Then again, if getting that kind of boost requires booing the health of former presidents (UPDATE: Turns out this probably isn't true, I stand corrected -- still after this past week nothing would surprise me), I'll stay a Democrat.
It
definitely wasn't true - listen to
the audio.
Ann Althouse:
Yes, when Kerry got no bounce, the spin was: conventions don't really produce bounce anymore. So what can you say now? I predict: the Republicans did very bad things at the convention and thereby unfairly obtained the bounce that they got; if they had conducted an honorable convention, like the Democrats, there would have been no bounce.
And finally, the always-poll-obsessed
Daiy Kos?
It'll be interesting to see what the RV's show. In the meantime, Zogby has Bush up by 3 in a similar time frame and also with likely voters. I refer you to the earlier thread, with relevent comments on LV vs RV. [Likely versus Registered Voter] Clearly, Time and Zogby use different LV models.
. More later.
Posted by Mitch at
September 4, 2004 09:36 AM
| TrackBack
I predicted a bounce for Bush forom the RNC last week before it started. I believe it was under "Thoughts."
Tom P.
Posted by: Tom P. at September 4, 2004 09:27 PMWell, good for you, Tom P. But all it takes is, oh, NOT BEING A DEMOCRAT to predict that. (g)
Yes, this is yet another example of the Democrats staking out a position that sounds good as long as the data are still out ("The days of the convention bounce are over, you bounce-head Republicans! Why is it always the bottom line with you people! Now shut up about it!"), then getting their asses handed to them. They've been doing it like crazy for the last 3 years; it's been fun and kind of thrilling to watch. They never seem to learn. It's almost as if the Republicans are pushing them into that position, too, but I can't figure out how. No, the Dems always seem to volunteer for it, near as I can tell.
Is this something that would benefit from a Boyd-type analysis? Cause I haven't made sense of that yet.
Posted by: Brian Jones at September 4, 2004 10:34 PMHmmm...seems I actually predicted a bounce, of about 4-6%. The Time and Newsweek numbers were extremely rosy for Bush, but the CNN number was 1% for RVs, and Rasmussen remains at 1% for RVs.
So how do we square this circle? Well, you have two polls at ca. 11%, two at ca. 1%. Answer: wait for more polls.
In the interim, I think it's safe to say Bush is up by more than 1% and less than 11%--probably in the 6% range, which--hey!--is exactly what I predicted.
(FWIW, internal polling by both campaigns puts the number at 4%.)
I mean, good job and all; the GOP obviously ran a better convention than the Democrats. But we'll see how long, and how durable, the bounce is. Because historically speaking, the thing about the bounce is that sooner or later, you come back down to earth.
Posted by: Jeff Fecke at September 7, 2004 12:47 AMHistorically bounces end.
But, again, have the Democrats historically, or at least any any time in our memory, run a weaker candidate?
Posted by: mitch at September 7, 2004 10:14 AMMitch, the Democrats have fielded at least three in recent memory--
1988. Michael Dukakis. For all the "Ha! Kerry is worse than Dukakis" lines, at least Kerry seems to have a backbone. Dukakis gives worst answer ever when asked what he'd do if his wife was killed. Never appears to experience emotion. Loses to very beatable George H.W. Bush. Biggest failure: never, ever hitting back.
1984. Walter Mondale. Promises to raise taxes. Hell, even Democrats don't want to hear that. Picks Geraldine Ferrarro as VP, nice gesture which doesn't work because her husband has mob ties.
1972. George McGovern. Yes, he was right on Vietnam, and yes, Nixon was evil. But man...he ran a tepid, horrible campaign. Mitigating factor: Nixon's active involvement in taking down the more formidable Ed Muskie.
Jimmy Carter probably isn't stronger than Kerry, either; he barely beat the guy who pardoned Nixon, two years after the most severe crimes against the Constitution since the Civil War. McGovern could've won in 1976--and Mondale kinda did. Indeed, only Bill Clinton stands as a clearly stronger candidate than Kerry, and Clinton stands up with Reagan and John F. Kennedy as the strongest campaigners of the last fifty years.
Posted by: Jeff Fecke at September 7, 2004 10:52 PM