How Big Of A Bounce?

[STING2]

So, how big of a Bounce in the polls do you think Kerry will get out of this convention?

The polls at this point are essentially even with Bush ahead by a point or two or Kerry ahead by a point or two. There have been some amazing bounces in the polls after the convention in the past, sometimes by as much as 17 points.

Its difficult to say, but if Kerry hits a home run, he could be up by as much as 10 points after the convention. I'm hoping that its not more than 10 points though because such a lead would be hard to reverse even with the Republican Convention and other things that Republicans have planned following the democratic convention.

But, if Kerry gets less than a 5 point bounce or none at all, then it could be over for him. This is Kerry's best shot, and if he wants to win, he needs a large bounce that gives him a large enough lead that Republicans will be unable to dismantle it fully by November.

 

[STING2]

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/

The above website has great information on past elections with a breakdown of the vote in the electoral college and state by state breakdowns of the popular votes.

Looking at the 2000 election, it is surprising how close the vote was in several other states besides Florida. You can also see the States that are obviously not going to go Democrat or Republican in 2004, based on the percentage victory in 2000.

I noticed a lot more of the Democrat States in 2000 were actually very close and definitely in play in 2004.

 

[Basstrap]

I don't know.

I read this on another messageboard
http://www.americanheritage.com/xml/2004/3/2004_3_feat_0.xml

it's a very interesting article (and long) about the downfall of the democratic party due to the 1964 election

 

[verte76]

According to at least one poll, Rasmussen, a state that went for Bush in 2000, Connecticut, is currently in Kerry's column. New Hampshire and Maine are toss-ups; I've seen wildly conflicting polls from Tennessee, both taken at the same time. In fact, one is a tracking poll, so you could say it's still going on--Rasmussen strikes again! Rasmussen claims that Bush has an eight-point lead; Zogby claims that it's a dead heat. That's strange. Ohio, which went to Bush in 2000, is a toss-up in some polls and some have Kerry in a slight lead. I've actually seen conflicting polls for Florida, some have it as a toss-up or a slight Bush lead, but all within the margin of error. To me this pretty much shatters the credibility of polls. They're a joke. Yes, the polls are close. But they are incredibly fickle. Other states have been coming and going "out of play". Who's to say they won't come back in when all's said and done?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

the next democratic leader who accuses bush of using 9/11 for votes after that desplay at the convention should be muzzled for a month.

 

[anitram]

I don't know about the bounce.

It does occur to me (and slightly makes me salivate) that if Hillary ever became president, one could literally hear the hystrionics of the right over here in Canada. I don't know what it is about this woman they hate so much, but goddamn it, I'm ready for my buttered popcorn the day this happens.

 

[verte76]

I don't know about a bounce either. More voters are committed now than they have been this early in the election period in the past. In the past the Democrats have still been squabbling at the Convention. Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson and their people were still squabbling at the 1988 convention. It was a circus. I vaguely remember squabbling going on between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy in 1980. Kennedy had challenged Carter for the nomination. This sort of thing is not going on this year. So in terms of unity the Democrats are in good shape. There are no disputes or controversies at this convention. There have been some pretty good jokes, and tough words as well.

 

[verte76]

Oh yes, let's not forget that Jimmy Carter blew one of the biggest leads in presidential history in 1976. He led 62%-29% after his convention. By the first of October the race was a dead heat, and the election was a real squeaker.

 

[STING2]

The voting paterns in the country have changed so much since 1976. Just go to the website I listed and look at the electoral map for 1976. Its almost the reverse of the year 2000. For camparisons and trends, its probably a good idea not to go past 1992. Its amazing how dominant Reagan and Bush were in the 1980s. Reagan's re-election victory margin in 1984 is incredible. He won every state except Minnesota and only lost that state by 4,000 votes.

By the way, Bush did NOT win Connecticut in 2000. The Democrats have a lock on most of the North East except Pennsylvania. Their Midwest victories in 2000 were by the skin of their teeth except in Illinois and Michigan. But this time I doubt the Republicans will be able to win Ohio, which I think makes Pennsylvania a must win for the Republicans.

 

[verte76]

I thought about my Connecticut screw-up later Sting. Connecticut used to be a Republican state, but it hasn't been in awhile, actually. You're very right about voting patterns having changed. Virginia is a toss-up state this year. Who'd have thunk it? In 1976 it was the only Southern state that Jimmy Carter didn't carry. This shocked me, I thought it was going to be a solid Bush state. What a stupid mistake. I'm really mad with myself about the Connecticut screw-up. !

 

[kariatari]

I don't think the polls are going to reflect the bounce. The polls only reflect "likely" voters, which make up only 50% of the population. You can't compare an election in 2000 to an election in 2004 because the political climate is completely different. We've got a war going on, our entire nation is polarized, and 9/11 has more people interested in politics and world events. I think the only bounce we'll see is the bounce in the percentage of people voting.

 

[deep]

The poll by Zogby America showed that though the Democratic ticket didn't gain points during the four-day convention, the Republicans lost three percentage points to the undecided category.

The poll of 1,001 likely voters conducted from Monday through Thursday found Kerry-Edwards leading Bush-Cheney 48 percent to 43 percent, with 8 percent undecided. A similar sampling taken July 6-7 had the Democrats up 48 percent to 46 percent, with 5 percent undecided.

 

[verte76]

Another factor is the very high percentage of people this time around who say they have already decided who they are going to vote for. It's usually not until later one that voters decide who they are going to vote for, thus this year may be something of an aberration.

 

[verte76]

I don't think the polls are going to reflect the bounce. The polls only reflect "likely" voters, which make up only 50% of the population. You can't compare an election in 2000 to an election in 2004 because the political climate is completely different. We've got a war going on, our entire nation is polarized, and 9/11 has more people interested in politics and world events. I think the only bounce we'll see is the bounce in the percentage of people voting.

That's right. What if people who did not vote in 2000 turn out en masse? They'll never show up in "likely voters" polls.

 

[nbcrusader]

Ratings for the convention were down from the Gore acceptance speech in 2000.

 

[verte76]

Ratings for the convention were down from the Gore acceptance speech in 2000.

This doesn't surprise me since more people have decided who they are voting for in November.

 

[najeena]

I imagine both candidates will get a 'bounce' from their respective conventions, and that things will remain neck and neck until the debates. That's when I think Kerry will trounce Bush, who's record and debate skills are both less than stellar.

 

[verte76]

I imagine both candidates will get a 'bounce' from their respective conventions, and that things will remain neck and neck until the debates. That's when I think Kerry will trounce Bush, who's record and debate skills are both less than stellar.

This is possible given that there will probably still be undecided voters. I understand that this election is different from 2000, but at one point Al Gore had an eleven-point lead in the polls and look what happened. The debates nuked him.

*edited because I can't type*

 

[nbcrusader]

That's when I think Kerry will trounce Bush, who's record and debate skills are both less than stellar.

I remember similar naive optimism about Gore in the debates....

 

[najeena]

Naive optimism? I thought it was an honest opinion, silly me. Kerry is a great closer, and I DO think he'll do well in the debates. Call me naive if you want to, NBC. I don't think optimism is a bad thing.

 

[ThatGuy]

Perhaps the Gore team misunderestimated Bush in the debates. I don't think it will happen again. I believe Kerry will have worked harder to embetter himself for these debates.

Also, the Zogby polls say the bounce is pretty good.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=849

 

[verte76]

I am shocked at the numbers in the Catholic community, of which I'm a member. Awhile back it was claimed in some publication, I don't know which one, that Bush was leading among Catholic voters. It's an absolutely lopsided count in Kerry's favor these days, 52%-37%. The poll states that the wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion have sort of blown up in Bush's face. Holy !!!

 

[STING2]

Perhaps the Gore team misunderestimated Bush in the debates. I don't think it will happen again. I believe Kerry will have worked harder to embetter himself for these debates.

Also, the Zogby polls say the bounce is pretty good.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=849

According to the Zogby poll taken the past 4 days, Kerry leads Bush 48% to 43%. A few weeks ago that same poll had Kerry at 48% and Bush at 46%. I guess you could say Kerry got a bounce in that he is now 5 points ahead instead of 2 points. In that since it would be a 3 point bounce which is nothing.

I think wait for the polls that will be done this weekend and show up on Monday. If on Monday we see Kerry ahead by say 53% to 40%, the election is over and Kerry will be President. But if Kerry is only ahead by say 48% to 44%, then I say Bush has will have it locked up. Where it gets tricky is when Kerry is ahead by 8 or 9 points, indeed a bounce, but will it be enough to last him to November?

The Republicans will get their convention at the end of the Month, and if Kerry only gets a small or no bounce from this convention then Bush will be idealy positioned to take a firm lead in September.


As far as the debates go, remember that George Bush did just fine in his debates with John McCain. John Kerry is not on the level of John McCain either in that area. While Bush is not a great speaker, the Kerry campaign would be foolish to think that the debates could win it for them based on what we know from 2000.

 

[kariatari]

I remember similar naive optimism about Gore in the debates....

Gore's problem was that his strategy was to keep his mouth shut and hope the the American people were perceptive enough to get that Bush wasn't exactly the brightest crayon in the box. Obviously, it didn't work because Bush didn't slip up. However, I think that if Bush goes up against someone who is willing and ready to have a gritty debate, he will be shredded to pieces.

The only debates I'm worried about are the Edwards/Chenney debates. Chenney does indeed have more experience than Edwards, but I Chenney's weakness will be in his inability to keep cool.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

The only debates I'm worried about are the Edwards/Chenney debates. Chenney does indeed have more experience than Edwards, but I Chenney's weakness will be in his inability to keep cool.

I'm not worried (right now) because what Edwards lacks in experience he makes up for in charm. Tell me the last time you heard "charm" and "Cheney" in the same sentence.

 

[zoney!]

the next democratic leader who accuses bush of using 9/11 for votes after that desplay at the convention should be muzzled for a month.

desplay? I think I may be misunderetimating Headaches's ability to embetter his spelling and grammar during the Bush term.

OK...I am going to go "muzzle" myself now.

 

[STING2]

Gore's problem was that his strategy was to keep his mouth shut and hope the the American people were perceptive enough to get that Bush wasn't exactly the brightest crayon in the box. Obviously, it didn't work because Bush didn't slip up. However, I think that if Bush goes up against someone who is willing and ready to have a gritty debate, he will be shredded to pieces.

The only debates I'm worried about are the Edwards/Chenney debates. Chenney does indeed have more experience than Edwards, but I Chenney's weakness will be in his inability to keep cool.

George Bush went up against John McCain in 2000 and held is own and was definitely not shredded to pieces.

 

[Diemen]

Tell me the last time you heard "charm" and "Cheney" in the same sentence.

 

[BostonAnne]

On congress.org, people can pledge their vote and later change it. While I'm not sure how accurate it is, it is really neat to check out the map and see how many people from each state pledged.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

 

[verte76]

Zogby also reports that there are far fewer undecided voters this year than there were in 2000. More people are tuned into the election than they were at this point in 2000, and more people have made up their minds. This will no doubt affect the post convention bounces for both conventions. We're not going to see the fifteen point bounce that Bill Clinton got in 1992.