How Big Of A Bounce?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I might add that I really don't believe in polls. I was recently puzzled by the polls from Tennessee. Rasmussen claimed that Bush had an eight-point lead there, 49%-41%. However, Zogby claimed that the state was a dead heat. The polls were taken at the same time. In Oklahoma, two Republicans were supposedly in a dead heat in a Senatorial race. When the actual election took place it was a landslide for one of the candidates, 61%-39%. I can only wonder how the pundits and pollsters got that much egg off of their faces. I've seen similar situations right here in Alabama. One year a Congressional race was supposedly a dead heat, but the actual election wasn't even close. So I really doubt the accuracy of polls.
 
Last edited:
BostonAnne said:
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/

Interesting, if only the map could be repeated on November 2 in the real election.
 
In interviews on Thursday, July 29-before the Kerry nomination acceptance speech-Kerry/Edwards received the support of 47 percent of registered voters, Bush/Cheney 45 percent and Nader/Camejo 2 percent, according to the Newsweek Poll. In Friday interviews after the speech, Kerry/Edwards received 50 percent, Bush/Cheney 40 percent and Nader/Camejo 3 percent. In the two-way race, in interviews on July 29, Kerry/Edwards received 49 percent and Bush/Cheney 47 percent. On July 30, Kerry/Edwards got 54 percent and Bush/Cheney 41 percent, the poll shows.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040731/nysa010a_3.html
 
"Poll: No 'bounce' for Kerry so far"

Over the years, I have found the CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP poll to be the most accurate. The results are now in for a poll that was conducted Friday and Saturday after Kerry's acceptence speach on Thursday night.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/01/polls.bounce/index.html


"Poll: No 'bounce' for Kerry so far"

"Bush and Democratic nominee still running neck and neck
Sunday, August 1, 2004 Posted: 8:04 PM EDT (0004 GMT)"


"(CNN) -- The race between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry is as close as it has ever been, even after the Democratic National Convention last week, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Sunday."

"The poll -- conducted Friday and Saturday, after Kerry's acceptance of the Democratic nomination Thursday night -- found the senator from Massachusetts running slightly ahead of Bush among registered voters but slightly behind among likely voters."

"In each case, the difference between the two men was less than the margin of error, making the results a statistical tie."

"Of the 1,011 adult Americans interviewed, 916 identified themselves as registered voters and 763 said they were likely voters."

"The registered voters surveyed favored Kerry over Bush 50-47, a slight change from 49-45 found in a similar poll conducted two weeks ago."

"The likely voters polled favored Bush 50-47, whereas two weeks earlier they had favored Kerry 49-47."

"When Nader was offered as an option, 3 percent of registered voters left Kerry's column to support the consumer advocate -- bringing Kerry down to a tie with Bush, 47-47. Two percent of likely voters chose Nader, increasing Bush's lead over Kerry to 50-46. Those results are all within the margin of error."
 
Since everyone disagrees with which poll is most accurate, I'll take the Newsweek poll above and average it in with the CNN/USA TODAY/GALLOP Poll.

I'll use the registered voter polls instead of the likely voter polls which should benefit Kerry. I'll average in the two way race poll and the 3 way race poll as well.

The combined two way race poll of Newsweek CNN/USA TODAY/GALLOP would be:

Kerry 52%
Bush 44%

For a three way race poll, the results would be:

Kerry 47.5%
Bush 42.5%



The incredible thing about the CNN/USA TODAY/GALLOP poll is that its results showed that Kerry LOST GROUND with both registered voters and likely voters. Among Likely voters, Bush is now leading Kerry in both a two way race and 3 way race where as before the convention, Kerry had a slight lead.

According to the CNN/USA TODAY/GALLOP poll, not only did Kerry not get ANY statistical bounce from the convention, but he actually dropped and fell behind Bush, suggesting the unusual idea that the convention slightly hurt him rather than helped him.

I honestly believed Kerry would be up by at least 8 points in the CNN/USA TODAY/GALLOP poll. To see Kerry actually behind Bush among likely voters after the Democratic convention is shocking and could be disasterous for his election chances.

Even when the CNN/USA TODAY/GALLOP poll is averaged in with the Newsweek one, Kerry does not get much of a bounce at all.
 
BluberryPoptart

Yep,
" Analysts said the lack of a bounce may reflect the intensely polarized contest. Nearly nine of 10 voters say their minds are made up and won't change. "The convention, typically a kicking-off point for a party, is now merely a reaffirmation" of where voters stand, said David Moore, senior editor of the Gallup Poll."
 
Like I said earlier, I'm a poll skeptic. Furthermore, some analysts don't think there are going to be any post-convention bounces this year because the electorate is so polarized. More people are tuned into the race than is usually the case this early. More people have already decided who they are voting for. If you want polls, most of the electorate had not tuned into the race this early in 2000. Many more of the voters are tuned into this one. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll is contradicted by a Newsweek poll. I've been seeing huge discrepancies in polls all year, particularly between Zogby's and Rasmussen. I think polls are a vague impression of popular opinion and are not to be taken as gospel truth. I've pointed out some of the discrepancies I've seen in polls. This includes a Congressional race in my own district one year. The Sunday before the election the newspapers claimed that the race was a dead heat. I thought my candidate, the Democrat, was going to lose. Much to my shock, the election wasn't even close. The Democrat won 54%-46%. Someone screwed up.
 
Klaus, you're quite right. Too bad I didn't see your post before I did mine. If you ask me this race is still too close to call, and it probably will stay this way until Election Day. Again, if you want polls, I've seen poll after poll claiming that 90% of the electorate has their mind made up. Nearly all Kerry supporters are decided, and so are Bush supporters. It's the 10% or so of the undecideds that are up for grabs. I think you make any kind of prediction at your own peril. I am certainly not going to make one. In the past a far higher percentage of the electorate has been undecided at this point in the race, thus the bigger post convention bounces. Furthermore, many of these bounces consisted of support that was actually quite soft. At one point in 2000 Al Gore led by 11 points. Then the debates came and everything changed. We still have the debates. They're important too.
 
Last edited:
You hit it on the head NBC.

I mentioned it before, the Dems strictly want him out of office. I think if they chose Bart Simpson as their nomination, they'd vote for him simply because its not Bush.

I just read that cnn article - very good news!
 
People who are voting for Bush telling Kerry voters why they're voting for Kerry makes abouyt as much sense as whites telling blacks why the NAACP is irrelvant. Oh no wait, you guys did that, too.
 
Of course you're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to mine. I'm not shouting you down, or telling you that you shouldn't say what you've said. I just think you're wrong.
 
I'm discrediting myself? How?

You're discussing something that you have no clue about. That shouldn't stop you from having your opinions, but it also does not stop me from calling you on them.

It would be like me sitting around with some athiest friends and talking about why Christians choose to believe in their faith. True, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't make them knowledgable about the subject at hand.
 
Bro, take it easy, you have no idea how closely i am following this thing. All angles. I can gurantee your sitting in the dark on this one. Your last comment on whites and blacks made me laugh out loud at how off you are. there is more to the election then listening to franken radio. believe me.
 
You're right, odowpa. I exclusively listen to Al Franken's show and I beleive everything he says and rely on him for all of my opinions regarding the election. :|

Never mind that what I said was said half-jokingly. Perhaps I need to be more liberal :)sexywink:) with my use of the :wink:.

I just found it hard to believe that you followed the DNC with an open mind and came away with the idea that Deomcrats are simply for "anyone but Bush." I've heard conservatives lament about the lack of "red meat" in Kerry's acceptance speech. the fact is that he was trying to aim for those undecided voters who might be turned off by too much partisan rhetoric. But if you listened to his speech there was plenty of good stuff there.

For four years, we've heard a lot of talk about values. But values spoken without actions taken are just slogans. Values are not just words. They're what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for. And it is time for those who talk about family values to start valuing families.
You don't value families by kicking kids out of after school programs and taking cops off our streets, so that Enron can get another tax break.
We believe in the family value of caring for our children and protecting the neighborhoods where they walk and play.
And that is the choice in this election.
You don't value families by denying real prescription drug coverage to seniors, so big drug companies can get another windfall.
We believe in the family value expressed in one of the oldest Commandments: "Honor thy father and thy mother." As President, I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits. And together, we will make sure that senior citizens never have to cut their pills in half because they can't afford life-saving medicine.
And that is the choice in this election.

<snip>

And let me tell you what we won't do: we won't raise taxes on the middle class. You've heard a lot of false charges about this in recent months. So let me say straight out what I will do as President: I will cut middle class taxes. I will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals who make over $200,000 a year, so we can invest in job creation, health care and education.
Our education plan for a stronger America sets high standards and demands accountability from parents, teachers, and schools. It provides for smaller class sizes and treats teachers like the professionals they are. And it gives a tax credit to families for each and every year of college.
When I was a prosecutor, I met young kids who were in trouble, abandoned by adults. And as President, I am determined that we stop being a nation content to spend $50,000 a year to keep a young person in prison for the rest of their life ? when we could invest $10,000 to give them Head Start, Early Start, Smart Start, the best possible start in life.
And we value health care that's affordable and accessible for all Americans.
Since 2000, four million people have lost their health insurance. Millions more are struggling to afford it.
You know what's happening. Your premiums, your co-payments, your deductibles have all gone through the roof.
Our health care plan for a stronger America cracks down on the waste, greed, and abuse in our health care system and will save families up to $1,000 a year on their premiums. You'll get to pick your own doctor ? and patients and doctors, not insurance company bureaucrats, will make medical decisions. Under our plan, Medicare will negotiate lower drug prices for seniors. And all Americans will be able to buy less expensive prescription drugs from countries like Canada.
The story of people struggling for health care is the story of so many Americans. But you know what, it's not the story of senators and members of Congress. Because we give ourselves great health care and you get the bill. Well, I'm here to say, your family's health care is just as important as any politician's in Washington, D.C.
And when I'm President, America will stop being the only advanced nation in the world which fails to understand that health care is not a privilege for the wealthy, the connected, and the elected ? it is a right for all Americans.

<snip>

We value an America that controls its own destiny because it's finally and forever independent of Mideast oil. What does it mean for our economy and our national security when we only have three percent of the world's oil reserves, yet we rely on foreign countries for fifty-three percent of what we consume?
I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation ? not the Saudi royal family.
And our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future -- so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
I've told you about our plans for the economy, for education, for health care, for energy independence. I want you to know more about them. So now I'm going to say something that Franklin Roosevelt could never have said in his acceptance speech: go to johnkerry.com.
I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity; let's respect one another; and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.
My friends, the high road may be harder, but it leads to a better place. And that's why Republicans and Democrats must make this election a contest of big ideas, not small-minded attacks. This is our time to reject the kind of politics calculated to divide race from race, group from group, region from region. Maybe some just see us divided into red states and blue states, but I see us as one America ? red, white, and blue. And when I am President, the government I lead will enlist people of talent, Republicans as well as Democrats, to find the common ground ? so that no one who has something to contribute will be left on the sidelines.
And let me say it plainly: in that cause, and in this campaign, we welcome people of faith. America is not us and them. I think of what Ron Reagan said of his father a few weeks ago, and I want to say this to you tonight: I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country.
These aren't Democratic values. These aren't Republican values. They're American values. We believe in them. They're who we are. And if we honor them, if we believe in ourselves, we can build an America that's stronger at home and respected in the world.

So much promise stretches before us. Americans have always reached for the impossible, looked to the next horizon, and asked: What if?
Two young bicycle mechanics from Dayton asked what if this airplane could take off at Kitty Hawk? It did that and changed the world forever. A young president asked what if we could go to the moon in ten years? And now we're exploring the solar system and the stars themselves. A young generation of entrepreneurs asked, what if we could take all the information in a library and put it on a little chip the size of a fingernail? We did and that too changed the world forever.
And now it's our time to ask: What if?
What if we find a breakthrough to cure Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and AIDS? What if we have a president who believes in science, so we can unleash the wonders of discovery like stem cell research to treat illness and save millions of lives?
What if we do what adults should do ? and make sure all our children are safe in the afternoons after school? And what if we have a leadership that's as good as the American dream ? so that bigotry and hatred never again steal the hope and future of any American?
 
Last edited:
Sorry if i came off as being an ass, after i read my line, I regretted the way i worded things.

but, listen to what im saying here. The big issue for everyone is the war, right? we agree on that? 84% (!) of voting Dems are against it, Kerry is for it. They just want Bush out, they don't care who it is. You are trying to put someone into office who is not in the know on the issue. If you moved to NYC or any other large US city, your safety could be in jeopardy. Would you really rather want Kerry than Bush. If you do, then I respect it, I just don't get it. He hasn't proved that he'd be better for the job. please enlightne me with the facts why he's be better, and int'l affairs has nothing to do with Al Quada terrorizing us.

And someone else here made the comment that the gov't was looking to postpone the election?? that was crap the press talked about, not the gov't...just to clear that up.
 
so you understand, you have to choose someonewho you think is better? is kerry really better for the country - all logical reasoning points to no. i.e. economy, taxes, jobs (on the upturn) and the war
 
odowdpa said:
so you understand, you have to choose someonewho you think is better? is kerry really better for the country - all logical reasoning points to no. i.e. economy, taxes, jobs (on the upturn) and the war

Yes. If that's so hard for you to believe then perhaps your mind is not as open as you claim it is.
 
Lack of thinking on their part i believe. they just don't like seeing people die for a good cause. no one wants this. this was an evil that was brought to us. clinton would have had to do the same thing. its sad, but its the world we're living in right now. kerry has not proved that he would be better. Give me the cold hard facts to prove that he would be better....

And does anyone else find it funny how Kerry did not once address his Senate record during his speech? Thats only been the last 20 years of his life.
 
odowdpa:
Would Clinton have attacked Afghanistan?
I think Yes
Iraq?
Why??

kerry has not proved that he would be better.

Right, give him the chance to prove it. Like many others it's hard for me to imagine that he could be even worse than George Walker Bush

I'm amused again and again about Republican partisans who mention the "Horrible past of Mr. Kerry" but feel completely unhappy if we simply compare the history of both candidates.
 
odowdpa said:
Give me the cold hard facts to prove that he would be better....

And does anyone else find it funny how Kerry did not once address his Senate record during his speech? Thats only been the last 20 years of his life.

You might want to check your 'cold hard facts' better.

From Kerry's speech

When I came to the Senate, I broke with many in my own party to vote for a balanced budget, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I fought to put a 100,000 cops on the street.

And then I reached across the aisle to work with John McCain, to find the truth about our POW's and missing in action, and to finally make peace with Vietnam.

Source: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0729.html
 
He has done nothing to prove he is better in 20 years of office. The only we know is that he voted the most liberal of ANY senate member in his time. If you don't believe that one, just go to the national journal web site (they have no ties either way). then he votes for the war, which was a thing we had to do, but you never know where this guy is going to go. He's unpredictable at best. i need to see more.
 
You'd have to admit, Fizz, that Kerry put more emphasis on his service in Vietnam (verbally and visually) than his career in the Senate.
 
Back
Top Bottom