Rasmussen, Edwards Bounce Fade Already Begun

rasmussenreports.com ^ | July 11, 2004 | Owen

[Owen]

Kerry 48 Bush 45. The gap closes 1% from yesterday's 4% Edwards bounce.

[reformedliberal]

See LS post at #32.

Timing is everything.

Coming up:

Brit report on investigation into Niger uranium buy next week

September: the ISG (WMD hunters) report, also supposedly a report from Libya to the effect that they were hosting the Iraqi nuclear program.

Also, POA2, the economic poll numbers have strengthened as well as the general approval numbers.

What I encounter as needing clarification for the average punter is the Dem claim of a imminent draft believed by moms who can't use the Internet and who are relying on NPR for their news. As troops come home, people tell me they are hearing that we did good things over there and are winning. 20k troops leave for home this week, IIRC. For my part, I am working on having an Army Reserve Major just back from Afghanistan speak to several churches to tell what she saw and how she feels about this WOT and about Iraq. Trust me: it is good stuff. She thinks we are on a humanitarian mission concerned w/civil and human rights, which will settle down the nervous moms.

I hear your concern and we have participated in many threads together, so I am not really arguing with your apprehension. I think you have a better ability w/stats then I do. I just think you sell Rove way short, as LS points out.

I am on the ground working for the campaign in a battleground state and we are very prepared and have committed volunteers coming out our ears in an area with a ot of high profile progressives dominating the media and the conversation. Lots of quietly determined voters are backing W, many who did not in 2000.

I am not a Pollyanna and indeed, can bite my nails with the best of them. I know the pitfalls. I have met campaign staff who are one step down from Mehlman and Rove. They point out to me that both are incredible detail freaks, for one thing. For another, whenever I have conveyed a concern of the base to these staffers, I see a move in the right direction from the campaign within days...moves that are taking place in Congress and reported by the media as well as moves on the ground in battleground states that soothe the base and encourage other supporters.

I am an overachiever who in all liklihood is driving the much younger staffer I work under to distraction, as I insist on all bases being covered and as efficient a management style as possible. I am not asleep nor overly trusting to chance. But I have confidence in Rove and I have confidence in W. The base is strong and the Dem base is split. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be reading about a Deanie floor fight, a Gore PAC endorsement of Algore for president, or the attempt to silence Nader. All the articles speaking of a conservative defection from W is so much wishful thinking, IMO. It is classic vote suppresion tactics. Winners don't need to do that.

IMO, the internals went positive for us and negative for Kerry in May. I base that on how both campaigns have acted since then. W spoke to some troops about then and he was relaxed for the 1st time in weeks. I think it was hairy there for awhile. I doubt our team is overly confident, either and I think they have more than few moves still in reserve.

[calenel]

"Then why are the NBC, Newsweek, and Rasmeesum (sp?) polls show Kerry with a slight lead?"

Self fulfilling prophecy polling.

[POA2]

Are you sure about that with Rove - that he has never been involved with an election that was lost? - You for example only listed 3 races - and while we did win all three of those (against the odds in many ways...mind you) -

And that certainly does show a positive for Rove - it is also only 3 races - Now, I'm sure Rove had to be involved with more campaigns then just these 3 - hasn't he?

Also, there is no denying that not responding to the DEM lies from Oct 2003 until March 2004 was a terrible decision -

Losing the premise on the economy and in Iraq has cost GWB big time -

It would be like saying that a football team that makes a huge 42 point comeback and wins 42-35 - That after the game you would say "well, there is nothing wrong with getting down by 35pts.....we still won" -

And that is what I see as the problem here - we have got our butts handed to us with DEM 527's (Rove missed the ball here hugely ...they are still scrambling trying to offset DEM 527's to no avail as far as I can tell) -

Rove again got taken to the shed with the amount of money Kerry has raised - heck, he is close to raising near what GWB is going to raise total -

And I still haven't seen an effective strategy for telling the American public about the economy's success (now that we have lost the premise on it) -

And lastly...the Rove strategy of "hoping" that the perception of the economy (with the public) catches up to reality .....that is hardly a good reelection campaign...."hoping" - We should have been setting the record straight since last Oct when the DEM's and Media started running it down (and DEM 527's) - but we sat back and said nothing for months -

[POA2]

Keep up the great work - Your comments give me reasons for continued faith that we will win -

That regardless of where we sit in certain historical trends - we are going to win - because of people like you out there working in the grass-roots -

Again, keep up the great work and thanks for all you are doing on behalf of Dubya!

[reformedliberal]

Thanx!

I cannot tell you how much your analysis of the polls has helped my confidence. All of you who managed to pass statistics and who actually understand how the polls are weighted have allowed me to explain that to the many people who otherwise would be influenced into depression by the media and their pollsters.

Keep us all honest and working. If we get too confident, we will slack off.

BTW, I have thought often that if the campaign had spent the time and capital to respond to absolutely every swipe from the media, the results would have been more negative than just letting the lagging indicators catch up to the folks' perceptions. Guaranteed the media would have played it as *Desperate Bush Responds to Renowned Economists* and they would have played the *Are You Better Off Now* game just when the gas prices were peaking.

After almost 4 years of watching the Bush team stand back and wait before responding to critics and then slamming them below the floor when they do, I may get nervous, but I have learned to wait for the crushing blow. My husband, for example, spent the entire run up to the war in Afghanistan moaning that it was all FUBAR and Bush was toast.

And sometimes I am just gritting my teeth with everyone else because it does seem to take these guys sooooooooooo long to really respond. But they always do. My mantra: we have more of the blacks, more of the Jews, more of the Hispanics, more of the Evangelicals and more of the women than we did in 2000. It looks ok to me, so far.

[ride the whirlwind]

I am very optimistic about the president's chances for reelection. They are constantly misunderestimating him and I think we'll be pleasantly surprised on Nov. 2. But like the poster, bray, said above, pray for W & the troops.

[section9]

I would have agreed with you, except that Kerry's lack of a huge bounce has indicated to Bush that he should get into the game and keep Kerry on the defensive. Bush is campaigning. His job is to keep charging at Kerry throughout this month and through the Convention to make sure that whatever bounce that Lurch does get stays within five points.

I understand your frustration, but please understand that Kerry's people and the media have engaged in a nonstop propaganda effort since February. Bush should be ten points back, not even.

But he is even, and things have a way of turning his way in the fall of every year.

Believe me, Bush has plenty of cards to play. Kerry has played his in picking the Ken Doll. In the long run, this will not have proven to be a wise choice.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[LS]

First, on the money, Bush is going with public financing, which limits what he can spend, but because he has a much shorter window in which to spend it, it makes Kerry look bad because Kerry won't pledge to use public financing only. Once you hit the convention, the money is in Bush's favor.

On the non-profits, I would argue just the opposite: they have spent GAZILLIONS and Bush still has a 50-52% job approval and in many polls leads? This is victory?

On the campaigns, it is FOUR campaigns (2 Texas, 1 Pres, 1 Senate). I don't think Rove was at it in the early 1990s, but if he was, I don't know his record. Four straight is pretty good, and it's hardly "we're behind 42-0 and come back." In two of the four, Bush had to make a comeback. In 1998 and in 2002, the Bush strategy led the whole way, and it wasn't close.

The impact of advertising---past a certain point---is way overstated. No amount of advertising is going to get the 40% of hard-core Dems. Those people were lost by Oct. 2001. The fact that, regardless of the reason, no WMDs were found and that the AQ links to Iraq are not overwhelming (and I do believe they exist) are hurting Bush, but he knew that would be the case and rolled the dice.

You cannot advertise your way into convincing people the economy is good. They either believe it on their own, or they don't. By November, more will than not. I think it's a waste of money to do too much on the economy.

Despite what conservatives think is a "lesson" from the Clinton years about year-round campaigning/advertising, Rove has a different strategy, which is counterpunch, but don't get caught in October without some knockout blows. As I say, since HE has run four successful campaigns and you have not, I trust his judgment over yours.

[POA2]

LS - you make some decent points - many of which I have made on FR myself from time to time -

But to suggest one shouldn't set the premise on the economy is foolish - Reagan and his staff continually throughout 1983 and 1984 touted the economy - In mid-1983 they held a whole Camp David (type) retreat addressing the "booming" economy - This sets the image with the public - (it most certainly does) -

The fact is, "perception" is not necessarily how you feel about "your job security" - it is more how you feel about your "neighbors" - and this is where setting the premise makes all the difference when it comes to the economy - Hell, the economy now is MUCH better off then in 1996 (yet the public has been pushed to believe this is not true by the media and DEM's.... and with NO GOP response for months and months it took hold).

As for taking Rove's ideas on running a reelection over mine - Couldn't agree with you more 100% (he knows more then I) - However, I will take HISTORY over ROVE any day - and History SHOWS "incumbents do not surge late and win!!" - SHOW ME ONE! - ain't going to happen -(barring some large outside event)

If GWB is losing or still in a toss-up race by late August - He is going to lose come Nov more likely then not - (and that is History talking not me).

[Common Tator]

During the past 50 years the media has been very biased for Democrats. In every presiential election in the last 50 yearse they have done all they can to elect Democrats. I grant you that they do all the things you say. I dispute that the media is effective at doing it.

In the last 50 years the candidate the media has tried to elect has been defeated 62 percent of the time.

The media's candidate wins the presidency just slightly better than one out of every 3 elections.

Winning only 38 percent of your games gets any coach fired. Yet the media only wins 38 percent of the presidential elections they try to influence. That by any gauge is a poor performance.

Until the media supported candidates win more than half the elections, I will say the media is not very effective. The election returns prove me right.

[beyond the sea]

Vets Not Fonda Kerry

[Taxman]

Thass Right!

OTOH, "“There are two Americas – one that gets to grab ass, and one that gets its ass grabbed.”

[LS]

As a historian, I know that the problem with history is that trends are never predictive.

As for "talking up" the economy. I'm convinced that a) Bush is doing this all he can, and b) to a degree, it is pointless. There are three numbers that tell everyday Americans about the economy and advertising really doesn't cut through these: the price of gas, the DOW/NASDAQ, and the unemployment rate. If the stock market is up, and the other two down and/or falling steadily, everyone's "perceptions" about the economy will be fixed, regardless of what any ads say.

[POA2]

Again - not sure I agree on "your three" things that make up people's mind on the economy - In 2000 gas prices were through the roof (Gore was calling for a federal commission on gouging) - and the NASDAQ had lost over 50% of it's value ----YET the public thought the economy was "booming" -

The fact is, unemployment is already at historic lows and the DOW and NASDAQ are up (way up) since NOV of 2001 - yet the public still isn't convinced on the economy -

And that is because the DEM's and Media have talked it down for going on a year - with hardly a GOP response (until about 2 months ago) - CBS news was still air news segments entitled "making ends meat in America today" - with the whole notion being .......even middle-class people can't make it in the "Bush economy" - (this has an effect, it makes people think things outside of their own job...must not be going well - and especially so when there is no response from the GWB WH, or GOP Congress).

Let me ask, at what point in this election does the time come....where you will think GWB is in trouble (as an incumbent)...and also with enough time to try and make some change?? -(like it can't be the last week in Oct, when at that point it wouldn't matter because there is no time to change anything) -

[LS]

I will think Bush is in trouble if, the day after the election, Kerry has 271 electoral votes.

And "what people think" is defined exactly how? Apparently, people DID NOT THINK the economy was so great under Clinton/Gore; and apparently gas prices and some other indicators did switch a few votes.

New Survey USA today poll again with Bush up; close in CA; and ahead in key states. If the election is close going into the last month, I think Bush's trustworthiness gets him that 1-2% . . . which translates into not quite a landslide, but a 330 EV win.

[POA2]

People did not think the economy was good in 2000??? The highest consumer confidence rating in HISTORY was in OCT of 2000 (now, don't tell me the media and DEM's worth pushing the idea that the economy was "booming").

In fact the lowest consumer confidence in history was recorded (guess when?) - OCT of 1992 (just in time to beat Bush Sr.) -

GWB won (despite the notion of a great economy) over Gore because of Clinton fatigue (#1)....and I would also say because of the pure genuin-ness of GWB himself - (but the American public was certainly fooled about the economy by Gore and the media in 2000 and this helped him huge!!) -

The facts were we were in a RECESSION in 2000 (the NASDAQ had lost over 50% of its value) yet the public still almost elected Al Gore (because the "premise" on the economy was that it was "booming" - regardless of the facts that it was in a recession ) Hell, I worked in the manufacturing sector then, we were in the midsts of a 12 month contraction period going into Nov of 2000!

The new RCP average has Kerry at 49.5% and GWB at 44% (the RCP is an average of all up to date polls...plus they are a GWB supporting site!)

Key states right now that Kerry is leading in (by the latest polls) - MI,PA,IA, WI, NH, NM -

Key States that are a toss-up (within 3 pts) - FL,MO,AR & OH

How you seem to suggest this shows GWB up is odd to me -

I believe GWB will win FL easier this time (IMO) - but the latest two polls out of MO show big concern for me - GWB is up by 2pts (well within the margin of error) in both - Incumbents that typically win are not in life and death struggles in a moderate (to conservative) State like MO - Without even advertising much in this State...after 3 1/2 years of being a sitting President...I would expect MO to be in the LEAN column easily - (yet MO is a toss-up at this point....not even a slight lean towrd GWB).

As for you thinking GWB will be in trouble only the day after the election - thank god you are part of the reelection team (no disrespect meant by that) - just simply we need people who are willing to have their eyes open and understand there does come "time plateaus" where changes must be made.....in order to still have an "effect" -

Bush Sr and his team did exactly as you suggest - only thought about changing after Clinton had won - We can't afford that this time.

[LS]

Funny, if people thought the economy was so great in 2000, it's odd that Al Gore did NOT run on the economy.

[POA2]

"Funny, if people thought the economy was so great in 2000, it's odd that Al Gore did NOT run on the economy."

Not sure what you mean by this - Al Gore did run on the economy - he touted over and over that they created 21 million new jobs - that if we wanted to keep the Clinton/Gore economy going to reelect him - The media continually touted the economy as well for Al Gore (always saying how robust it was....even though we were in the midsts of a recession in reality)

Do you remember when GWB suggested the economy wasn't strong - he was ridiculed by the press for "talking down the economy" - (which in retrospect is too funny...considering the day he got in office...the media went hell bent on talking the economy down daily ).

I saved the homepage of MSNBC.Com the day GWB was declared the winner - and Al Gore conceded - The main story on MSNBC was "finding a job in a troubled economy" - For the past 6 months the media told us daily that the economy was "robust" (and thus this should help Gore) - yet the very day GWB is wins (not even sworn in mind you) NBC switches tones and says "finding a job in a troubled economy"....WHAT???

[LS]

The discussion, then, and in the months that followed, was, "why didn't Gore run on the 'Clinton economy.'"