Posted on 07/31/2004 8:48:48 PM PDT by SamAdams76
Matt Drudge is reporting tonight that John Kerry appears to have only a 4-point convention bounce (quoting Newsweak).
If true, a mere 4-point convention bounce is a disaster for Kerry. Just disastrous.
Let me tell you why and then I'll back it up with some hard data.
When you are running against an incumbent, you need a huge bounce to keep the race competitive. Especially since the incumbent will have the last word (by having the convention last). Bill Clinton got a 30 point bounce at his convention in 1992 and he needed almost all of it to beat the incumbent Bush Sr.
By comparison, Al Gore had a 19 point convention bounce in 2000 and still lost - it wasn't enough!
Here are the convention bounces of other losers...
Bob Dole (1996) - 15 points
George Bush Sr (1992) - 16 points
Mike Dukakis (1988) - 11 points
Walter Mondale (1984) - 16 points
Jimmy Carter (1980) - 17 points
Gerald Ford (1976) - 7 points
Hubert Humphrey (1968) - 4 points
Taking the cake for the most pathetic convention bounce in modern political history is George McGovern from 1972. Minus 3 points! And we all know how THAT race turned out.
So if the 4-point convention "bounce" for Kerry holds, he is in Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern territory here.
Personally, I think Newsweak is being overly optimistic. I don't sense any Kerry bounce out there. And that spells big trouble for the Kerry campaign as the Bush campaign is about to role into high gear and get the spotlight next month in the Big Apple.
Did you get that FOX poll data from the website or the tv? Just want to know so I can find it. Thanks
That's why the Dems have apparently turned her into a Stepford Wife for the rest of the campaign after that finger-pointing incident - just like they did with Hillary in 1992 (remember how she suddenly started baking cookies with her daughter?).
We probably won't see the real Teresa Heinz again until after the election. And so long as Kerry loses, we won't have to care.
My husband calls him "the sacrificial lamb." He has to be dumped. If his poll number remains too high close to the election, expect a "anonymous" leak that'll nail him, and it won't be leaked by us.
Hillary will have to run against an incumbent from her own party rather than fresh meat if she "allows" him to win..
Fabulous!!
Interesting.
When the undecided/uncommitted decide our elections, you get the same result as Leno gets on his jaywalk bits.
The fools who can't make up their minds or see that Bush is leagues better than Kerry are going to decide to vote on crap like who has the better haircut. Ugh!
just glad to see the younger americans out with bush signs. you would think, as the media portrays, the younger crowds are for the breck boys.
ROFL
Perfect!
This is so very excellent and spirit lifting.
Thanks Sam and thanks for ping Howlin.
Bookmarked.
WOHOOO .. GREAT POST!!!
Send them a message they will hear LOUD AND CLEAR!!
Heard it on TV. They were discussing it. I remember because I watched Kerry's speech, and expected a sudden drop. I was surprised he got the 2.8. I felt it was way too much.
My husband calls him "the sacrificial lamb."
***
Good analogy cause that is exactly what he is.
I'm surprised it's taken this long for the polls to start coming out
I expected to see an overnight poll on Friday ..
Yea, that's the Dems pitch all right. We will see how strong their people are for Kerry.
What makes me a little nervous about this is that in 1968 Hubert Humphrey BARELY lost to Richard Nixon. Had it not been for George Wallace, Humphrey would have won.
You might have a good point. It seems to me that the actual platform of the DNC is a rickety construction because of the theoretical goals of the different parts of the Democratic party. Femiminism, Identity politics, marxism, democratic socialism, and labor unionism are all there in their base.
So, I suppose you are correct to say that they lack a coherent message, because they have about *five* coherent messages going at once. All of which are contradicatory. That could explain why the Kerry message and slogans keep changing. They have to.
The problem for them is that Conservatives don't have this problem. A libertarian and a complete RINO probably believe mostly the same things, but they believe them at totally different levels of intensity. Same ideas, different volume level. That might be why Bush can stay on message so effectively, and Kerry has to waffle.
It's a thought.
MSNBC Polling shows 5 pt. bounce, but the numbers overall aren't pretty and we've got a lot of work to do:
THURSDAY SAMPLE
BUSH/CHENEY 47
KERRY/EDWARDS 49
FRIDAY SAMPLE
BUSH/CHENEY 41
KERRY/EDWARDS 54
Honestly, I would not put it past them to do it AND then say they are fudgepacking each other, just to appeal to the homo sector of society!!
Canadians have an interest in your elections because they affect us. If you don't like that, find a way to not affect us anymore. I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, because it wasn't indicative of serious thought.
True, but Humphrey was the incumbent VP and Nixon won the electoral vote 301 to 191 (56% to 36%). Of course, there was the little matter of the Vietnam war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.