Kerry's Convention Bounce Sets Him Up To Be One Of The Biggest Losers of All-Time

[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.

[Quzar]

All i have to say is a Bush victory will be a big time lose to the liberals and they will be even more angry, maybe they will all move to Canada!


GOOOOOOOOOO BUSH!

[sheik yerbouty]

He was quite a loser before the convention.

[montag813]

These comments are deeply flawed. "Bounces" occur based directly on the percentage of undecided voters in the general electorate. In 1992, those were absolutely huge, plus the Perot leaving-the-race factor, which created unprecedented volatility, which Clinton shrewdly capitalized on. THIS YEAR the undecideds are tiny, historically so, and thus NEITHER candidate will gain more than a 5 pt bounce from their party's convention. This means nothing. This is a tight, static race which may or may not break hard in one direction by the last week in October.

One must look to other polls for solace, and her there is some troubling evidence that the media-creation known as the "Abu Ghraib Scandal" and various promotion of book-peddling liars by the media has taken a toll. In March, Bush led Kerry by 24 points in leadership vs. terror. Now that lead has shrunk to 5. They are tied in who would better handle Iraq. Not good at all, and indicative of where Bush & Co. will need to focus their fire in the next 3 months.

[Tall_Texan]

"Shall we dance?"

"Okay, but you lead this time."

"I lead? No, you lead."

"After you."

"No, after you."

"No, I wouldn't think of it."

"Neither would I. After you, dear."

"This is silly. How can either of us dance if neither of us will lead?"

"John, is that microphone still open?"

"HAHAHAHA! Why, yes, I think it is still open."

"Then the audience has heard that neither of us is willing to lead."

"It won't matter. They just hate Bush. They won't care if nobody leads."

"Great, then let's dance!"

"Wonderful! After you."

"No, after you."

"No, after you. I insist."...

[BunnySlippers]

It sure looks as though Kerry was told to smile and laugh a lot. It's strange and un-natural for him.

[sine_nomine]

Friends, I will explain it all for you.

1. The convention was the best they could do. It was boring and pathetic, with the delegates going home before Kerry spoke. He was the least popular speaker, behind Edwards (2) and the Clintons (1).
2. No one votes for the vice-president, so Edwards will not help them at all.
3. Lady Macbeth cannot afford to have a half-billionaire as First Lady. She will be loyal to the party but help very little.
4. Kerry has a very low likeability rating (Q) and Bush has a very high one.
5. The voter fraud used by Clinton/Gore in 2000 will not be functioning as well in 2004, though we should expect some outrages.
6. College kids really like Bush.
7. The military will vote for Bush.
8. Kerry will have to spend his money over a longer period of time and shore up states that could go Bush (California, for example).
9. Bush has already started campaigning very effectively while Kerry continues his pratfalls.
10. The rodent story and the bunny suit photo suggest a Dukakis-like campaign.

I predict a huge electoral vote victory for Bush. However, we should not be indolent and expect it to happen without work.

[twgiles]

The only significant figure is the ratio of bounce to the number of undecided voters.

If in past years 30% of the electorate was undecided and the bounce was 15%, that is equivalent to today if 8% of the electorate is undecided and the bounce is 4%.

Basically, since there are fewer undecided voters today, a smaller bounce can still be significant.

[DaGman]

A 4 point bounce is not surprising with only 6 - 8% of voters undecided. Bush will get about the same bounce. What the bounce numbers above fail to include is that there were a great many undecideds in each of those races. There are few undecideds this time so there are few that will be persuaded by each party's convention.

[ambrose]

That's all well and good - but you also have to look at their starting point from before the convention. Gore got a 19 point bounce, but he was trailing by 10 going in...

[ambrose]

Nixon put up a big lead, actually... but Humphrey managed to close fast toward the end, as things in Vietnam started to improve. If the campaign had lasted another week, Humphrey would probably have won.

[lonevoice]

ping!

[anniegetyourgun]

2.8 percent - is that with a 4 point margin of error?!!!!

[des]

His base is gonna peter out...they've spent all of their energy promoting a movie.

[hershey]

Several people have told me recently that they expect terrorists to set off car bombs or whatever in NY during the republican convention. They left Kerry alone because they'd prefer him to win. Now last night there's an alert that NY authorities had a credible terrorist threat. If, God forbid, the worst should happen, what will that do to the election? If it happens simultaneously as the convention goes on, it's not good for GW. If it happens elsewhere in the country between now and Nov., it's tragic and terrible, but not as damaging to GW's reelection...I think.

[hershey]

How long will Kerry get away with concealing his massive tax hike scheme with the airy nonsense of 'I'm not revealing my economic plans until I'm elected.' He's smart enough to know he's doomed if he tells the truth. Will the American electorate buy a pig in a poke? I don't think so. The longer he goes with this I don't have to reveal my economic plans baloney, the worse it will be. It's not like refusing to reveal Lovie's (TerAYsa or Mama T's) tax records or his medical records. He can call that personal information. What he intends to do with your wallet and mine is entirely different.

[hershey]

The only problem with losing Lovie (TerAYsa) Heinz/Kerry for the duration is that she's already said she'll buy the presidency if she sees republican 'negative' campaigning. She won't take kindly to Botoxboy being flushed down the drain. I think she'll hand out huge wads of cash to leftist Buddhist temples or whatever and probably get away with it.

[jazzlite]

"MARRY WEALTH AND SUE THE RICH" Now, that is an accurate Democratic campaign slogan..It is their version of getting ahead "the old fashioned way."

[hershey]

I was watching the last episode of Liberty, the American Revolution on PBS early this am, and one of the quotes was that with the dispensation of the monarchy, egalitarianism became common very quickly in America. A third of the prerevolutionary population had been indentured servants. A few years afterward, there were virtually none or very few. Also gone was the notion of deference to one's betters. Everyone was equal. Abigail Adams went to the Court of George III with her husband, John, the first American ambassador, and her letter about presenting credentials at court was revealing. She didn't mince words about the royal family's tendency toward corpulence, and the rudeness and bowing and scraping so foreign to her. My point in all this is that Canada never handed the monarchy its walking papers and in my humble opinion, that's why what America does affects Canada so...and not the other way around. Canada is a giant of a country, still shackled to the monarchy, the notion of royalty and all that that encompasses. Just a thought. Don't get mad.

[jazzlite]

I do not think American would respond as Spain did to terrorists attacks before an election. I think it would infuriate the nation and Bush would win by the greatest landslide ever. Americans are different than Europeans..They will stand strong when "push comes to shove."

[hershey]

Kerry will be asked at some point if the reason he won't reveal his economic plan is that its centerpiece is raising middle class taxes. If he tells the truth, he's gone. Hopefully this will come up in debates and before then in Bush campaign ads.