Skip to comments.Kerry's Convention Bounce Sets Him Up To Be One Of The Biggest Losers of All-Time
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.
You're aren't saying that Kerry will get elected are you?
Then, the military personnel will be voting, and they're not being polled! The military is heavily Republican.
I have a strong 'feeling' (democrat trait due to no data on this) that the pollsters keep calling until they get 'enough' democrat respondents. Besides not polling the military, they do not poll people with celphones.
Sam, pretty good analysis, but there is a missing ingredient. I don't believe there was a previous election in which the voters were this polarized. There is a very small number of uncommitted.
There may be a small group of likely voters who are uncommitted, but there is a huge pool of traditional non-voters that the Kerry campaign is hoping to reach through alternative avenues like MTV. The 'rats require an uninformed electorate and will do everything they can to get it.
I don't recall the Gore bounce in 00, but if I recall, it was small also. Remember, he won the popular vote, but lost electorially.
What I have found is we have become more partisan recently, more partisan than I can ever remember. Amd while there is the claim that the dems are only behind Kerry because they hate Bush so much, can't the same be said for Dole in 96 and GWB in 00 with regard to Clinton and Gore? Look at this board even now after the many Keyster and Buchananite purges. The common them among the Bushbot's is he can win so don't waste your vote on third party. The hate for liberals, dems and Kerry is just as strong as it is with those just mentioned groups toward conservatism, republicans and the President. One reason why I say this if I posited the scenario that had Gore been in office during the last 4 years and everything had gone exactly as President Bush has executed it, would they still be rallying around the President. The overwhelming response is no. Most believe a President Gore wouldn't have done as Bush, but during times of great duress, people do tend to rise to the occasion. Again, same events, same responses....get rid of the bum simply because the D next to his name. The hatred runs deep on both sides.
What Ia m starting to hear is from those who are non-partisan. They are saying that Kerry did ok. My wife has no political inclination. She wathced Kerry while on a visit to Ohio last weekend on C-Span. She liked what she saw and heard.
Another interesting factor is the conservative pundits. They are railing that the convention was not full of the liberal agenda and was pretty down the middle of the road. There was even some republican themes. Yet the whole response has been it wasn't liberal. What would they have said if the convention was full of the most leftist agenda that was ever put forth. Would the conservative pundits have been happy then.
Remember how upset we were when Clinton tirangulated in the mid 90's. We got what we wanted and were mad as hell he did it. Doesn't make sense to me.
In a modern Canadian context, the monarchy is pretty much an excuse to have pretty letterhead. But you do have a excellent point, there is a certain degree of paternalism in Canadian politics that is not present in America, and shouldn't be present here either. It's also connected to the more modest goals of our government. "Peace, order and good government" is a LOT different from "Don't Tread on Me".
Having a monarchy, or a government deriving it's legitimacy from a monarchy would put a higher premium on stabilty than it would freedom, and that might be the source of some of our problems today.
I received a fax from the Tubbies, and they are 100% for George W. Bush. Please do not post them in reference to lurch! ;-)
If I only had a brain!
I'm saying the only chance he has of being elected is that he conceals his liberalism.
I don't think the American people will fall for the faux Republican candidate act. Ronald Reagan this dude ain't.
Have you noticed Pat Buchanan and Scarborough's sudden political change lately?
I stopped watching Joe when he stopped being the same person who we knew during the Clinton years.
Since I do not watch Greta, it's either radio or Law and Order at 10pm for me!
Agree totally, in fact I've been saying the same thing. In fact, I almost kinda feel sorry for the guy (I said almost).Unfortunately, I also agree that his defeat won't be a rejection of the left by the mushy moderates, but simply their lack of attraction to a Godawful candidate.
Kerry is more interested in the homely people.
Kerry is more interested in the homely people.
I'm sorry but I don't like your country [Canada].
I have been to British Columbia. It is BEAUTIFUL country. Maybe it is the
LIBERAL Canadian politics you don't like ?? I don't like LIBERALS either -
American, Canadian or wherever.
The States have fought more wars against Canada than any other country. Usually for good reason. But at least one was really a bunch of drunken louts looking for trouble.
"I think the country has changed since then".
It has changed... more Conservative by all measures!
"There are less undecided voters than ever before".
This is a hard number to define, but there are significant (to being elected) numbers up for grabs. That is ALL that counts... winning!
"I'm seeing kerry supporters running voter registration drives".
I am seeing BUSH supporters running voter registration drives also. Shopping malls, EVERY NASCAR Race, Conventions, email drives, postal drives etc.
"There are more kerry stickers than the gore stickers from the last election".
Your evidence is antidotal at best. I can tell you that I have seen exactly 2 kerry stickers in the South. Both were officials in a local IBEW Union. Contrast that to 2000, when every ship fitter, pipe fitter, and welder working at Engels Shipyard (Pascagoula, Mississippi, home of Trent Lott) had a Gore/Lieberman sticker on their car. These same Union workers are sporting fine Bush/Cheney '04 stickers (on new, shiny, late model vehicles, purchased through wages earned thanks to) fine paying Republican passed CONTRACTS).
"I believe it's going to be a very tough race and Bush may lose".
Maybe so, but it is far easier to be re-elected on a record such as the one our Magnificent President has chiseled, than to be a girly-man, blue blood, BILLIONAIRE marrying, gay marriage backing, gun grabbing, anti-defense spending, tax raising, Commie/socialist loving, terrorist appeasing, UN loving, European educated, left-wing protesting, anti business, lying, deceiving, EVIL saturated piece of Monkey-Cr*p war criminal, TRYING to defeat a sitting (WINNING THE WAR) War President, that has GOD, and the TRUTH on his side!
""How many Kerry's are there??
How many candidates were in the Primary??
Kerry has a habit of morphing into other people .. and uses their words also"
*** Soon to be FAMOUS QUOTE!
"There are two john kerry's... one that served in Vietnam, protested against his government and fellow troops, upon coming home from the war and served 20 lack-luster years in the Senate. Then you have the john kerry that gave the acceptance speech at the convention.
Neither of them knows each other"!
|2000 Rep. Bounce||Bush +6||Gore -5||Bush +11|
|2000 Dem. Bounce||Gore +10||Bush -9||Gore +19|
|1996 Rep. Bounce||Dole +8||Clinton -7||Dole +15|
|1996 Dem. Bounce||Clinton +4||Dole -1||Clinton +5|
|1992 Dem. Bounce||Clinton +14||Bush -16||Clinton +30|
|1992 Rep. Bounce||Bush +6||Clinton -10||Bush +16|
|1988 Dem. Bounce||Dukakis +7||Bush -4||Dukakis +11|
|1988 Rep. Bounce||Bush +6||Dukakis -5||Bush +11|
|1984 Dem. Bounce||Mondale +9||Reagan -7||Mondale +16|
|1984 Rep. Bounce||Reagan +4||Mondale -4||Reagan +8|
|1980 Rep. Bounce||Reagan +8||Carter -5||Reagan +13|
|1980 Dem. Bounce||Carter +10||Reagan -7||Carter +17|
|1976 Dem. Bounce||Carter +9||Ford -7||Carter +16|
|1976 Rep. Bounce||Ford +4||Carter -3||Ford +7|
|1972 Dem. Bounce||McGovern 0||Nixon +3||McGovern -3|
|1972 Rep. Bounce||Nixon +7||McGovern -1||Nixon +8|
|1968 Rep. Bounce||Nixon +5||Humphrey -9||Nixon +14|
|1968 Dem. Bounce||Humphrey +2||Nixon -2||Humphrey +4|
For consistency, these results are all among registered voters. 1992-2000 polls are from ABC News; 1968-88 polls are by Gallup. Earlier polls weren't done frequently enough to track the convention bounce reliably.
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.