Bounceless Convention

Nick Gillespie | August 2, 2004

Gallup is reporting that Kerry/Edwards got no bounce out of the Democratic National Convention.

Compared with the last CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey conducted before the convention (July 19-21), this post-convention poll shows that among likely voters, Kerry's support is actually two points lower than it was pre-convention, while Bush's support is three points higher. Among registered voters, Kerry's support in the current poll is one point higher than it was pre-convention, while Bush's support is also higher, by two points (the percentage of undecideds dropped in both groups).

More details here.

Before Bush's droogs break out the bubbly, they should consider that their own national spectacle, coming at the end of the month in New York, may well work its own negative magic (if the past is any guide, it's sure to be horrorshow, and not in the good sense of the term). Since 1988, we've been in an age of plurality presidents, one strong sign that we're disappointed with major-party picks. Perhaps we're now entering a full-blown phase in which the more voters learn of candidates, the less they like them. Familiarity breeds contempt, after all, in politics as in everything else.

Comments

|8.2.04 @ 2:58AM|#

Uh...since 1993, when Clinton was sworn in. 1988 was the last election where the winner had a majority, the subsequent collapse of GHWB's popularity notwithstanding.

|8.2.04 @ 3:15AM|#

Perhaps we're now entering a full-blown phase in which the more voters learn of candidates, the less they like them.

Did anyone actually feel like they learned more about Kerry during the convention? It is hardly surprising that Kerry's numbers remained statistically unchanged by a convention in which he didn't say or do anything new or different.

|8.2.04 @ 3:55AM|#

Kerry doesn't need a bounce. If you include his hair, he's already almost 6 foot 6 inches tall!

|8.2.04 @ 4:22AM|#

flyerguy: clinton won in 1992 with 43 percent of the vote, not a majority.

|8.2.04 @ 6:13AM|#

clinton won in 1992 with 43 percent of the vote, not a majority

Flyerguy was just saying that you can't say we've been "living in an age of plurality Presidents since 1988" when we didn't actually *have* one prior to early 1993. The year 1991, for example, was not technically part of "an age of plurality Presidents", because the President in 1991, GHWB, had a majority.

But flyerguy should have realized that you were only talking about elections since 1988, not each individual year since 1988.

|8.2.04 @ 6:56AM|#

Somehow in my cursory reading of the analysis of these latest numbers (not just from this poll), I haven't come on anyone spouting the obvious conclusion that, gee, maybe it just could be that Kerry didn't get the 'traditional' bounce out of the convention because he out and out sucks as a candidate and couldn't get anyone excited who lives west of our friend joe in Boston.

Just a thought.

|8.2.04 @ 12:26PM|#

Other polls (Newsweek, Rasmussen) show a considerable, though not huge, positive bounce.

I think Gallup's out of whack this time.

|8.2.04 @ 12:41PM|#

DailyKos had an interesting article deconstructing this poll. The poll's internals are favorable to Kerry, but somehow the overall numbers come out against him, casting doubt on the validity of the poll.

Also, given the MoE, the couple of percentage points worth of difference are not significant.