Although some dispute this fact, the expected post-Dem convention bounce may even have been negative. Not mentioned elsewhere is a pretty obvious explanation: people want a commander-in-chief as president - not a lieutenant. The constant recall of Vietnam service only reminds us that we lost that war! Oh, goody - lets elect a leader whose model experience was loss! Only the anti-war could love this. As commenter Catharine Johnson wrote at www.rogerlsimon.com, "The one thing I haven't seen anywhere, though, and that makes me wish I were a political writer, is the fact that Kerry chose to spend an entire speech associating himself with a military defeat. "Military defeats are horrifically traumatic for countries and peoples, and no one has picked up on this "If the Dems had nominated a man who felt like a leader, I think we'd be looking at a Democratic victory in November. "But they nominated a man who is so tongue-tied and grim he almost feels like an 'anti-leader.' "Then throw in a whole convention about Vietnam to boot---it's incredible. No one likes losing, ever. Even Noam Chomsky doesn't like to lose, not on his own behalf, though he seems happy enough to see his country lose a war or two or three. "So Kerry chooses to spend his entire convention vividly, indelibly, and exclusively associating himself with the one war America has lost in his lifetime. "That's really gonna move those leadership numbers." Ironic that THIS is kerry's best, isn't it? I find this explanation more convincing than anything else I've read. You? --Orson
This election reminds me of the Clinton-Dole election. I remember when the only time Dole made the news was when he fell off a podium. It doesn't surprise me Kerry didn't get his "bounce" because most of the nation has already decided who they were going to pick. It appears Kerry was marketing to the "rust belt" (I live in Ohio). From what I can tell, most everyone is still thinking about it. Aside from the usual mud slinging from both parties, I still can't honestly make up my mind...and I'm a VET and a registered Independent. My only hope is that Ohio doesn't turn out like the 2000 Election in Florida. Geez. We can send a man to the moon, but we can't count a vote. Go figure that one out. MR_E_2000
They did count the votes and the Democrats lost, however they were counted. There was an assumption of unfairness because many Democrats weren't smart enough to figure out how to actually vote.
Most of the polls I've seen (CBS News and Newsweek, to name two examples) give Kerry a 6 or 7 point bounce; CNN didn't; I don't know of any that gave him a negative bounce, though I know some that rated him low all along and might have given him no bounce. As for being on the losing end of a war, I'm not convinced that will hurt him. One thing I've learned from my Southern roots. Cheers,
Gotta take issue with you here, Tom... The Gallup poll reluctantly admits that among likely voters, a much more significant population, the results are the opposite: Kerry lost ground, on all indicia, during the convention. The Marist Poll gives Kerry no change. Four polls since the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention showed that presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry was unable to take a lead over President Bush beyond the surveys' margins of error. Yet some do show a bounce. Here's a rundown: Poll Sample Date Spread Marist (LV) 7/30-8/2 0% CBS (RV) 7/31-8/1 Kerry +5 CNN/Gallup/USAT (LV) 7/30-8/1 Bush +6 ABC/WP (LV) 7/30-8/1 Kerry +2 ARG (RV) 7/30-8/1 Kerry +4 Has *any* challenger to the presidency won with a zero bounce? I read never. But like the last prez election, this year could itself be unprecedented. Therefore explanations are still called for: care to venture one, Tom? -Orson PS DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe expected +8 to 10%
And from Rasmussen Reports http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm NO BOUNCE: "Monday August 02, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows Senator John Kerry with 47% of the vote and President George W. Bush with 46%. The Tracking Poll is updated daily by noon Eastern. "Today is the first Tracking Poll data based entirely upon interviews conducted after John Kerry's speech at the Democratic National Convention. The results reflect a one-point improvement for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. That's well within the survey margin of error and also *reflects a two-point net decline from the poll results immediately prior to Kerry's speech.*" How can this be good news for Kerry?
State by state polls This is an interesting website.... http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html The site bases its electoral college predictions on the latest state polls available. The site is updated almost everyday. Right now, they have Kerry up in the battle ground states of FL, MO, PA, and a couple of others. However, many states have gone back and forth a few times in the last several days. Bush will make a comeback, and win handedly. If you don't believe me, just ask Bruce Tait. With Bruce on the scene, Bush may be even be able to win Mass! Well, maybe not that. It would be nice, though!
