chrisishardcore.com

« The Republicans Curious Understanding of Race | Main | And Another Thing »

August 03, 2004

Did I Miss Something?

The media, in their infinite wisdom, deemed the Democratic Convention no longer important. The television networks didn't even cover 90% of it, and all we heard for one week was endless blather about whether (or how much) it was even relevant. And then 1 poll comes in that shows Kerry getting no improvement after the convention. Other polls show modest improvement or a solidifying of those who say they are solid in their support for Kerry. That same media, having seemingly forgotten that they deemed the convention insignificant, pounces on the 1 poll and makes a big stink about the fact that there was no bounce.

If this isn't the perfect example of the lazy, self-fulfilling, hype obsessed media, then I don't know what is. They should point out that, in fact, 2 weeks ago they thought the convention was insignificant and maybe that's why there was no bounce.

OR, they could point out that "it is rare for an incumbent president to be trailing" at all during the year of his re-election (Gallup).

Now, how about President Bush in 2000? Of course, you can't do a strict comparison because every election is different and Gore wasn't the incumbent, but, Bush accepted the nomination on August 3rd, 2000.

Let's take a look at the Gallup Poll Results before the convention, after the convention, and then approximately a week after the convention:

As you can see, Gallup didn't do the 2000 race on the cheap, providing pre-convention polls for better comparison. And as you can also see, Bush got absolutely no bounce from the Republican convention that year. Moving up 3 points in the poll the day after, dropping 10 (after Lieberman was added to the ticket) and then regaining 8 points a week after the convention-- net difference 1 point! Gore got a pretty big bounce after his convention but still polled lower than Kerry.

So there are a lot of things to think about. One reason candidates used to get a huge bounce is that they *used* to poll in the 30's before their convention began. Very few challengers were leading the incumbent president before either convention started.

I'd also refer you to this helpful chart which reminds us that Gallup was wrong in 2000 (nailing Bush's number but under polling Gore by 2) and that in '96, '92, and '88 Gallup predicted a bigger margin of victory for the eventual winner than they actually received. So that magical likely voter screen Gallup uses that you've read about? It ain't scientific.

Also from Slate, what my optimistic rantings might look like if I had an editor.

Posted by Chris at August 3, 2004 09:20 PM

Comments

Posted by: ajc at August 6, 2004 10:38 AM

Post a comment