Presidential Race Remains Close; No Convention Bounce

[Leo Hubbard]

Isn't it traditional for the Democrats to get a 15% bounce during their convention?

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey, conducted on Friday and Saturday following the Democratic convention in Boston, finds that the presidential race remains close, with President George W. Bush receiving 50% support among likely voters, and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry 47%. Among the larger group of registered voters, Kerry leads 50% to 47%.

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).

For neither group of voters does the slight change in voter preferences, compared with a poll conducted shortly before the convention, favor Kerry. All of these changes are within the margin of error, meaning that we cannot be 95% certain that Bush gained on Kerry after the convention. However, clearly there is no convention bounce for Kerry.

An analysis of convention bounces since 1950 shows that on average, among registered voters, the Democratic candidate received approximately a seven-point increase in support following the convention. The current poll shows only a one-point increase among registered voters. In addition, following previous Democratic conventions, the Republican candidate also lost an average of about five points, making the net effect essentially a 12-point swing in the lead. The current poll shows only a 1-point swing in the lead among registered voters, but for the Republican, not the Democrat.

In the current poll, if independent candidate Ralph Nader is included in the vote tally, Bush leads Kerry by four points among likely voters (50% to 46%), with Nader receiving 2%. Among registered voters, it's a dead heat at 47% each for Bush and Kerry, with Nader at 3%. Among both groups the percentage of voters favoring Nader and the number of undecideds is lower now than before the convention, suggesting one impact of the convention -- at least in the short term -- was to focus voters more directly on the two major party candidates.

In the three-way race, Kerry lost a point among likely voters after the convention, and he neither gained nor lost among registered voters. Bush gained four points both among likely voters and among registered voters. To the extent that there is any bounce in this three-candidate ballot, it is for Bush rather than Kerry.

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=12565

Yes I didn't paste that little opinion of Frank Newport, my guess is he's a democrat trying to make light of the situation.

[themadchemist]

Not with such a small margin of undecided voters.

[IJ Reilly]

I heard a pundit describe it as a concrete trampoline. With the number of undecided voters so small I don't think anyone expected a bounce, and I don't suppose Bush is going to get one either. It's going to come down to the debates and the few people who can be persuaded either way.

[3rdpath]

i would like to compare the % of current undecided voters versus the % of undecided voters in past elections. i don't know if this data exists...and if it does, how accurate it would be...but it could certainly shed some light on the polls.

my gut feeling is that most everyone has already made up their mind. seriously, how can anyone be 4 years into bush's term and not have a solid opinion and preference?

why do i have a terrible feeling that this next election is going to be even more controversial than 2000's?

[zimv20]

why do i have a terrible feeling that this next election is going to be even more controversial than 2000's?
as in "constitutional crisis?" We live in interesting times.

[Mike Teezie]

why do i have a terrible feeling that this next election is going to be even more controversial than 2000's?

I have the same fear.

[Thomas Veil]

Me too.

The worst possible thing that could happen is a literal repeat of the 2000 fiasco.

But things are close enough that that could happen.

[skunk]

And if it does, just how many dubious elections is it going to take before the disenfranchised lose patience?

[IJ Reilly]

For certain the electoral process is little improved, but a repeat of 2000 is highly unlikely IMO. For this to occur, the election would again have to come down to a small number of votes in a deciding state. I'd say the odds against that are pretty good. What I do fear is another election with the popular vote going one way and the electoral another.

[Bobcat37]

and I don't suppose Bush is going to get one either.

Only time will tell IJ :)

As for the election, I just hope the media isn't reporting who won what state before they are 100% positive, that is just wrong. Especially considering that polls are still open on the west coast when they are closed on the east coast. In fact, I think ALL polls across ALL of America should be CLOSED before the media starts predicting things, it's just more fair and accurate that way.

[Neserk]

His numbers increased by 4% if I recall correctly. Yes, they are noramlly in the double digits after the convention but I don't know if people are normally so strongly behind a single candidate so early as they were this year.

He only has to win by a negative 540,000 votes :p

As the economy continues to crumble Bush's numbers will continue to steadily decline.

The improved job situtuation that was predicted was not so hot. Bush still sucks when it comes to doing his job, people still know it. I'm still hearing more and more Republicans who are disgusted with having ever voted for them and even those who are saying they will vote for a democrat for the first time ever :eek:

[Leo Hubbard]

Only time will tell IJ :)

As for the election, I just hope the media isn't reporting who won what state before they are 100% positive, that is just wrong. Especially considering that polls are still open on the west coast when they are closed on the east coast. In fact, I think ALL polls across ALL of America should be CLOSED before the media starts predicting things, it's just more fair and accurate that way.
They need to have 24 hour polls. ie polls open at 7am est and close at 7am est. That means they open at 10am wst and close at 10pm wst. Every poll open simultaneously and close the same way and that way the people on the east coast won't know who won what state before they even get to the polls. Plus everyone will have an opportunity to go to the poll irregardless to what hours they work.

[IJ Reilly]

They need to have 24 hour polls. ie polls open at 7am est and close at 7am est. That means they open at 10am wst and close at 10pm wst. Every poll open simultaneously and close the same way and that way the people on the east coast won't know who won what state before they even get to the polls. Plus everyone will have an opportunity to go to the poll irregardless to what hours they work.

A lot of the forecasting is done with exit polling, so I'm afraid this scheme won't help very much.

[themadchemist]

as in "constitutional crisis?" We live in interesting times.

Maybe they'll tie on electoral votes and it'll go to the House and they'll tie in the House and the Speaker will have to decide and Kerry will promise him a cabinet post if breaks the tie in his favor...Sound familiar? ;)

Actually, if they tie in electoral votes, Bush wins because he has the House.

[Leo Hubbard]

[Post removed by moderator. The same statement and link were posted to at least two other threads. The posts that followed here in reaction to this post have also been removed.]

[Bobcat37]

As the economy continues to crumble Bush's numbers will continue to steadily decline.

If only that was happening :confused:

[zimv20]

If only that was happening :confused:
from here (http://slate.msn.com/id/2104745/)

Three major media polls have been taken since the convention: ABC News/Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/trend_080104.html), CBS News/New York Times (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/dem_convention.pdf), and CNN/USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm). Prior to the convention, Kerry's favorable rating was nine points higher than his unfavorable rating in the ABC poll. Since the convention, this margin has grown to 19 points. Bush's positive margin on the same question is just two points.

In a CBS poll before the convention, the percentage of voters who were uneasy about Kerry's ability to handle an international crisis was 19 points higher than the percentage who were confident in his ability to handle such a crisis. After the convention, that margin of unease has shrunk to 11 points. Bush's negative margin on the same question is 12 points. In the CBS pre-convention poll, voters said by a 51-36 margin that the Democrats did not have a clear plan for the country. After the convention, they say by a 44-40 margin that the Democrats do have a clear plan.

In a CNN poll before the convention, voters agreed by a 12-point margin that Kerry had "the personality and leadership qualities a president should have." After the convention, the margin is 20—eight points higher than the margin for Bush on the same question. Before the convention, by a 51-43 margin, voters trusted Bush rather than Kerry "to handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief of the military." Now the candidates are even. Before the convention, more voters trusted Bush than Kerry "to protect U.S. citizens from future acts of terrorism." Now more voters trust Kerry than trust Bush.