Bush gets large poll bounce

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Bobcat37, Sep 3, 2004.

  1. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #1
    Let's keep this topic EXTREMELY SIMPLE.

    Before the RNC, Bush and Kerry were tied at 47% each (as far as I remember, maybe I'm wrong). Right before the RNC, Bush got a 2 point bounce. Now today after the convention, polls are showing Bush has gotten an additional 9 point bounce.

    This leaves the new poll (was conducted by the Times I think) as:

    Bush 52
    Kerry 41
    Other ?? (didn't catch it in time)

    So, the point of this topic-

    NO BUSH BASHING
    NO KERRY BASHING

    I just want your thoughts on the boost. It is definitely much larger than the boost Kerry got from the DNC (which was almost none IIRC). Will this boost last? Is it a bad sign for Kerry? Should it be brushed off as nothing?

    Discuss!
     
  2. sorryiwasdreami macrumors 6502a

    sorryiwasdreami

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Location:
    way out in the sticks
    #2
    I'm not sure how accurate these polls have ever been. They only seem to examine a cross-section of the voter population, rather than the whole. My guess is that youth and ethnic opinions aren't accounted for.
     
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    can't say i'm surprised bush got a bounce. cynically, i believe the RNC communicated what people want to hear, basically "we're strong and they're weak." a fearful nation needs reassurance.

    i'm looking forward to the post-convention media analysis to see what kinds of differences in coverage there were.
     
  4. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #4
    -zimv20

    Well, I'll just wait for November 3rd.

    Until then it's only statistics.
     
  5. MattG macrumors 68040

    MattG

    Joined:
    May 27, 2003
    Location:
    Fletcher, NC
    #5
    I don't take any faith in any of these polls. They're totally random and don't take into consideration a large population of potential voters. We'll see what happens on Election Day :)
     
  6. Timelessblur macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #6
    I for one will quiestion the sorces of the date and how they collected it. 9 point jump is to high of a jump from a retible place that gave it.

    So in short I think the polls are bogus and has a bad sample for the people they ask
     
  7. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #7
    -I certainly hope that the election isn't nearly as close as it was four years ago - that was unpleasant.
     
  8. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #8
    I've been looking for a link to this everywhere! Can someone produce one?
     
  9. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #9
    how big is the potential error on the poll ?

    if it's rather big (4-5%) that all those polls are rather useless if the race already is close
     
  10. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #10
    The Newsweek poll is crap. I'll try to find a link, but the people they sampled would be expected to lean toward Bush, because of military-affiliation, party-affiliation, etc. I don't know about the Time Magazine poll, though, because they didn't give demographic breakdowns.
     
  11. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #11
    It depends on how many people they ask. If they asked 10000 people, the standard error is 1%, which is quite good. If they polled 1111, then the error is 3%. But normally they'll ask around 1000 or slightly less and say that's good enough, so.....
     
  12. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #12
    right before the rnc, kerry was up by 4%, but traditionally after a party's convention, that party gets a typical 7% bounce so right after the convention ended, or thereabouts, bush should have been ahead by 3% which is significant in a close election

    but his numbers were shortlived now that the attention has dissipated from the rnc to president clinton's heart condition, and the voters are predicted to favor kerry by a few percent thus possibly, within a week or two, making the race a statistical dead heat again

    one positive for bush is that he responded quickly and told everyone he would keep president clinton in his prayers and that has to sit well with any religious people on the fence

    one negative is that the positive response to the rnc was based around john mccain, arnold, and mayor giuliani, and not around bush and cheney who should have hit home runs with their speeches but didn't...it would probably be a shoe-in for arnold if he was able to run for the white house now based on the country's positive reaction to the terminator

    in the end, it will still be close and we won't know anytime soon if one candidate has a solid lead over another candidate...the fence sitters will also determine this election the way they have since 1980

    if the election were held two months ago, i would say bush had it
    right before the rnc, i would say kerry had it
    right after the rnc bounce, i would give it to bush
    right after the clinton heart issue, i would say it is too close to call

    come election day, that snapshot of america's mood will determine who wins
     
  13. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #13
    and those who don't vote at all ;)
     
  14. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #14
    during most of the '80s, which reagan ruled, it was estimated that democrats outnumbered republicans 2 to 1

    but the gop cashed on having its party's voters come out in higher percentages and reagan himself rallying moderates of no party affiliation and conservative democrats

    a true "big government" liberal or true "elitist-country club" conservative cannot win in today's climate

    ..the dems have to move to the right and be fiscal conservatives, also called new democrats or blue dog democrats

    ..the conservatives have to move to the left and tone down pro life talk and pro gun talk and vie for mass appeal from the middle the way arnold can making him a republican governor in a democratic state

    it is no wonder why many libertarians, american independents, and green party supporters see very little difference between the democrats and republicans...and when it's all said and done, there is very little difference

    he he...both parties want to tax you and spend your money, but there's just a slight difference in how they plan to spend it ;)
     
  15. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #15
    same over here..with the big parties having problems getting their loyal voters to the votes they always tend to stumble across themselves in elections in the last time ..because of this the greens have gained a lot in the last years

    i really hope for the US to get more stronger alternative parties..it would perhaps actually make politics out of US politics ;)
     
  16. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #16
    I was watching Chris Matthews after Sen Zell Miller's speech. There was a comment from one of the hollywood democrats that he, and many of his friends, will go to the booth and pull for Bush. Chris then mentioned that a couple of the well know and respected (he did not provide names) pollsters thought that there were as many as another 8% of kerry supporters would secretly vote for Bush. This was echoed by the panel.

    My point is that these new polls maybe reflect that these voters are no longer being secretive about their feelings, and the new poll numbers are not really reflective of an increase of voters for Bush, only a more accurate poll of what the real position was to begin with. Just a thought, although historically it is attributed to the convention bounce.

    It still reflects approx 4% undecided and if I remember right doesn't nader have about 3%?

    For the kerry fans mad about nader, I know how you feel, didn't clinton originally get less than 50% of the vote due to perot in 92?
     
  17. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #17
    i think clinton got 42 million votes and bush got 39 million and 2/3rds of perot's several million votes would have "possibly" gone to bush...without perot, bush could have won some say

    with nader in 2000, the dems were weakened just enough to have bush take florida the way the election went down there, chads and all...some democrats may still be mad at nader, but what he has shown is that, indirectly, he did influence american politics

    if bush jr or kerry were 20% percent ahead at this time, i don't think nader would even be a factor in the race, but since the numbers are and have been much closer than that, nader will again prove to be a scare for the democrats

    the biggest kerry lead i have heard about is 5 points and the biggest bush lead i have heard is about 9-10 points, so nader's 3-4 points can make a difference
     
  18. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #18
    I think it's safe to reason that it's merely convention bounce. I highly doubt there were many people faking their support for Kerry until just now (I think that's what your hypothesis was).

    And if you want to know something funny, not only did Bush get less than 50% of the vote in '00, but he got less than Gore, then was arbitrarily efffectively selected president by the Supreme Court.

    We are a Neobanana Republic
     
  19. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #19
    I am going from memory, don't have a link, but here goes...

    In a recent interview with a prominent black republican.. maybe the Rep from OK, it was said that if the african american community wants change that they need to embrace the GOP. This was the logic of the conversation, not mine, although I see its logic.

    That once the african american comm (AAC) left the democ. and were no longer taken for granted, that the democ party might be able to legislate more to effect the AAC to appease the base and retain the block of votes. Now this could hurt the democ only if the AAC got what they desired from the GOP. If they did get the GOP to take on some of their cause, then the democ would suffer long term. But interestingly the african american community gets a positive effect either way.

    The greens are basically doing these in another way, rejecting the democrates and its machine as well as the GOP and politics as usual. The power they posses?-it's the power to deny the executive branch to the democrats and hopefully have the democratic party legislate on their behalf to retain the block. Stay tuned, if nader once again denies the Presidency to the democratic party they may get the power they seek.
     
  20. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #20
    "I highly doubt there were many people faking their support for Kerry"
    pseudobrit, this is not my belief but one put forth from a democrat and echoed by chris matthews.
    Personnally I could careless-the bounce is positive for my candidate irregardless of who and how.

    As far as the past "..arbitrarily efffectively selected president by the Supreme Court."

    Arbitrarily is not the word I would use..maybe "Justly"
    :p
     
  21. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #21
    These national polls are meaningless because they don't break down the numbers in each of the battleground states. Not to mention that there is the occasional red or blue state that will surprise everyone and go the other way.

    At any rate, I am confident Bush will win. If he can't do it legitimately — and he very well might — his handlers will make it happen illegitimately. There's too much money wrapped up in a Bush victory for the plutocrats to sit idly by and let it go to the other guy. You only had to watch the Republican national convention to see how militaristic the right is getting. It has become immoral to field an opposition candidate, to vocally question the president's motives, or to question the activities of the military. We are all supposed to think like good little Marines now, so the ends justify any means because we're just supposed to follow orders, no questions asked. It only takes a few people thinking like that in just a few of the battleground states to totally throw the election. And America has a lot of people thinking like that.

    So the Constitution dangles by just a few threads, but since when was that news?
     
  22. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
  23. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #23
    by this logic lower income white men should be leaving the GOP. Afterall, they are sort of taken for granted and abused under the GOP. Fewer services and pay more taxes overall, limits on overtime pay, they will pay more of the new debt Bush has wrought, etc.
     
  24. Bobcat37 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #24
    Don't even try to argue that here, I've seen how hopeless it is. But let it be known I agree with you, and I recommend everyone read Bill Sammon's book "How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election".

    With that said, let's please not go off topic discussing the 2000 election...

    I thank you all for staying on topic thus far and for the most part avoiding any bashing. The discussion that has ensued has been quite interesting.

    There is one funny thing I must point out. Whenever a candidate falls behind in a poll, his supporters always seem to jump out there and say "those poll numbers don't mean anything" while the supporters of the candidate who received the boost will immediately say "that is a good sign for him". And trust me, I've been guilty of the same thing, but it is a pretty amusing pattern!

    For those of you who think this is just a simple convention bounce for Bush, I still wonder why Kerry had an almost non-existant convention bounce? Were his polls numbers already too high pre-DNC to be expecting much of a bounce perhaps?

    PS- Hey look guys, I'm finally a "member" and not a "newbie" :rolleyes:
     
  25. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #25
    Bobcat (or other Bush supporters)...do you think that Bush is ahead in the polls due to merit and substance or due to superior marketing by his campaign?

    I know this will sound unduly partisan, but what things of substance has Bush accomplished? I can understand that many of the issues/ideas that make up Bush's/GOP platform are appealing (Tax-reform/cuts, aggressive WOT campaign, smaller government etc, social-security and medicare privatization/reform...etc), but has Bush had a record regarding these issues, that would lead you to believe that any meaningful change will be enacted? Bear in mind the GOP also controls Congress...

    So I guess I am asking, are many of you voting for Bush in support of the man, or the Party ideals espoused? Because you may not get the latter from the former...

    Also, do you think it is acceptable that how well a candidate is marketed has a serious effect on his/her success?

    Sorry to push things a little off-topic...
     

Share This Page