So why did Bush, not Kerry, get the bounce?

[NeoConsSuck]

WASHINGTON — There was a bounce after last week's Democratic National Convention.
But it went to President Bush, not John Kerry.

Pollsters and strategists are puzzling over Kerry's failure to get a boost from a convention that even critics acknowledged went almost precisely as planned. Polls show it improved voters' impressions of Kerry as a strong leader and a potential commander in chief. It burnished views of the Democratic Party.

Still, in the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, Kerry's support dipped 2 percentage points among likely voters compared with a poll taken the week before the convention. Bush's standing rose 5 percentage points.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-02-poll-cover_x.htm

[FlashHarry]

1. Dupe/Wrong forum.

:)

[NeoConsSuck]

4. And why is it the wrong forum?

the story was just posted at the USAToday website.

[Nambe]

6. All major news outlets have editorial and opinion articles.

Some articles are borderline but this one screams for opinion or theory. The news was that the CNN poll varied from all other polls. This is an editorial on the topic.

And if you can take the truth on the topic, click on the icon below. CNN really fell off the map on this one.

[Frodo]

8. A "recent article" is not the same thing as "breaking news"

[LostInAnomie]

2. BULLSHIT

eom

[ClintonTyree]

3. Because................

the "Liberal" press found ONE poll that showed Kerry got little or no bounce and decided THAT ONE would be the poll cited on EVERY "Liberal" newscast.
It is an aberration and not to be believed. End of freakin' story.

[Frodo]

7. Bush DIDN'T "Get the bounce"

However, EVERY poll showed "little or no bounce". CNN was not the only one.

But we didn't expect a big 10pt bump.

[papau]

12. I agree - The bounce anticipated was 2 to 6, and Kerry got 2 to 4

Gallup "likely voter" screen is messed up

The only Stat type number is the RV number - and in all - Again ALL- polls - Kerry got a bounce in the RV number.

The LV number is considered a work of art - not stat - since 33% of each elections vote is from folks the LV screen would have rejected as not LV types.

[jpgray]

20. Historically, bounces come after about a week

I don't know why the rush is on--most of these polls weren't even conducted wholly after the convention.

[0007]

5. cough cough

[DemNoir]

9. Lets make sure

We always repeat republican spin over and over and over......

[farmbo]

10. CNN/ USAToday was the ONLY poll to show a Bush bounce.....

...and now they have the audacity to suggest that their bogus poll represents a trend?!?

[papau]

13. CNN/USA non- bounce was after "LIKELY VOYER " screen -

n/t

[papau]

14. And the LV voter response follwed the Terror response.

The survey showed that Kerry's best night — and Bush's worst — was on Friday, the day after Kerry's well-received speech to the convention. Kerry's support among registered voters was 49%, Bush 48%. But Kerry dipped to 44% on Saturday; he was at 46% on Sunday. Bush's support rose to 54% on Saturday, 53% on Sunday.


Kerry/ Edwards Bush/ Cheney Nader/ Camejo Other None No opinion
Registered Voters
2004 Jul 30-Aug 1 47 48 2 * 1 2
(2004 Jul 30-31) (47) (47) (3) (*) (1) (2)
2004 Jul 19-21 47 43 5 * 2 3
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,518 National Adults, aged 18+, conducted July 30-August 1, 2004. For results based on the total sample of National Adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of -1,366-registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

[Birthmark]

11. Because Gallup is inept.

There was only a small percentage of people undecided before the Convention. This talk of a 15 point bounce was unrealistic and silly. In most other polls, there was a small 3 to 5 point bounce.

[EST]

16. There was no bounce

because the machine nullified it. These people (Bushits) are very skilled at this and they have all the non thinking noisy public spouting the same bullshit.

[robcon]

15. Likely voters are the best group to poll, but there is a paradox.

But the problem - three months before voting - is that people don't know/haven't thought about whether they will vote or not. Wait until after the debates for a more realistic poll.

An article about a year or two ago in the NYT highlights the problem for all polls. About 75% of registered voters say they will vote, but only 50% or less actually do vote. The "extra" 25% is not measurable, (we don't know which ones will not vote) because people probably do not want to admit that they don't care enough to vote. There is no way to resolve the differences.

Even in the last days of the election cycle, a significant number of people will not admit they won't vote. Polls are not precise, nor as scientific, as the pollsters would like them to be.

The fact that the polls use the same base from poll to poll: either registered voters or likely voters, make the problem slightly less than it would be otherwise, but polls have inherent and unresolvable flaws.

[EST]

17. I get polled by Zogby

every polling cycle and of course my opinions aren't changing. This tells me they ask the exact same group of people every time, the same questions, plus they occasionally add one. There just isn't gonna be much change.

[NV1962]

18. Ganner / CNN is a GOP-friendly spin zone

It's preposterous that they parade their poll -- clearly the oddball out -- as the gospel.

So why didn't Bush get a bounce from the recent Orange Alert?

:shrug:

[Jack Rabbit]

19. Answer

The answer could be in Gallup's methodology. Gallup is the only poll showing this phenomenon; most others show that Kerry received a small bounce from the convention.

Gallup's methodology appears to be an attempt to rely on likely voters; perhaps the Poll has a bad take on who they are. In any case, Gallup is virtually alone in this assessment. Either Gallup's method is one hulluva lot better than every other poll or Gallup needs to seriously re-examine how it takes polls.

Which is it? On one thread yesterday, a DUer posted (without a link, so this need verification) that a week before the 2000 election Gallup give Bush a 14-point lead over Gore. Now, its possible that Bush had a lead at that point, but Al Gore did not make up that much ground in the last week before the election.

Given that, it is certainly unfair for USA Today and CNN to quote the Gallup Poll as if there were no others saying something completely different.

[Cocoa]

21. Kerry got a huge bounce

some of those polls are not meant to inform you, they're meant to fool you.

[MISSDem]

22. Be careful that we aren't doing what Paul Krugman

says in his op-ed - repeating what the right wingers are saying. Say it enough times people believe it to be true.

[tom_paine]

23. Pravda. Unbleievable. Of course, Gallup is a Bushevik organization

through and through.

Wher does one find reliable information in the Old Soviet Union or the New Imperial Amerika.

Good question. In both places the answer is as equally undefinable.

[Green Lantern]

24. Polls

I wonder who is financing these polls?

Anyone wonder whyy the security alert went up this last weekend? Could it be to bump Kerry's bump and build Bushwa's?