New poll timing reminds me of Bush's cousin calling the election for him.

[Brotherjohn]

Remember, Election night 2000, after the networks had rescinded their call of Florida for Gore? With Florida seeming closer and closer, Fox News called Florida, and the election, for Bush. The man who made the call? Ellis Bush, W's first cousin, a a freelance political advisor contracted by Fox News to head their election night "decision desk". This put the distinct label on Gore of "loser", or at the very least, of being the one who was behind and had to prove he might have won (whereas Bush had to prove nothing, but merely stop any further counting).

It's not that the Time or Newseek polls were put out by the Bush family. But it's their TIMING and the fact that they now leave the impression that Bush is the undisputed leader.

If I remember correctly, no polls were released until several days after the Democratic Convention. Yet here, we have two polls (Time and Newsweek) taken the last day and the day after the RNC, IMMEDIATELY AFTER people had just watched Cheney, Bush et al. (sometimes probably even while they were speaking). The effect is to maximize whatever bounce they might have gotten.

I would venture a guess that if a poll or two had been taken the day or two after Kerry spoke at the DNC, people would still be talking about the large bounce Kerry got after his convention.

While I think it is artificial or at least temporary, and Bush's bounce should fall after a couple of weeks, I fear that this bad poll timing could start a bandwagon effect where people see Kerry as the "loser", causing many wavering undecideds to go for Bush.

[Frodo]

1. The polling dates were virtually identical.

The only shift I've noticed is that I think the Gallup poll came out a day earlier for the Democratic convention. But I attribute this to the unusual closeness of the RNC convention to Labor Day (a traditional Gallup release day).


In fact, my concern at the time was that the weak "bounce" reported might have been partially due to the sampling being taken largely before Kerry spoke.

[Brotherjohn]

4. Well, okay, it's not the timing as much as the press's "enthusiasm"...

... for Bush relative to Kerry after the DNC. There were some polls released after the DNC. You just didn't hear much about them other than "No bounce no bounce no bounce... hey Kerry, where's the bounce?"

In actuality, Kerry had held or strengthened the lead he already had in most polls (Gallup excepted).

Admittedly, after the RNC, Bush has a (hopefully temporary and artificial) lead based on these polls. I don't begrudge the press for saying that based on the polls that have come out after the RNC. Two polls with a 10-12pt lead is something significant.

But after the DNC, in a similar time frame to what has passed after the RNC so far, we had this:
Dem Corps* (1,013 LV) 8/2 - 8/5 45% 52% Kerry +7
IBD/TIPP (841 RV) 8/2 - 8/5 43% 49% Kerry +6
Fox News (775 LV) 8/3 - 8/4 43% 48% Kerry +5
CBS News (991 RV) 7/31 - 8/1 43% 49% Kerry +6
CNN/Gallup/USAT (LV) 7/30 - 8/1 51% 47% Bush +4
ABC News/WP (LV) 7/30 - 8/1 48% 49% Kerry +1
ARG (776 RV) 7/30 - 8/1 46% 49% Kerry +3
Newsweek (1,010 RV) 7/29-7/30 44% 52% Kerry +8

And what was everybody saying? Not only "no bounce for Kerry", but either that they were tied or that BUSH had the lead! This based on the one (Gallup) poll that gave him a lead, and a lead smaller than many Kerry had in other polls!

Long story short, the press has been quick to cast Bush as the leader based on 2 or 3 polls after his convention, when they never did so AT ALL when Kerry was up significantly in nearly EVERY poll for several weeks before and after his Convention.

Undecideds cast their vote largely on impression, and the media right now is doing their damndest to cast the impression that Bush is a "winner".

[Frodo]

5. I'm not sure your figures are correct.

There's a difference between the amount of "bounce" and the lead a candidate has. For instance, that 8% Newsweek number was really (in the three way race) a bounce from Kerry +3 to Kerry +7. A four point bounce.

ARG went from +3 to +4 Kerry.

Democracy Corp went from +3 to +5

IBD went down from +4 to +3

I don't have all the rest (a couple did better, one had a big negative), but it's easy to report "no bounce" and still have Kerry leading if he was ahead in their previous poll.

The difference here is that many of the polling firms didn't run another number before the Republican convention. So the "bounce" is from a Kerry lead to a Bush lead.

Heck, there's little point in denying it, Bush DID get a better reaction out of his convention. Before the two conventions Kerry was leading slightly, now Bush is. There's no denying the NET impact of 1) Picking VP, 2) DNC Convention, 3) Swiftvets, 4) RNC Convention has been negative for us.

But there are still 5), 6), 7), and 8). We don't even know what they all are. And there's still some time left.

At first, I was a bit panicky about the "Labor Day leader usually wins" idea, but they I just realized that was part of the genius of putting their convention this late. In addition to all the benefits we already knew about (a month of extra "primary" spending, close to 9/11, etc), they also ensured that their high water mark in the polls was ALSO the Labor Day results.

Now Bush LOOKS almost unbeatable - when we have a solid shot.

[Brotherjohn]

6. I pulled the numbers right from realclearpolitics.com. Head-to-head...

... I think.

You make some good points. Yes, I would say Bush has benefited more from his convention than Kerry did from his. But Bush had more ROOM to benefit (Kerry was already polling about as high as one could expect for a challenger, pushing 50% and over 50% in some polls).

Yes, the SBV thing has hurt Kerry to date, although I think it may backfire for Bush in the end. Many undecideds may waver to Bush based in part on it. But I think it has also caused some Repubs to question Bush, whereas I don't think it has convinced a very many Dems at all to waver in their support of Kerry. Recent polling has indicated that Repubs are split 50-50 on whether Kerry deserved his medals, whereas a vast majority of undecideds and Dems think he did (sorry, don't have the link, but it used to be on pollingreport.com).

I agree with your last point: "Now Bush LOOKS almost unbeatable - when we have a solid shot." I think/hope that Bush's lead will evaporate (just as Kerry's has). But what concerns me now is that Bush "looks" unbeatable. With time running short, that image is important... and persuasive to many undecideds.

[Frodo]

7. That was actually the scariest "poll"

A firm that I normally associate with Republican candidates has been polling huge sample sizes and NOT asking "who are you going to vote for?" but "who do you think will win?"

The Bush "bounce" there was HUGE - even taking the source in to consideration. That can have a really big impact on turnout since few people want to show up to vote for a loser. And turnout is going to be key in some races that are almost as important to me as the White House.

[klook]

2. Another way to look at it

is that Bush's lead will evaporate after a couple of weeks. There's no way he's going to sustain the kind of lead they said he had last week. And Kerry is a great closer.

I don't mean to suggest that we can relax, but Kerry has a very good chance of winning. As an article in USA Today says, "Since World War II, three contests have been within the margin of error among registered voters at Labor Day. In those races, the leading candidate won in 1980; the trailing candidate won in 1960 and 2000." So the odds are with Kerry there.

[Fed Up]

3. They are doing a good job of poisoning the well.

The press is against Kerry. Case closed, end of story.

If it were 1973 this press would be saying on a daily basis "The Democrats are trying to smear President Nixon, an honorable leader. America stands with you, Mr. President, against these groundless Watergate charges."

[cthrumatrix]

8. we know the polls were a "repug plant"...lies/distortions.... and the

press was virtually silent on the "rigged polls"..they pushed them

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Media's "take" on the post-RNC polls is decidedly different

from their "take" on the post-DNC polls. They always maximize any positives for Bush* while minimizing any positives for Kerry.

Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly said something interesting yesterday re: polls. In national polls, a sudden rise for one candidate, like Bush* has had, may mean nothing since it may only reflect stronger support in a state that was already going to go for him. He said that as far as electoral votes are concerned, Kerry and Bush* are basically tied. If the next Ohio poll shows Bush* leading, that's a problem for Kerry, but the Times and Newsweek polls may not reflect any shift in electoral votes.