Why didn't Kerry get a bigger bounce?

[MikeG]

Poll question: Why didn't Kerry get a bigger bounce?

[DaveSZ]

1. Not enough undecideds?

That's my guess.

I thought they did a pretty good job on their convention.

I'm progressive, but not a Democrat, who was not sold (to vote FOR Kerry).

I was sold.

[LiberalVoice]

5. I agree!

Their just aren't enough swing voters to make an impact. Most of the voters already know who their voting for. And almost nothing will change that!

I've said this a thousand times before an dI'll say it again...IF the 2004 elections are legitimate Kerry will win by a good margin! I'm only scared of the alternative... :(

[kymar57]

19. Bounce schmounce to quote from an earlier post"

I agree. There just isn't that much available. Most have made up their minds and those that haven't aren't paying attention yet.But take heart, as near as I can tell "conventional wisdom" says most undecideds break for the challenger.

[Eric J in MN]

2. too little broadcast coverage (nt)

nt

[lancdem]

3. Kerry was far ahead of where a challenger normally is

going into his convention, so there wasn't much bounce to be had.

[newsguyatl]

4. we have a more polarized electorate

than we've had in current history.

so there aren't many undecideds up for grabs.

that, and the dems went a little soft on bushco at the convention, but who knows, that might've been the right strategy in the longrun.

this election won't be about the undecideds -- it'll be about turnout -- and i think we have that on our side.

[childslibrarian]

6. He did get a bounce

but they polled only in Wyoming and Utah retirement communities.

[MikeG]

13. The question says "bigger" - bounce is assumed.

[kiahzero]

7. Other: The polls sucked

http://altercation.msnbc.com

How silly/irresponsible is Newsweek? Its reporters write,

Coming out of the Democratic National Convention in Boston, Sen. John Kerry now holds a seven-point lead over President George W. Bush (49 percent to 42 percent) in a three-way race with independent Ralph Nader (3 percent), according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. The poll was taken over two nights, both before and after Kerry's acceptance speech. Respondents who were queried after Kerry's Thursday night speech gave the Democrat a ten-point lead over Bush.

They go on to say,

Kerry’s four-point “bounce” is the smallest in the history of the NEWSWEEK poll. There are several factors that may have contributed to the limited surge, including the timing of the poll.
...
On Thursday, Kerry had just a two-point lead over Bush (47 percent to 45 percent), suggesting that his Friday night speech had a significant impact.

Hello, just how in the world do you expect to measure a “bounce” if you do half of your poll before the candidate makes his speech? The story is false advertising, pure and simple; intellectually indefensible and evidence for those who see a conspiracy within the mainstream media to undermine the Democrats, as took place in many cases in 2000. Really, it is so obvious—measure the “bounce” after, not before the speech--that one wonders just how in the world Newsweek thought they could get away with it. And if you see any pundits using these phony numbers, you’ll know they are either lazy or Republican-biased. Shame on everyone involved.

Second, bounce or no bounce the convention was terrific news for Kerry. This election will be a referendum on the incumbent. Going into it, Kerry was way behind in all “leadership” and “national security” categories. Now he’s just about even. In other words, he’s exactly where he wants to be when people decide they’ve had enough of the current guy but need to be reassured about the other guy. I have always suspected that this was the underlying r’aison d’etre of the otherwise lackluster Kerry campaign but I’m pleased to see my suspicions confirmed.

[MI Cherie]

8. Most of us have already made a decision

on who we will or will not be voting for.

Some decided in the last few weeks or months, others have known for the last few years.

[Spiffarino]

9. Too scripted.

There was no excitement. The DNC (or perhaps the DLC and Bob Shrum?) aimed right at what they thought was the middle of the electorate. I believe they were way off the mark.

If they had brought some righteous indignation to the party it might have made a difference. Aside from a few of the speeches, it all looked made-for-TV, few big issues were addressed, and the stolen 2000 election was barely mentioned.

Yawn.

However, Zogby said it best when he said the electorate is static.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=839


On edit: added URL and extra comments

[Nlighten1]

10. Because the pollsters are...

LYING!

[OnionPatch]

11. He did get a bounce

It just wasn't that big because most people are already decided. Seems to me that more of the polls show he did indeed get a small bounce and only one says he didn't. Here's the latest Washington Post/ABC poll.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34914-2004Aug2?language=printer

[MikeG]

12. The question says "bigger" - bounce is assumed.

[Spiffarino]

15. Great link - my favorite quote...

...was this one:

Kerry, who emphasized his military service and began his acceptance speech by announcing he was "reporting for duty," is viewed by 52 percent all voters as better able to serve as commander-in-chief while 44 percent back Bush. And he has erased the president's double-digit advantage as the candidate best able to deal with terrorism.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. Well if they had SHOWN the fucking convention...that would have helped

[Snoggera]

17. That, I think, is the main reason also

They should have planned it in late August also, when the fires of the election are being fully lit. The middle of the summer? If more hours/speeches were broadcast on the networks, many more would have had the opportunity to hear the great plans the democratic party has for the country.

[Andromeda]

16. The Democratic convention was great...

but there are not that many undecided voters out there and that's why there wasn't much of a bounce. Some polls do show a small bounce and a couple show that Kerry lost a couple of points.

I wouldn't attach too much importance to this even though the Repukes are spinning this as a Kerry defeat. This is typical and doesn't mean anything.

This just shows that people have already made up their minds and Kerry already got a significant bounce when he picked Edwards as his running mate.

Some people who haven't made up their minds yet probably won't know who they'll vote for until they get to the voting booth.

Hard to believe, I know, but a lot of voters don't pay that much attention to politics.

The networks didn't cover most of the convention anyway and cable did, so a lot of people weren't able to see it.

[kaitykaity]

18. I really hate misleading posts.

:grr:

If I wanted to read about "bouncing Boobies" I'd be a
Lounge Lizard.

:mad:

[childslibrarian]

22. Thanks

For your post

[MikeG]

23. You obviously don't listen to Randi Rhodes on Fridays.

[Hepburn]

20. Too few undecides. n/t

[kaiso]

21. Prejudice America not wanting a foreigner as first lady..... nt

[slor]

24. Well here is a tidbit I posted this morn...

that should ease your minds...


<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2135947&mesg_id=2135947>

[DieboldMustDie]

25. Friday is Bounce Your Boobies day...

the convention ended Thursday. :bounce::bounce:

[MikeG]

26. It's good to see SOME people have a sense of humor.

[DieboldMustDie]

27. Well, I can understand that someone who hasn't heard Randi on Fridays...

wouldn't get it. :shrug: