DOCSLIB.ORG

Convention Bounce Bush and Kerry Remain in a Dead Heat

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Convention Bounce Bush and Kerry Remain in a Dead Heat 04 Polling Note, 7/23 – Convention Bounce Bush and Kerry remain in a dead heat in a scrum of national polls today. Those, plus all state polls, are posted on the Polling Unit site on the intranet. (Click the "04 Election Spreadsheet.") Separately, the following memo dissects the storied "convention bounce." -- What goes up does not always come down. That's the charm of the "convention bounce," the jump in support that customarily accompanies a presidential candidate's nominating convention. Sometimes it's a short- term thing, the race quickly returning to form. But it can be a more profound event - a coalescing of public preferences that charts the course for the remaining campaign. So it was in 1992, the Year of the Bounce. Bill Clinton went into the Democratic convention one point behind George H.W. Bush - and left it 29 points ahead. Skeptics scoffed, calling it momentary. But it lasted: on to Election Day, Clinton never trailed. The next-biggest bounce of recent times (since 1968) was Al Gore’s in 2000, a 19-point convention gain (compared to Clinton’s net of 30). But in Gore’s case it wasn’t enough. Now it’s John Kerry’s turn, with George W. Bush to follow. Will they fly? If so, how high, and for how long? FACTORS – The polls ahead will tell. But two factors this year may make it tougher than usual for the candidates to achieve a large or lasting bounce: attention to the race, and attachment to the candidates. Conventions can boost both these. But in these highly polarized days, attention already is high, and the candidates’ support already is strong and enthusiastic. Heading into his 1992 convention, for example, just 46 percent of Clinton supporters were “strongly” behind him. As early as this April, by contrast, Kerry’s support was 65 percent strong – and Bush’s, 84 percent. In our most recent political poll, 72 percent of Kerry’s supporters said they’d “definitely” vote for him – compared with 58 percent for Gore in July 2000. Seventy-eight percent of Bush’s support is “definite,” up from 63 percent in July 2000. Eighty-three percent of Kerry’s supporters, and 90 percent of Bush’s, describe themselves as “enthusiastic” about their guy. And eight in 10 registered voters are closely following the race, compared with 55 percent at this time in 2000 (admittedly a low-focus year). Now Then Kerry Bush Gore Bush “Definite” support 72% 78 58% 63 That said, the ranks of currently undecided and less-than-definite supporters provide plenty of room for a Kerry bounce to occur, and a Bush bounce to follow. Which returns us to how high they go, and how long it lasts. OH-OH – In 2000, when the Republicans went first, Bush stretched an insignificant three-point lead before his convention into an 11-point lead after it. That opened to a 14- point lead before the Democratic convention, from which Gore emerged with a five-point edge. Not enough: Their race soon devolved into the dead heat for the ages. Other bounces have faded farther and faster. Bush’s father trailed by 21 points on the eve of his 1992 convention, then moved to within five after it. But it didn't hold: A week later he was back to a 19-point deficit. While no convention bounce has matched Clinton's in 1992, many others are impressive in their own right. In 1976 Jimmy Carter's bounce to a 33-point lead underscored Gerald Ford's weakness. In 1980 Carter bounced from a 16-point deficit to a one-point lead. (It didn't last.) In 1984 Walter Mondale bounced from a 14-point deficit to a two-point lead. (It didn’t last.) And 1988’s bounces were gnarly: Mike Dukakis led by 17 points after his convention. G.H.W. Bush whittled that down to seven points before the Republican convention, bounced to a four-point post-convention lead, and went on to win. The 1996 bounces produced less drama because the lead never changed hands. There was movement: Bob Dole advanced from a 19-point deficit before his primary to a four-point deficit after it. But that faded to a nine-point Dole deficit within a week, growing to 14 points after the Democratic convention. Two candidates have been essentially bounceless: Hubert Humphrey trailed by 16 points before the ’68 Chicago convention and by 12 points after it. And in 1972 George McGovern went into his convention down by 16 points – and left it down by 19. Customarily the bounce is given as the number of points gained by the candidate during his convention. But what happens to the other candidate - and the net change - are significant, too. We give them all here: Net Change 2000 Rep. bounce Bush +6 Gore -5 Bush +11 Dem. bounce Gore +10 Bush -9 Gore +19 1996 Rep. bounce Dole +8 Clinton -7 Dole +15 Dem bounce Clinton +4 Dole -1 Clinton +5 1992 Dem. bounce Clinton +14 Bush -16 Clinton +30 Rep. bounce Bush +6 Clinton -10 Bush +16 1988 Dem. bounce Dukakis +7 Bush -4 Dukakis +11 Rep. bounce Bush +6 Dukakis -5 Bush +11 1984 Dem. bounce Mondale +9 Reagan -7 Mondale +16 Rep. bounce Reagan +4 Mondale -4 Reagan +8 1980 Rep. bounce Reagan +8 Carter -5 Reagan +13 Dem. bounce Carter +10 Reagan -7 Carter +17 1976 Dem. bounce Carter +9 Ford -7 Carter +16 Rep. bounce Ford +4 Carter -3 Ford +7 1972 Dem. bounce McGovern 0 Nixon +3 McGovern -3 Rep. bounce Nixon +7 McGovern -1 Nixon +8 1968 Rep. bounce Nixon +5 Humphrey -9 Nixon +14 Dem. bounce Humphrey +2 Nixon -2 Humphrey +4 For consistency these results are all among registered voters. 1992-2000 polls are from ABC News; 1968-88 polls by Gallup. Earlier polls weren't done frequently enough to track the convention bounce reliably. NINETY-TWO – Again, for old-fashioned thrills, nothing has approached the Clinton and Bush bounces of 1992. Clinton went into his convention with 44 percent support and left it with 58 percent on July 19. (That's in a two-man race; Perot wasn't running at the time.) In the same period, Bush's support dived from 45 percent to 29 percent. A month later, Clinton was still aloft, defying those who'd suggested his bounce had no legs: On Aug. 19, the eve of the Republican convention, he led by 57-32 percent. Bush's convention tightened the race to 47-42 percent, as close as it would be until the final days of the campaign. But, unlike Clinton's, Bush's convention bounce was very short-lived. By Aug. 30 the race was back to a 55-36 percent Clinton advantage. The Polling Unit’s intranet site includes an Excel spreadsheet listing convention bounces since 1968 in greater detail, as well as all presidential horse race polls since 1936, and every state and national poll conducted to date in the '04 contest . Check the "election spreadsheets" section, or call for assistance. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Media #Ftw!: the Influence of Social Media on American Politics
    SOCIAL MEDIA #FTW!: THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON AMERICAN POLITICS by Kenneth Scott Ames A thesis submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Government Baltimore, Maryland April 2014 © 2014 Kenneth Scott Ames All Rights Reserved Abstract Social media has transformed politics in America. Its effect has impacted the way candidates campaign for the presidency, Members of Congress operate their offices, and advocacy organizations communicate with policymakers and supporters. Social media allows politicians and organizations a method to connect directly and without filters with people across the country, assemble a constituency, and solicit their support at a reduced cost and greater reach than traditional media. Social media is not simply the next in a line of communications technologies: it has changed everyday activities and connected people in a manner never before possible. The rise of smartphone technology has enabled this trend since people can access the Internet almost anywhere making a mobile device a potential organizing and fundraising tool. Social media has transformed politics in America because it creates an instantaneous multi-directional public dialogue that offers the ability to rapidly analyze the data and learn from the findings on an unprecedented scope. Thesis advisor: Professor Dorothea Wolfson Readers: Representative William F. Clinger, Jr., and Professor Robert Guttman ! ii! PREFACE While I was contemplating my thesis topic, I knew I wanted to write about a topic that was timely, relevant, and interesting in the field of political communications. Many of my first classes at Johns Hopkins University were on government, politics, and the presidential election.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election
    Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Jie Chen* Working Paper No. 66 January 2018 ABSTRACT The U.S. presidential election of 2016 featured frontal challenges to the political establishments of both parties and perhaps the most shocking election upset in American history. This paper analyzes patterns of industrial structure and party competition in both the major party * Thomas Ferguson is Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, Director of Research at the Institute for New Economic Thinking, and Senior Fellow at Better Markets; Paul Jorgensen is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley; Jie Chen is University Statistician at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. The authors are very grateful to Francis Bator, Walter Dean Burnham, Robert Johnson, William Lazonick, Benjamin Page, Servaas Storm, Roger Trilling, and Peter Temin for many discussions and advice. They are particularly indebted to Page and Trilling for detailed editorial suggestions and to Roberto Scazzieri and Ivano Cardinale for timely encouragement.. Thanks also to the Institute for New Economic Thinking for support of data collection. Earlier versions of the paper were presented at the Institute for New Economic Thinking’s conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, and a conference organized by the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei in Rome. It is worth emphasizing that the paper represents the views of the authors and not any of the institutions with which they are affiliated. 1 primaries and the general election. It attempts to identify the genuinely new, historically specific factors that led to the upheavals, especially the steady growth of a “dual economy” that locks more and more Americans out of the middle class and into a life of unsteady, low wage employment and, all too often, steep debts.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Democratic National Convention Brainroom Briefing Book
    2008 Democratic National Convention Brainroom Briefing Book 1 Table of Contents CONVENTION BASICS ........................................................................................................................................... 3 National Party Conventions .................................................................................................................................. 3 The Call................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Convention Scheduling......................................................................................................................................... 3 What Happens at the Convention......................................................................................................................... 3 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTIONS, 1832-2004........................................................................................................... 5 CONVENTION - DAY BY DAY................................................................................................................................. 6 DAY ONE (August 25) .......................................................................................................................................... 6 DAY TWO (August 26).......................................................................................................................................... 7 The Keynote Address.......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pence Cruises Into Republican Love
    V21, 45 Thursday, July 21, 2016 Pence cruises into Republican love a “grand slam home Indiana governor delivers run” on the heels of a classic acceptance speech U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s epic “vote your con- By BRIAN A. HOWEY science” speech that BRATENAHL, Ohio – On a glistening found him hounded by summer morning by the shores of Lake Erie, catcalls and boos as he the bleary eyed Indiana Republican National exited the big stage. Convention delegation Pence had en- found themselves in the dorsed Cruz just prior company of their vice to the Indiana primary, presidential nominee. but quickly shifted his It came just hours allegiance to Donald after Indiana Gov. Mike Trump, and like an Pence cruised his way Gov. Mike Pence accepts his vice presidential nomina- Indy 500 driver steer- through the fratricidal carnage at the conven- tion Wednesday night in Cleveland, moving the room . tion, delivering what U.S. Sen. Dan Coats called (HPI Photos by Randy Gentry) Continued on page Pence’s twilight zone By BRIAN A. HOWEY CLEVELAND – Perhaps the most surreal year in Hoosier politics came to a head on the shores of Lake Erie when Mike Pence brought his career into a Trumpian twilight zone. Plucked by the mercu- “I had to speak the truth. It’s rial billionaire Donald Trump from a gubernatorial reelection going to be an interesting couple campaign in which even his of days. The chips will fall where most fervent stalwarts weren’t convinced he would win, Gov. they may.” Pence did what he is apt to do, which is to double down.
    [Show full text]
  • Third-Party and Independent Presidential Candidates: the Need for a Runoff Mechanism
    THIRD-PARTY AND INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES: THE NEED FOR A RUNOFF MECHANISM Edward B. Foley* INTRODUCTION The 2016 presidential election has been like no other. However it ends up, it has been marked by the singularly dispiriting fact that the two major party nominees have the highest unfavorable ratings of any presidential candidates in history.1 This environment, one would think, would be particularly auspicious for a third-party or independent candidate, but the electoral system is structured in a way that is so disadvantageous to any candidate other than the two major-party nominees that a serious third-party or independent challenger has yet to materialize. To be sure, as of this writing, the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is polling significantly higher than any third-party or independent candidate since Ross Perot.2 Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, is also hovering * Director, Election Law @ Moritz, and Charles W. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law, the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. A much different version of this paper was presented at an Ohio State Democracy Studies workshop. I very much appreciate the extensive and constructive feedback I received from participants there, as well as from Deborah Beim, Barry Burden, Bruce Cain, Frank Fukuyama, Bernie Grofman, Eitan Hersh, Alex Keyssar, Nick Stephanopoulos, Rob Richie, and Charles Stewart. This Article is part of a forum entitled Election Law and the Presidency held at Fordham University School of Law. 1. See, e.g., Philip Rucker, These ‘Walmart Moms’ Say They Feel ‘Nauseated’ by the Choice of Clinton or Trump, WASH.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to the US Presidential Election System 2Nd Edition
    WHO WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT? A GUIDE TO THE U. S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SYSTEM 2ND EDITION DOWNLOAD FREE Alexander S Belenky | 9783319446950 | | | | | The Terrifying Inadequacy of American Election Law Retrieved July 21, Nominee Brian T. Maybe I'll sign an executive order that you cannot have him as your president. Former Illinois representative Joe Walsh launched a primary challenge on August 25,saying, "I'm going to do whatever I can. Representatives State and territorial Representatives Organizations Vice Presidential selection Vice presidential campaigns selection convention election convention election Published works Promises to Keep Promise Me, Dad. House members choose the new president from among the top three candidates. Retrieved August 1, Skip to content. Rouan, Rick; Futty, John March 16, Step 4: Electoral College In the Electoral College system, each state gets Who Will Be the Next President? A Guide to the U. S. Presidential Election System 2nd edition certain number of electors based on its total number of representatives in Congress. Retrieved August 22, Retrieved October 15, Smithsonian Magazine. The following major candidates have either: a held public office, b been included in a minimum of five independent national pollsor c received substantial media coverage. The COVID pandemic in has been predicted to cause a large increase in mail voting because of the possible danger of congregating at polling places. Check the deadline to register to vote in your state to ensure you can vote in its presidential primary. W: March 19, endorsed Bidenvotes 2 delegates. List of nominating conventions Brokered convention Convention bounce Superdelegate. As a result, the election among them was a presidential primary went ahead as planned.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nation and Battleground States: Post-Denver and Palin Choice
    SeptemberSeptember 10,10, 20082008 September 8, 2008 The nation and battleground states: post-Denver and Palin choice National survey of 1,000 likely voters Presidential battleground states survey of 1,000 likely voters SeptemberSeptember 10,10, 20082008 Political Landscape Page 2 | Greenberg Quinlan Rosner SeptemberSeptember 10,10, 20082008 ‘Wrong Direction’ nationwide Generally speaking, do you think things in the country are going in the right direction, or do you feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the Right direction Wrong direction wrong track? *National Data* Petraeus Report 78 78 Iraq surge 75 Election 71 72 73 2006 70 Katrina 69 69 70 68 67 66 6666 66 62 64 62 63 62 60 61 58 68 56 56 63 52 55 51 58 55 37 37 42 41 35 34 37 34 24 24 34 31 30 31 28 28 25 27 28 25 25 25 25 17 16 23 23 22 2322 23 21 15 Jan-05 May-05 Sep-05 Jan-06 May-06 Sep-06 Jan-07 May-07 Sep-07 Jan-08 May-08 Sep-08 Net -9 -11 -22 -18 -19 -24 -31 -18 -25 -42 -36 -31 -31 -45 -24 -41-35 -43-41-48-47-44 -35-47-50-41-45-44 -52-58 -63 -62 -46 Difference *Note: From Democracy Corps surveys conducted over the last couple years. Page 3 | Greenberg Quinlan Rosner SeptemberSeptember 10,10, 20082008 Republicans feeling significantly better about direction of the country Generally speaking, do you think things in the country are going in the right direction, or do you feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track? *National Data* Wrong Right Shift September 92 5 Democrats -2 July 92 7 September 74 19 Independents +8 July 83 11 September 40 50 Republicans
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of the Protest Vote
    /UY 'TrVvîifS July 29, 2008, 6:01 pm The Power of the Protest Vote By ANDREW KOHUT Don't be surprised if third or fourth party presidential candidates garner enough votes in November to make a difference in some of the hotly contested swing states. The polls show more than enough Republican disaffection with John McCain's candidacy to make a case that Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate, or another right-of- center candidate could take votes away from the G.O.P. standard bearer. And on the Democratic side, Barack Obama has to worry about defections of not only Hillary CHnton's supporters, but also of liberals, who are beginning to grumble that he is moving too much toward the center. The 2000 presidential election clearly showed that third party candidates do not have to roll up big numbers to make a huge difference. Ralph Nader accumulated just 2 percent of the vote in Florida — and exit polls found that Al Gore was the second choice among most of Mr. Nader's voters. While Democratic voters were never wildly enthusiastic about Mr. Gore during that campaign, the climate of opinion about John McCain is more fragile this year. John McCain's Enthusiasm Gap Jun© JUIIQ Aug JuiiQ 1996 2000 2004 2008 % a % a De m candidat© 55 46 47 48 S3 Strongly 40 40 59 58 Rep candidate 40 45 45 40 K Strongly 32 44 71 34 Other/Undec. 5 9 8 12 100 100 100 100 Candidates: Clinton Gore Ken7 Obama Dole Bush Bush iVicCain Based on registered voters Pew's nationwide voter poll in late June revealed that significantly fewer McCain supporters than Obama supporters say they are strongly committed to their candidate.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Republican National Convention Brainroom Briefing Book
    2008 Republican National Convention Brainroom Briefing Book Bryan S. Murphy Sr. Political Affairs Specialist Fox News Channel Phone: (212) 301-5257 E-mail: [email protected] 1 Table of Contents The CONVENTION................................................................................................................................................... 3 The Call................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Convention Scheduling ......................................................................................................................................... 3 What Happens at the Convention......................................................................................................................... 3 Selection of Minneapolis-Saint Paul ..................................................................................................................... 3 Convention Space................................................................................................................................................. 5 CONVENTION - DAY BY DAY................................................................................................................................. 6 Day by Day in Brief ............................................................................................................................................... 6 DAY ONE (Sept. 1) ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: WHOM WOULD YOU NOMINATE?” Stuart Minor Benjamin & Mitu Gulati*
    “MR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: WHOM WOULD YOU NOMINATE?” Stuart Minor Benjamin & Mitu Gulati* Presidential candidates compete on multiple fronts for votes. Who is more likeable? Who will negotiate more effectively with allies and adversaries? Who has the better vice-presidential running mate? Who will make better appointments to the Supreme Court and the cabinet? This last question is often discussed long before the inauguration, for the impact of a secretary of state or a Supreme Court justice can be tremendous. Despite the importance of such appointments, we do not expect candidates to compete on naming the better slates of nominees. For the candidates themselves, avoiding competition over nominees in the pre-election context has personal benefits—in particular, enabling them to keep a variety of supporters working hard on the campaign in the hope of being chosen as nominees. But from a social perspective, this norm has costs. This Article proposes that candidates be induced out of the status quo. In the current era of candidates responding to internet queries and members of the public asking questions via YouTube, it is plausible that the question—“Whom would you nominate (as secretary of state or for the Supreme Court)?”—might be asked in a public setting. If one candidate is behind in the race, he can be pushed to answer the question—and perhaps increase his chances of winning the election. * Professors of Law, Duke Law School. Thanks to Scott Baker, Steve Choi, Michael Gerhardt, Jay Hamilton, Christine Hurt, Kimberly Krawiec, David Levi, Joan Magat, Mike Munger, Eric Posner, Richard Posner, Arti Rai, Larry Ribstein, David Rohde, Larry Solum, Sharon Spray, Eugene Volokh, and Ernest Young for comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Medhimetanapol.Pdf (541.7Kb)
    MATH 490 Independent Study with Dr. Yong Zeng A Meta-Analysis of Polls from the 2012 Presidential Election Abstract Political pundits framed the 2012 U.S. presidential election as a horserace be- tween Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. However, a number of election forecast- ers found that the election was always Obama’s to lose. This paper presents a simple quantitative methodology to analyze polling data of the national race and the four closest swing states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. Our re- sults suggest that out of the four states, only Florida emerged as a true toss-up. In addition, the national popular vote appeared to lean toward Obama throughout the election cycle. The analysis also allows us to visualize trends in public opinion during the campaign through various key events including the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act, the announcement of Romney’s running mate, the national party conventions, the release of a video showing Romney making controversial comments at a fundraiser, the three presidential debates, the vice presidential debate, and Hurricane Sandy. 1. Introduction The 2012 U.S. presidential election provided much fodder for the news media. Political pundits focused on the horserace, often framing the election as a tossup. However, using quantitative models, a wide range of poll aggrega- tors and election forecasters predicted that the election was always President Obama’s to lose. Ignoring differences in motivation, there are two notable reasons for these conflicting interpretations. The first reason was that pundits tended to focus on the seemingly close national popular vote.
    [Show full text]
  • Limping Towards the Convention Bounce
    Politics: US elections II Limping towards the Convention Bounce Bush’s incumbent bonus in the graph shows the extent to which the portrayal of candidates on ABC, NBC and CBS correlates media is turning into a problem for with voting intentions. Since the end of the pri- John F. Kerry maries, the networks have been portraying Kerry much more positively than the President. After a n election campaigns, challengers generally certain time lag, the variations in media portrayal I have a much harder time than incumbents were clearly refl ected by voting preferences – to a to make it onto the media agenda and into pub- slightly different degree for each candidate, how- lic awareness. In the US election campaign, the ever. John Kerry seemed to need a long-term and party convention with its centerpiece, the offi cial far more positive media echo than President Bush nomination of the presidential candidate, is con- in order to score points with voters. If the media’s sidered to be one of the greatest opportunities for assessment of the candidates turns only slightly the challenger to create the necessary awareness in favor of the President, John Kerry starts losing through the media. Still, two weeks before this ground in opinion polls. One obvious explanation year’s Democratic convention, ABC, NBC and for this asymmetry is the Senator’s lack of a clear CBS announced that they were not planning on media profi le. As a challenger, Kerry has to fi ght covering the party convention for more than one against President Bush’s incumbent bonus: Voters hour each day of the three days of the event.
    [Show full text]