Cement trampoline (merged thread)

usualy after a convention, there is at least a 5 point bounce, no matter the party positions or polotics of the conventioning party. (3rd partys excluded as no one cares what Nader or any other fringe candidate has to say)

this is sad for the dems, but it is only one poll, if all of the major polls dhow the same next week, that will be a fun time to watch the dems pannic.

You guys are great. Really. Keep it coming.

After Kerry wins, you can post about how the dems must be in disarray because he failed to get the 75% of the vote that you decided he had to get to consider himself really president.

And when bush wins in a landslide, you guys are gonna cry "Florida 2000 take 2" or "(plug in token minority here) was dis-infranchised!" and when the supreme court turns you down again, you will then use dibold, and say that hackers broke the system and stuffed the preverbial ballot box for big company freindly bushies"

think I am streaching it, watch, even if bush wins 45 states, they will sue over the computer thing, I will put money on it.

(shaking a_greer by the shoulder) Wake up! Wake up! You were having a dream! Time to get up and go to your job shouting at people on the sidewalk!

You don't get it.
The country is polarized. There is only approximately 8% of voters who are undecided.
With that small number, you're not going to get the kind of a bounce that has traditionally occured in the past.

And "landslide"? You are absolutly dreaming.

bingo...
much smaller % of minds that can be changed=less "bounce" available...

I was saying IF, IF it is a landslide, the dems will try tocomplain about the computers, call it a hunch

I'm still wondering, greer, are you even old enough to vote?

A challenger is beating an incumbent president 49-42, and you say ouch? I wonder if any incumbent has ever come back from a deficit like that at this point in time. I doubt it. When there's an incumbent, undecided voters go overwhelmingly for the challenger, so these polls understate the difference.

Anything can happen, but if you had to guess at this point in time who would win, you'd have to say Kerry.

On Thursday, the NYT actually went to the trouble of investigating this "average 15 point bounce" claim by Matthew Dowd and other Republicans. It's based on two shaky bits: they're talking about the swing in poll numbers, not the increase in people voting for you (so Kerry's would be a 5-pont bounce, not a 2-point bounce, based on your polls); and they count the massive bounce Clinton got in 1992, when Ross Perot dropped out of the race (temporarily) at the same time the Democrats had their convention. A challenger almost always gets a bigger bounce than an incumbent, but usually because he's far behind to begin with. Kerry was already ahead.

And then there's the whole polarized electorate thing. No candidate in this race is ever going to poll higher than 50-52%, and most people who are sure they're going to vote have already made up their minds as to for whom.

Finally, I'd like to see a poll done this week, rather than an "overnight" one dated to the very day of Kerry's speech (the 29th).

That has to have been the case with Repubs-who are for Bush for ever . . . otherwise there is no explanation as to why they would vote for him . . . its all about some fantasy image of what he is . . . because it sure as hell has nothing to do with his record:

The CHURCH of BUSH
Good article about how people adore him, and their so called 'reasons' . . . real examples to...

I enjoyed the last two lines of the article:

So sad, and yet so true.

Actually, people who are knowledgeable about the paperless voting machines are complaining about them now.

The big problem is they have no paper verification. No recount is possible. You just have to trust that the machine recorded your vote correctly. And because the source code is a corporate secret, there is no way for governments to verify that there isn't any malicious code.

Oh, and surprise! The Bush admin, Jeb in Florida and republicans across the nation are fighting tooth and nail against a relatively inexpensive add-on that would provide a voter verifiable paper trail on the existing machines.

And it turns out that Diebold's machine programs were on an unsecured FTP site, and the memory cards used in the machines were unencrypted. Oh, and in Georgia, all the cards had the same password. Which means if I could get my hands on some of those cards, I could change the tallies on my laptop without any evidence that it had happened.

Which are some of the same reasons that California is suing Diebold for fraud and breach of contract.

Anyone who cares about democracy should be deeply concerned about the potential for foul play in a system that doesn't allow for independent verification. Which of course means a_greer thinks it's swell.

Voting Machine Controversy

Newsweek took half the poll before Kerry gave his speech, but BRussell nailed it anyway.

no one who was undecided watched the frickin convention anyways. people who liked kerry watched.

this whole convention thing is a waste of money and an embarrassment. talk about the poor and then go spend nearly 100 million on a fucking week long pat on the back.

Regarding electronic voting:

Use a couple of hours to see this. After seeing it I would not feel sure in a pure electronic system, but to use it for assisting in the voting process it would serve a good purpose. You use the computer to make your choice and the machine make it clear for you what you voted for (name, picture whatever.) and print the ballot (not a receipt) for you. That would be the way ahead with the use of computers in the voting process.

Voting machines should NEVER EVER be closed-source. EVER. That is one thing Kucinich hit hard upon when he came to my town, and I liked that. This is one thing that can NOT be let slide. I'll tell ya why. In NH, Republicans paid telemarketers to jam phone banks for an agency that helped people without transportation to get to vote. If they do that, why not tamper with e-voting? It's even easier and harder to prove. Diebold sucks asscheese.

Interesting point about conventions. But still, 100 million to get out the message, rally the faithful, and try to convince those straddling the fence-- I think I can accept that if it means the difference between the goals of the Kerry administration and another half-trillion dollar tax cut or expensive, unnecessary war. The cost is high, but the benefits could be worthwhile-- *if* the convention helps Kerry, which does seem so.

i really don't see any evidence of that. a few percentage points in a meaningless poll.

the convention in the perspective of "getting the message out" was a failure. the major networks barely gave it notice, ratings were an all-time low and its not like the people who actually made the effort to tune in are the people kerry needs to win.

the faithful are already rallied, the message is still not out there, and no one straddling the fence watched.

unfortunately i think some people here are giving the general voting population too much credit. issues are not what will win. appeal will.

In a perfect world the dems would have taken that 100.000.000 and prevented hundreds of 911´s and made one commercial explaining why there wasn´t a convention this year.

But one of the reasons to have a convention (now that the election of JK wasn´t a question) is to rally the troops and say "Look how many we are. You are not alone. Now go out and sell the message". The message is not only for the viewers but also for the volunteers.

the race isn't as close as national polls indicate...

the graph would be better if it took the margin into account in the swing states tho...

From here:Electoral-Vote

Come election day Bush will win big. My prediction is Bush 55%, Kerry 45%. Kerry is going to drop fast. Mainstream America does not identify with him. His campaign is based on creating class warfare.

I kind of agree with this. Bush's campaign is based on convincing the poor that there is not a class war.

I hate both of these guys so much I think I'm going to vote for anarchy and see how many polling centers I can sabotage (non-violently, of course).

(Hello FBI and DOJ, I am just kidding. I'm not a terrorist. Don't sing at me!)

I love that Village Voice article. It is great stuff.

Conservatives are at the point now that pointing out any criticism is a very reluctant and painful move because they know (and not even deep down) that once they start listing the things that make him a bad president they aren't likely to stop in time to save their Bush-love house of card from tumbling.

No matter who wins I'm in favor of suing over computerized voting.

Everyone's been saying that network ratings were at an all time low, especially the networks. But in reality, at least 24 million people watched on Thursday night, three million more than saw Al Gore's speech in 2000. What's more, these early ratings numbers don't even include PBS, who reported 3 million viewers of their own for Monday and Tuesday nights, or CSPAN. So when the final numbers come out, I wouldn't be surprised if 30 million Americans saw Kerry's address, a big bounce from four years ago.

The networks got the shaft because they chose to. I mean, holy self-fulfilling prophecy. Meanwhile, the cable news networks and PBS all reported huge increases in viewership, even on the early nights.

Florida 2000, eh?

I am soooooo tempted to put my presidential vote on eBay.



I don't think I could stoop that low, though, because my party actually has an agenda backed by ideals, and I'm not going to sacrifice my vote to help some jerk who kowtows to a self-inflicted baseline of "moderation" or "values" or whatever the fuck they say matters.

That was fun to write. Anyway, vote 3rd party. . . any of them. Otherwise you're throwing away your vote.

and the margin my dear friends is 3%...

this is shit.

you have half the nation thinking that the US should swing its power around like a dirty cock (a dirty cock is always more likely to catch a venereal disease) and the other half thinking that the power should be wielded with a little (but not much) more thought than that.

when you go to the polls think of the us' cock and how painful venereal diseases are... ok?

The trend will continue to move in favor of President Bush., By election day there will be no challenge.

Bush 55%
Kery 45%

Common Man said he was going away away away.

You can never kill the common man for if you do you become common.

Common Man cannot vote.

Common Man is amazingly omnipresent.

Seeing all, yet seeing nothing.

What happens on Dec. 3rd?

Wait and see, I say.

According to this CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, Kerry/Edwards experienced a negative bounce after the convention.

Poll Article

The explanation that the electorate is so polarized is a possible one. I also know that the first thing out of a lot folks mouths on this story is going to be "The Republicans are just trying to create unrealistic expectations to make themselves look better". OK, that may be the case, but a 1 point drop, while the opponent gains four points? Something doesn't seem right to me there.

Even the Newsweek poll, which paints a much rosier picture for Kerry, admits that the bounce is the smallest in the history of the poll. Polarized electorate or bad omen for Kerry?

History of convention bounces: Source: Gallup

Year Candidate Bounce

2000 Gore +8
2000 Bush +4 Winner

1996 Clinton +5 Winner
1996 Dole +3

1992 Clinton +16 Winner
1992 Bush +5

1988 Dukakis +7
1988 Bush +6 Winner

1984 Mondale +9
1984 Reagan +5 Winner

1980 Carter +10
1980 Reagan +8 Winner

1976 Carter +9 Winner
1976 Ford +5

1972 Nixon +7 Winner
1972 McGovern +0

1968 Nixon +5 Winner
1968 Humphrey +2

1964 Goldwater +5
1964 Johnson +3 Winner


__________________________________________________ ___
Losses by the incumbent:

1976: Carter defeats Ford. Carter gets 9 point bounce (Ford=+5)
1980: Regan defeats Carter. Reagan gets 8 point bounce (Carter=+10)
1992: Clinton defeats Bush. Clinton gets 16 point bounce (Bush=+5)


Losses by the challenger:

1964: Johnson defeats Goldwater. Goldwater gets +5 bounce

1972: Nixon defeats McGovern. McGovern gets +0 bounce

1984: Reagan defeats Mondale. Mondale gets +9, still loses.

1996 Clinton defeats Dole. Dole gets +3 bounce




I think the above data can support some conclusions in particular: No candidate who received a negligable post-convention bounce or was "out bounced" by a large margin has been able to win. The possible exception is Bush 43 himself, where Gore got twice the bounce.

If we just look at challengers to an incumbent, the picture is worse for Kerry. No challenger has won without a large bounce. Period. History predicts that Kerry will not and cannot win. Then again, Bush has defied history, so why can't Kerry? Also, it should be said that a large bounce by the incumbent does not equal victory. My argument is that the challenger must experience a substantial bounce to win.

Regardless of who you support, what do you think about the above?

I'd like to see not just "bounces" but also absolute numbers.

My guess is that in most cases, the incumbent has been ahead of the challenger - sometimes way ahead, like Bush v. Clinton. There, the bounce was critical for the challenger to take the lead. This year, Kerry has been tied or ahead of Bush in most polls, and so the bounce really isn't needed to get ahead.

I don't remember where I read it, but I don't think that any incumbent has ever won when the polls were where they have been for Bush's approval ratings and the Bush v. Kerry numbers.

All I know is that I'm going to love every minute of it for the next 3 months.

A good point, though the polls are pretty deadlocked, and sometimes Bush has lead. Bush's approval rating also hovers near 50%, but sometimes at 47%, which is hard to draw a conclusion from.

Kerry is a dork. He looks like a dork, talks like a dork: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


What does this idiot stand for except some intellectually deprived, Michel More -esque pretzle logic?

More half-warmed, status quo rehtoric.


He has 0 chance of winning, even with the press spinning as hard as they can, all the Dickead Clarke catharsis trips, and some of the best smear that Hollywood can produce.


Anyone remember Bob Dole?

Bookmarked

According to Gallup, despite the lack of a "bounce", Kerry and the DNC were well received. More people claim to have watched at least some of it than any of the three previous conventions; fully 74% of self-described Democrats, and even 55% of Independents and 46% of Republicans watched at least "some". The numbers for "more likely to vote for him afterwards" are almost identical to those for Bush and Gore in 2000 (44% more, 30% less). 52% of viewers thought Kerry's speech was "Excellent" or "Good", with more Excellent marks than either Bush or Gore's 2000 address. Perhaps most importantly, Independents were evenly split betwen thinking thaat Convention went too far with its partisan attacks or not far enough, with the majority thinking it was about right. All in all, I'd have to agree with all the non-GOP pundits about the conlfuence of factors that created the concrete trampoline; people not liking Kerry or the DNC is not among them.