Bush 2 Point Bounce - Smallest for Incumbent In History of Gallup Polling

This has to be the mantra for the next week. Kerry surrogates should be repeating it OVER AND OVER again until they're blue in the face whenever a reporter asks them about polls.

Bush Bounce Smallest In History

The smallest bounce since Reagan?

Don't think that will play well.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No troll me.

Does 20 years mean since Carter (great spin) or since Reagan, - and I suggest that if it's Reagan, telling people Bush got a similar bounce to a guy who won 49 states isn't great PR for the Kerry Campaign.

But I ain't a professional.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Now, on what basis do you accuse ME of being a troll and not the guy who made the same point below?

There have been four incumbents in the last twenty years:

Reagan - 1984
Bush 41 - 1992
Clinton - 1996
Bush 43 - 2004

Of those four, Bush 43 has gotten the smallest bounce from his convention. I really thought that was pretty straightforward.

Don't believe the republican convention changed any polling. Bush got no bounce at all, as I see it. It's just as probable that the sickening, republican slime tactics have backfired. Our veterans are some of our best lie detectors. They see through the swift-boat veterans' dishonorable partisan attacks, and will vote for the more honorable candidate. Kerry is fit to command.

Kerry will win more of the popular vote than Gore did in 2000. Republicans across the nation have already decided, for good reason to vote for Kerry. Few Gore democrats are now voting for Bush; fewer admitting it publicly.

These poll results are manipulated, distorted. Don't believe them. Don't pretend they're realistic.

Because that is not too comforting. If you recall, Reagan won 49 states.

He was already out polling Mondale like crazy.

remember what happened there?

And in my view, this election most closely resembles that one. You have an incumbent who the voters are not cozy with on the issues but seeks to stem a tide of swelling bad news and flailing sentiment on the one side and a challenger who is more favored on the key issues of the day, only needing to establish greater "personal credibility" in the electorate on the other.

Only difference is the in-party / out-party.

Big difference! bush needed a BIG bounce, Reagan didn't.

nt

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

to the campaign. Seriously, I think they're listening.

making people think Bush got a big bounce, but then everybody had second thoughts.

Sorry but the way Gallup does likely voters is bogus. Likely voters only work right before the election.

Whether it be the one point among registered voters or the seven point among likelys, all icumbents have had much bigger leads. This is new territory.

From Gallup

The Bush Bounce in Historical Context

Bush's two-point convention bounce is one of the smallest registered in Gallup polling history, along with Hubert Humphrey's two-point bounce following the 1968 Democratic convention, George McGovern's zero-point bounce following the 1972 Democratic convention, and Kerry's "negative bounce" of one point among registered voters earlier this year. Bush's bounce is the smallest an incumbent president has received.

BUSH'S BOUNCE IS THE SMALLEST AN INCUMBENT HAS RECEIVED