It's time to expose the myth behind the post-convention bounce

[dolstein]

There's been a lot of murmuring in the press about how small Kerry's post-convention bounce has been. But this really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, nor should it be viewed as a bad omen for the Kerry campaign.

The fact is, the post-convention bounce has traditionally reflected a consolidation of support in the party base. But the Democratic base was already incredibly unified going into the convention. The post-convention polls show that the Democratic base is more enthusiastic than it was before the convention and has a more favorable view of their party's nominee, but this isn't going to be reflected in the overall poll numbers, because there were all people who were supporting Kerry before the convention.

Sometimes a vice-presidential choice can result in a post-convention bounce. But because Kerry chose his VP well in advance of the convention, that bounce would already have been reflected in his pre-convention numbers.

Sometimes a convention can sway previously uncommitted voters. But this year, there are few very uncommitted voters, much fewer than in previous years. And the few that remain are those who are paying the least amount of attention to the campaign. So there's no reason to believe that these people are in any real hurry to make up their minds.

Besides, most of the expectations regarding the post-convention bounce appear to be drive by Clinton's huge bounce in 1992. But that was a very different situation. Clinton's support was at a historic low going into the convention, and then Perot dropped out of the raise. So naturally there was a sudden and sharp increase in Clinton's support.

[RodneyCK2]

1. Is this your opinion or from an article?

Just wondering about the source. Regardless, I agree with it.

[dolstein]

5. The source is me

While it's my "opinion," it is informed by facts.

[afraid_of_the_dark]

2. I still think the "negative bounce" is a reflection more of....

The amount of negative press after EACH and EVERY speech at the convention! It seemed like every news organization had their most conservative reporters covering the convention, bashing everyone who took the podium. So even if the numbers may reflect a more polarized voting body this year in comparison to previous years, I still think that all of the negative conservative-skewed press coverage at the convention telling those watching about how awful <fill-in-the-blank>'s speech was may have an effect on those voters still sitting on the fence.

I had to use that "negative bounce" term coined by Bush's campaign... like a 2 percent change in Bush's poll numbers (when the margin of error is 3 percentage points) actually means something. :wtf:

[Robroy]

3. Well then...

What kind of bounce will Bush & Cheney get coming out of their convention? If it is a bigger bounce (as we know the media will assert) then will that mean the tide is turning in their favor? Just curious.

[dolstein]

7. I wouldn't expect much of a bounce for Bush & Cheney

There aren't many Republicans left who aren't already solidly behind the ticket. And it's highly unlikely that Bush is going to be able to peel away many Democrats. So that leaves the independents, and most of them have already made up their minds too.

And bear in mind that most of the undecideds aren't going to be paying that much attention to the convention. So the ability of the convention to sway a lot of voters is very limited.

If there's more than a six point swing in Bush/Cheney's direction, then we could be in trouble. But I think the most likely scenario is that after the convention, Kerry and Bush will be statistically tied. Levels of support for the candidates have been very stable over time, and I wouldn't expect the Republican convention to make that much of a difference.

[andym]

4. Here's some actual data

                                                         Net
change
2000 Rep. Bounce 	Bush +6 	 Gore -5	 Bush +11
2000 Dem. Bounce 	Gore +10 	Bush -9	         Gore +19
  	  	 	 
1996 Rep. Bounce 	Dole +8 	Clinton -7	Dole +15
1996 Dem. Bounce 	Clinton +4 	Dole -1	        Clinton +5
  	  	 	 
1992 Dem. Bounce 	Clinton +14 	Bush -16	Clinton +30
1992 Rep. Bounce 	Bush +6 	Clinton -10	Bush +16
  	  	 	 
1988 Dem. Bounce 	Dukakis +7 	Bush -4	        Dukakis +11
1988 Rep. Bounce 	Bush +6 	Dukakis -5	Bush +11
  	  	 	 
1984 Dem. Bounce 	Mondale +9 	Reagan -7	Mondale +16
1984 Rep. Bounce 	Reagan +4 	Mondale -4	Reagan +8
  	  	 	 
1980 Rep. Bounce 	Reagan +8 	Carter -5	Reagan +13
1980 Dem. Bounce 	Carter +10 	Reagan -7	Carter +17
  	  	 	 
1976 Dem. Bounce 	Carter +9 	Ford -7	        Carter +16
1976 Rep. Bounce 	Ford +4 	Carter -3	Ford +7
  	  	 	 
1972 Dem. Bounce 	McGovern 0 	Nixon +3	McGovern -3
1972 Rep. Bounce 	Nixon +7 	McGovern -1	Nixon +8
  	  	 	 
1968 Rep. Bounce 	Nixon +5 	Humphrey -9	Nixon +14
1968 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 are
by Gallup. Earlier polls weren't done frequently enough to
track the convention bounce reliably. 


Almost no bounce for Clinton in 96, Humphrey in 68, and
McGovern deflated in 72.  However, the general rule is a
bounce: look how much Gore got!


source:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/dnc_convention_bounce_040725.html

[dolstein]

6. Sure, that's data, but is it the RIGHT data?

What I'm saying is that looking at the bounce without looking at (1) the nominees's support in the polls generally and support among voters from his own party specifically and (2) how many voters were undecided going into the convention really doesn't tell you the whole story. It wouldn't surprise me if one of the reasons why Clinton's bounce was so small in 1996 is because the Democrats were already solidly behind him, and because most independents had already made up their minds.

In short, the general rule doesn't mean squat if the specific circumstances of the election render that rule inapplicable. I'd say that's very much the case in this election, where at least 90% of the electorate have already made up their minds.