Death knell for Bush "bounce"

[diplomats]

From http://www.emergencydemocraticmajority.com

Last week, DR commented skeptically on reports that Bush’s popularity was enjoying a bounce or rally. Those reports didn’t seem justified when one looked across the range of data available at the time–not just the one poll (Gallup) that did show Bush’s approval rating going up.
This week, additional data have come in that suggest the Bush bounce may have been no more than a blip in Gallup’s data. Zogby released a poll on October 20 that had Bush’s job performance rating at 49 percent positive/51 percent negative, down from 50 percent positive/49 percent negative on September 22-24.
The Winston Group, a Republican polling firm, released a poll for the Senate GOP conference, also on October 20, that had Bush’s job approval rating at 50 percent, down from 51 percent in their previous survey.

(I know this was before the CBS poll, but I think the Winston Group poll is interesting. BTW, that CBS poll is extremely odd: They have the generic race going from 44-44 (consistent with practically every other poll) to 46 Bush, 34 Dem in one month. Nothing has happened in the past month to justify going from a tie to a 12-point lead for Bush. Nothing.)

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajority.com

[elperromagico]

1. The best "strategery"

is just to give the polls as pass. They won't start to reveal anything significant until the spring. The Dem field has to narrow first. By the spring, that will be happening, and the polls will start to reveal trends.

[jeter]

2. we mustn't be too fixated by polls

The general trend is downward. Nothing has changes. Gallup is notorious for putting out polls that are pro-Bush. Even the CBS poll is within the margin of their last poll. Nothing has changed.

Something else to consider.

George H. W. Bush had a 65% approval rating at this same time (1991) in the 1992 election cycle. His numbers continued to fall until they hit 28% in the fall of 1992.

These polls mean nothing.

Clinton trailed Bush until the Democratic convention when he got a 26% bounce.

He was actually in third place - behind Bush Sr. and Perot - in the Spring of 1992. Only months before the general election. There was talk of the Democratic Party being destroyed in the general election.

The consensus in 1991-1992 was that Clinton "could not win." The media pundits ALL SAID that Clinton didn't stand a chance.

He won. Convincingly. Had it not been for Perot, he would have won by 12% (according to non-partisan research group, mentioned in George Stephanopolis' book). Instead he won by 6%.

These polls mean nothing.

There was one poll by CBS that I found interesting. 32% said they would definitely vote for Bush. 27% said they would definitely vote for the Democrat. And 41% said they wanted to hear more before making up their minds. That says a lot.

[elperromagico]

3. Agreed

There was one poll by CBS that I found interesting. 32% said they would definitely vote for bush. 27% said they would definitely vote for the Democrat. And 41% said they wanted to hear more before making up their minds. That says a lot.

It certainly does. If bush still hasn't convinced these people after three years of "strong leadership," you've got to wonder.

People expect the Dem candidates to just jump right out of the gate and automatically pick up a lead. They're not well-known; give them time. Carter wasn't well-known in '75. Clinton wasn't well-known in '91. bush wasn't very well known in '99.

Patience can pay off, and I think it will here.

[mlawson]

5. 41% need to hear MORE?????

JHC, where have these people been for two and a half years??? What more do they need, to make up their "minds"???? Whether the Democrat would fit right in at the local barbershop????

I suspect (hope) that they are a part of the 50% who do not vote...

[Woodstock]

4. kick

:kick: