Centerfield

The surge Dowd speaks of is not unexpected. There's a post-VP pick and convention "bounce" effect in the polls as a result of the massive media exposure. But it's usually a temporary effect.

In 1988 Dukakis got the "bounce," and was leading Bush 41 in the polls 54% to 37%. You know how that turned out. Mondale only managed a 5% bounce against Reagan. Bush 41 had a full 15% bounce against Clinton, then fell like a stone the next month. Clinton rose steadily from the convention for two months before leveling out, then sagged steadily all the way through the election. But Perot had eaten up the populists, so Clinton walked home.

Dole never got a bounce. At all. It was the sure sign he was toast. And Bush 43 bounced up about 6 points and stayed steady.

As I beg people to remember, the only poll that counts is the one we take in November. The numbers are likely to be all over the place between now and the end of September, and they really won't mean much until then.

If the challenger always got a 15% bounce and that bounce stuck, then the challenger would always win, dontcha think?

I read this same passage today, at CNN I think, and it sounded to me like selective quoting that left out part of the story. It felt to me like maybe context had been stripped out that would have more clearly painted such a bounce as more of a momentary blip than as a change that could be expected to be durable. Bush should get a post-convention bounce, too. Especially if Kerry's is big.

I saw the story as more of a "so what" than anything. Of COURSE Kerry should get something of a bounce due to the convention. As Tully suggests, if he doesn't, maybe he's toast. And based on the numbers Tully cites, the quotee may even be trying to raise the bar so that if the bounce is small or the numbers stable, that can be painted as bad news. My sense of the poll numbers is that they have been a lot more stable than what we've seen in the past. This suggests to me that there's a substantial entrenched base for each candidate, probably in the high 30s to low 40's, higher than usual. And that all the variablitity that we have seen thus far and will see going forward is going to come from the few undecideds, who are fewer but more undecided than usual.

I wonder if this is so, but it makes sense to me: the entrenched wings become firmer in their support because serious times reinforce their ingrained biases and make for more fingerpointing at their favorite demons. But the independents in the middle become more undecided because the higher stakes make them even more careful in considering every angle.

Brian, I don't think there's any doubt at all that Dowd's raising the bar. His statement that he was using the "average" bounce figure is sheer bull. He's using the high-end figures from the Bush/Dukakis election, and Clinton's climb from obscurity after the '92 convention. Two reasons to do so: the one you cited--if the bounce is small, the "bad" Kerry numbers can be used for excellent positive press spin for Bush. If the bounce is big (anywhere close to that 15%) he can say it's a predicted temporary spike, which helps keep the base and the donors in line and minimize frenzied media cheerleading for Kerry.

I saw the story as more of a "so what" than anything.

I see it as more clever management of expectations from the Bush camp. Set the bar so low that Bush looks good for exceeding expectations.

The specific stats Tully cites makes it a little clearer. None of the candidates who got a 15% or greater bounce were challengers running against an incumbent. There's no example of a 15% bounce against a sitting president.

There were two cases in Tully's stats of a challenger running against an incumbent, and the bounces were 5% and 0%.

I predict Kerry will never get more than 10% ahead of Bush. If he does, Bush is in deep trouble.

Here is a link to the campaign memo. It says that the average "challenger's bounce" has been 15.4% since 1976.

Hmmmm. But who counts as a "challenger"?

I left out Clinton's challenge against Bush I in my post above. I should have listed that as a third case of a real challenger against an actual sitting president.

My impression of this memo, though, is that he's classifying a "challenger" for each election (presumably the party out of power), which I suspect gives misleading impressions.

Yep, gotta count both Dukakis and Clinton. Dukakis was challenging the VP incumbent (Bush 41). I might dispute the issue of Clinton's rise being a "bounce," as almost no one knew who the hell he was before the convention publicity, and he maintained his numbers after that with only a slight fade, winning thanks to Perot.

By going back to '76, Dowd picks up Carter vs. Ford, which is hardly sportin'. In the summer of '76, Ford was getting slaughtered in the polls.

I admire Gerald Ford. In a very difficult time for the country, he knowingly committed political suicide, throwing himself (and his political career) on the Nixon grenade for the good of the nation. And he still managed to almost get elected (as compared to appointed VP and then succeeding Nixon). He came back from a 33 point deficit (62% to 29%) after the Dem convention to almost pull it off, losing in the electoral college 297 to 240, and by less than 2% in the popular vote.

Yeah, I admire Ford a great deal too. He's just barely on my political consciousness -- the first campaign I clearly remember is the 1976 one. But I've always had the sense that Ford is a very good man.

The Bush campaign has been saying for months that the President would be behind after Kerry's veep pick and the Democratic National Convention. I think fifteen is a bit high and they are simply saying that so they can act surprised when it is only five to seven.

Kerry is toast he didn't get the bump they expected in fact he is already behind in the polls as of today according to the latest AP poll
I believe the poll had Bush at 50% and Kerry at 47%