CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Sept. 13, 2008 – 3:56 p.m.
History Shows Post-Convention ‘Bounces’ Can Go Fair — or Foul
By Ron Faucheux, CQ Guest Analyst
There have been a lot of questions about the long-term implications of the “bounce” Republican presidential nominee John McCain enjoyed in the wake of the GOP’s national convention — one that erased the gains Democratic opponent Barack Obama had made with his convention a week earlier and, in some polls, have shown McCain with a small lead with just less than two months to go before the Nov. 4 election.
But an analysis of the trajectory of past post-convention bounces reveals that it’s risky to make presumptions based on the current polling numbers. The five examples laid out here, using Gallup Poll data for consistency, present a decidedly mixed bag, with the bounce beneficiaries maintaining momentum in some cases, and the bounces going flat in others.
1960: Obama supporters will like this one. Democrat John F. Kennedy had a poll lead over Republican Richard M. Nixon by 4 percentage points going into the parties’ conventions. The first poll after both conventions showed Nixon, then the incumbent vice president, ahead of Massachusetts Sen. Kennedy by 6 points, indicating a meaningful bounce in an otherwise tight contest. But Nixon’s post-convention lead dissipated to 1 point by the time of their first, historic televised debate. Kennedy walked out of that face-off with a 3-point lead. JFK held a lead in polls over Nixon throughout the rest of the campaign, though that small edge narrowed even further and he ended up winning by a margin of less than 1 percentage point in the popular vote.
2000: Though it would be hard to find any Democratic diehard who would have anything good to say about Republican George W. Bush ’s come-from-behind win over Democrat Al Gore in 2000, those seeking signs of hope for Obama can take comfort in the fact that it was Gore, then the incumbent vice president, who enjoyed the big post-convention bounce that year — but saw it dissipate by Election Day. Bush, then governor of Texas, had soared ahead by a sizable 16-point margin in the wake of his convention. But Gore, seeking to succeed President Bill Clinton and “batting last” as is the tradition for the party holding the White House, wiped out Bush’s lead and tied the race in the first post-Democratic convention poll. Gore continued building on his post-convention momentum, topping out with a 10-point lead over Bush a month later, and he was still up by 8 points going into his series of three debates. When the debates were over, however, Bush had turned the race around, posting an 11-point lead. One final big pendulum swing enabled Gore to surge back, setting up the contest’s famous photo finish in favor of Bush.
1988: McCain supporters will like this one from the 1988 race to succeed Republican President Ronald Reagan. Democratic nominee Michael S. Dukakis, then the governor of Massachusetts, was leading Republican George H.W. Bush, the vice president, by between 7 and 17 points going into the Republican convention. Bush turned the tables, using the convention to re-frame the race on terms favorable to him — including his “read my lips, no new taxes” acceptance speech — and came out ahead by 4 points. Bush maintained his convention bounce and a couple of weeks later expanded his lead to 8 points, almost exactly the margin by which he would end up winning in November.
1976: Democrat Jimmy Carter, the former governor of Georgia, benefitted from a huge initial advantage as Republicans reeled from the aftermath of the Watergate scandal that had forced President Richard M. Nixon to resign in August 1974. Carter went into his convention with a gaping 17-point lead over Republican incumbent Gerald R. Ford, who had moved up from vice president to succeed Nixon — and came out of the convention with an amazing 33-point advantage. Ford, however, nearly pulled off one of the most remarkable comebacks in presidential election history, effectively using his convention to chop Carter’s lead down to 15 points, and then pulling to within a 2-point losing margin on Election Day.
1992: It is harder to make an apples-to-apples comparison between the 1992 race and most other contests because of billionaire Ross Perot’s initial emergence as a significant independent opponent to Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush and Democrat Clinton — and Perot’s temporary withdrawal from the race as the Democratic convention was about to start. Just for the record: Before the Democratic convention, Bush was running ahead of Clinton by 8 points. After the Democratic convention, Bill Clinton had a hefty 22-point lead. Much of the credit for that big movement went to his popular choice of Gore, a senator from Tennessee, for vice president, which created the first major-party “baby boomer” ticket, and Perot’s abrupt withdrawal, which left Clinton the only “change” candidate in a year in which Bush’s administration had grown unpopular. Clinton’s lead dissipated to 19 points by the time of the Republican convention, which in turn helped Bush whittle the lead down to 10 points. Despite a brief uptick to 15 points a week and a half later, Clinton had to fight off a late Bush push even as Perot re-entered the race that October. Clinton held on to win by a nearly 6-point margin.
Ron Faucheux is president of Clarus Research Group, a nonpartisan public affairs polling and research company based in Washington, D.C. He teaches at the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University.
Comments
The only problem with your math is that you have not analyzed your data properly. A more objective analyst would notice that the REAL trend is that the Democrat historically loses support after the conventions. BO had a small lead going into the convention, got a small bounce, and is trending downward. Kennedy had a small lead going into the election, got a small bounce, and trended downward. Carter went into the primary with a large lead, got a bounce and trended downward. Dukakis went into the convention with a big lead and trended downward. That's WHAT the data says. Why does this happen? Democrats are a party of people with one thing in common -- they are not Republicans. Every Democrat campaign begins with an assault on some Republican and ends with the realization by many Democrats that they have more in common with the Republican candidate. Naturally this begins with the conventions where the parties present their final candidates and platform. As word gets our and polls come in, the downward trend accelerates. This, BTW, is exactly why the GENERIC ballot polls are always so far off. Democrats sound good from a distance, but It's hard to like a Democrat once you get to know him...or her.
Mccain is surging because the american people are paying attention, they don't like what they see in obama and the democrats, and the pathetic fringe left wing press. The democrat party has become nothing but the countrys largest hate group, and trash media outlets with dwindling circulations and veiwers, are there mouth piece.
"Democrats sound good from a distance, but It's hard to like a Democrat once you get to know him...or her" That's not a nice thing to say of your fellow Americans. Are you trying to alienate the other half?
Because John McCain is SO likable.... And Sarah Palin? A second-place beauty queen more interested in vanity. Who else appoints her high-school band mates to run Alaska?
Very insightful analysis Len. Flawless logic. Unfortunately you are so self consumed that you don't open your eyes to an objective view. You think your experience and feelings is law, and don't realize it's a subjective view. Ron presents the data simply to say that a bounce may not be of high significance. Ron didn't get into the why's. That would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. To generalize this data into your theory is plain logical blasphemy. So please, do me a favor, get some schooling, develop a more objective mentality to others around you, and then try to comment on political matters.
Hello Ken Mullen: You've said... "Why does this happen? Democrats are a party of people with one thing in common -- they are not Republicans. Every Democrat campaign begins with an assault on some Republican and ends with the realization by many Democrats that they have more in common with the Republican candidate." And where art thou is your data of which you speak to support your silly notion? ~JQP~
Len Mullen's you are simplifying this data far too much. Especially because what happens isn't that the Democrats lose support, but it appears that the republicans gain some support, probably because republicans don't ever watch anything dealing with politics or the news until the convention and then actually start answer their old rotary dial phones. In any case its hard to like a republican once you get to know them [look at how much the country likes Bush now], though they might sound good when they are lying on stage.
I have to agree with you Len. Democrats have a REAL tendency to start strong and finish weak, wereas Republicans usually hold onto the gains they have made. With that said, I believe you have to look at what is in front of us now: Obama vs McCain and Palin... notice how im not even including Biden, since he lacks charisma and initiative, he is a total non-factor. I believe that the the 1-2 punch of McCain-Palin will prove too much for the statesman from Illinois. Its too bad Obama didn't pick Hillary, surely Obama is dreading his awful miscalculation now.
Len Mullen, you appear to be terribly narrow-minded. Your comments suggest that all Democrats and all Replicans are the same. Nice black and white little world you live in. I have Democrat friends and Republican friends, and I value them for different things. If anything destroys this great country, it will be the us vs. them BS that you are subscribing to. Try pulling your head out and taking a look at the real world.
Jon, Democrats are not the other half -- any more than Republicans are the first half. This country is mostly unaffiliated or loosely affiliated. The Republicans and Democrats are the 20% or so at each edge of the political spectrum who articulate the ideologies that the rest of us vote for...or against. Before you took my words out of context, it was clear I was referring to candidates. The success of this ticket is not about McCain and only a little bit about Sarah. People are deciding class warfare, partial birth abortion, Reverend Wright, appeasement, Ayers, and all of BO's other baggage are not their cup of tea. Getting back to the subject of this thread, the Left is trying to convince everyone that the Surge is a normal consequence of the conventions. I disagree. An objective look at modern data (starting with Kennedy is OK by me), tells a different story. What happens is that Democrat support fades late in the campaign season -- even when they end up winning, it is because they survived the fade. My hypothesis as to why this happens is just that, but that it happens is FACT.
Len, you need to reread the article. Both Nixon and Bush the First got bounces that faded. A better lesson, I think, is that the bigger the bounce, the less likely it is to last. Almost every election gets closer as Election Day approaches.
Len, you are right. Democrats aren't a half, and neither are Republicans. But they're not 20% and they're not equal. In 2004 Democrats comprised 43% of registered voters (i.e. people who requested Democratic ballots) and Republicans 33%. 24% of voters are unaffiliated or in a third party, and most are libertarians and greens, hence somewhat affiliated, at least with a philosophy. The Democratic Party also has grown in membership since 2004. Now..on to my thoughts here..why elect McCain? Anybody with half a head can plainly see that there will be large Democratic gains in Congress. Heck, Republicans are hoping to keep their Senate losses at six seats, hopefully no more. If you elect McCain, nobody's policies get through. We will have a do-nothing Congress and a do-nothing President at a time when we need to be doing something. P.S. Obama has just as much baggage as Abraham Lincoln did, and more exp.
"People are deciding class warfare, partial birth abortion, Reverend Wright, appeasement, Ayers, and all of BO's other baggage are not their cup of tea." -- This is why hillbillies shouldn't have internet access.
Sad how republicans seem to avoid any meaningful look at the candidates involved, and rail and vote against some straw man democrat they have made up in their heads. McCain has openly lied in his ads, and seriously distorted Palins short yet inept record. She raised businees taxes, hired cronies, and left behind debt (reform Bush would approve of). As for the freakish determination of conservatives to tie Obama to crimes committed by Ayers when Obama was a child - what about Palins husband, who belonged to a political party that damned America and openly discussed armed rebellion against the US? She appeared at their meetings so often that they thought she was a member, and that was this decade! McCain should have been president in 2000, but since then he seems to have become a man without honesty or honor. I mean, thanks for posting the unsubstantiated and often irrelevant rumors about Obama, but I think I will vote for him over the very easy to substantiate lies made by McCain.
This is no convention bounce. It is a consistent disasterous long-term Obama drop, On August 1 he was 118 electoral votes ahead. Now he is 2 behind. The next Washington and Minnesota polls should leave him 44 behind.
Let's reconvene in November. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. As pathetic as the GOP has been these last eight years, they look brilliant next to the Donkeys. Pelosi, Obama, Carter, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy. Must be some kind of pathology.
Obama will leave McCain in the dust after the polls. The Palin bounce is starting to fade the more her true record in Alaska becomes public knowledge. Moreover, in the end voters have to look at the match up between Mccain and Obama, not their respective surrogates. When even Karl Rove says that the Mccain campaign is lying about Obama's record, you can realize the desperate tactics are an acknowledgement that the republican campaign is much about nothing when it comes to issues. It's then no wonder they are trying to put up their best smoke screen in an effort to divert this campaign into a contest of personalities rather than issues!
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: