There’s been a bit of hubbub this week over the”Bush Bounce” — the supposed post-conventionpolling bump for President George W. Bush.
As they say in Texas, two steers and a Mexican fugitivedon’t explain an Austin jackolope. Just as usual sayings fromTexas don’t make any sense — neither does thisbounce.
A recent Newsweek poll had Bush 11 points ahead of Kerry.
This made me scratch my head in disbelief.
I admit I argued before the convention against the prospect of asubstantial bounce (if any at all) on the grounds that thiselection was hotly divisive and partisan and that undecided voters— many of whom traditionally make their final choice Nov. 2— comprised only a small percentage of the electorate.
How could this supposed bounce be?
Am I really expected to believe seven to 10 points worth of theelectorate has shifted to Bush?
Considering the closeness of the race before the Republicanconvention, I found the Newsweek poll — and others includingthe trusted Gallup poll — hard to swallow.
It seems I was right, and Kerry supporters need not despair.
As pollster John Zogby —whose polling organization hascome closer to predicting the last two presidential elections thanany other — has pointed out, not all pollsters methodologiesare the same.
Consider this.
In the 1996 and 2000 elections, 39 percent ofpresidential-election voters were Democrats, while 34-35 percentwere Republicans.
But the Newsweek poll sample included an astonishing 39 percentRepublicans and 31 percent Democrats.
It’s pretty unlikely Republicans have gained 8 percent ofthe electorate since 2000.
The results of polls such as Newsweek with such wide margins ofdifference between Kerry and Bush are dubious.
Rasmussen Reports, a tracking poll conducted daily at noon, hashad Bush and Kerry within four points of each other consistentlysince May.
Yesterday the poll had them tied at 47.3 percent each.
Not that this is bad news for Bush.
If he didn’t get an actual “bounce,” he didreset the election to its point prior to the Democratic conventionwhile simultaneously securing the race’s momentum.
On the other hand Kerry has weathered the storm remarkably wellconsidering the constant barrage of insidious attacks during Auguston his military service, his halting of advertising and a solidweek of Republican convention propagandizing.
After all, Zogby’s new poll — which uses a samplewith a party percentage parallel to the 2000 election — hasKerry winning 264 electoral votes to Bush’s 231 (Nevada,Florida and Missouri were too close to call).
Then again, Bush has made headway in New Jersey, Minnesota andMichigan, while all but securing Ohio.
Hell, don’t ask me.
I still don’t understand how people can bring themselvesto vote for a president who sent us into a war where we can’teven kill people.
When we were fighting the Germans in Monte Cassino, did we sayItalians would be offended that we blew up their monastery/weaponscache?
No. We blew it up.
When the Romans invaded Jerusalem, did they worry about theIsraelites’ feelings?
No. They burned David’s temple to the ground.
It seems very simple, but in the past we fought wars to win, notto play footsie. If you’re not willing to do what it takes towin, you don’t go to war.
Otherwise, it’s like a 50th wedding anniversary withoutViagra.
A real S.O.B. once said “War is hell” as heplundered his way through Georgia.
And you know what? He was right.
I just hope that if Bush gets re-elected he and hisfreewheeling, trigger-happy friends learn the lesson.