Rasmussen poll shows few paying attention to conventions
posted at 2:01 pm on August 27, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
The big topic over the next few weeks will be the post-convention bumps for each candidate in the presidential race. Will Mitt Romney win some momentum going into September, or will Barack Obama reverse a months-long slide? Two new polls out today suggest that all sides may need to manage expectations. First, Gallup’s polling history shows that four times out of five, the polling leader before the convention ends up winning the race in the end:
As the 2012 presidential conventions get underway in Tampa, Fla., a Gallup analysis of 15 elections from 1952 to 2008 shows that in all but three instances — 1988, 1992, and 2004 — the candidate leading in the Gallup poll conducted just prior to the first convention (the “pre-convention poll”) has won the November election.
Pre-convention polls are not good predictors of a candidate’s final vote share, but they are useful in terms of simply forecasting which candidate will win the election. Overall, 80% of the pre-convention leaders went on to become president, although that success percentage figure includes the disputed 2000 election, in which George W. Bush was elected without winning the popular vote.
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have been tied or very close in recent Gallup Daily tracking averages. Gallup’s final pre-convention standing of the two candidates will be based on the Aug. 20-26 average and posted Monday afternoon on Gallup.com. If either candidate is ahead in that average, the historical data outlined below suggest that candidate is more likely to be the eventual winner, although close races such as this one suggest more potential for exceptions to that pattern.
Interestingly, this has been true whether the spread has been wide, such as 1996′s 26-point margin for Bill Clinton, or narrow, as it was with Ronald Reagan’s 3-point edge in 1980 over Jimmy Carter — both in the 30s at that time. The 1992 exception probably has two explanations: first, it was a three-way race that Clinton won with just 42% of the popular vote, and the Pat Buchanan speech at the 1992 GOP convention was widely believed to have damaged George H. W. Bush.
In a race this close, though, one might expect to see more impact from the conventions … if they get significant voter attention. Rasmussen’s poll today shows that few expect to watch most of the convention, and fewer independents than anyone else:
Most voters won’t be watching much of the upcoming national political conventions, and over one-third of independent voters plan to tune them out completely.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 11% of Likely Voters plan to watch all of the GOP convention and another 16% who will watch most. A plurality (44%) expects to watch some of it, and 24% more won’t watch any of the GOP convention held in Tampa, Florida. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Similarly, only 13% who intend to watch all of the September 4-6 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. Another 14% who will watch most of it. Thirty-nine percent (39%) will watch just some of the Democratic convention, and 30% plan to ignore it.
Predictably, 90% of Republican and 81% of Democrats intend to watch at least some of their respective party conventions. But just 16% of voters not affiliated with either of the major parties plan to watch most of the GOP convention, and 21% of these voters say the same about the Democratic convention.
Not surprisingly, the younger voters tend to be, the less interested they are in the conventions. Only 12% of seniors plan to watch none of the Republican convention and 22% none of the Democratic bash, either. However, those numbers increase slightly for those between 40-64 (14% and 26%, respectively) and jump way up for those between 18-39 (43% and 37%, respectively). That’s the highest demo for diffidence rate among gender, age, race, or party demos. Furthermore, almost as many voters believe there is too much convention coverage already (35%) than think it about right (40%), and we haven’t even opened either convention yet.
Speaking of gender demos, though, there is one interesting finding. While there is an eight-point gap among men not planning to watch any of the Republican and Democratic conventions in favor of the GOP (25/33 respectively), there is a +4 edge for the GOP among women, too — 23/27. That’s within the MOE, but it shows that the “war on women” rhetoric has not driven women off from interest in the Republican Party and its nominee.
Addendum: USA Today will be featuring a number of Republican voices this week to discuss and analyze the convention. They’re also looking for bloggers to contribute to their forum.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Yes. Now please tell us why you believe she was telling the truth when she said those words. And why you are desperately bending over backwards to give her and O’bama the benefit of the doubt in this matter, when we know you would have never done had this tragedy happened on Bush and Rice’s Watch.
But before doing so, please remember that many folks here on the Right Side of the blogosphere confirmed last fall that when she said those words, youtube’s own records (the view count for the video) showed that hardly anyone had viewed that “evil video” at the time she Lied about it on TV. You are familiar with the mechanics of youtube view counts, aren’t you?
F-
Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM
verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM
You’re a sad figure for typing that comment. If you don’t know it, you can’t be helped.
I told you immediately after it happened what was behind it. Amb. Stevens should have been in the bunker of the main embassy, in Tripoli, that day. It’s the MO of all major embassies, on such days. All else went sour from there and is a huuuuuge cover up, to keep Obama in power.
It’s very sad that you, of all the trolls, are as insane as all the others on this topic.
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM
Paul Mirengoff at Power Line:
Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:36 PM
Media, most of you, suffocate from consuming Obama’s shit. It ain’t Beluga caviar and you all deserve to be depleted of oxygen over such dereliction of duty.
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Why, you are already here. Your histrionics continues to amuse. You aren’t interested in a genuine investigation. You’re a pathetic little hack with your head so far up Obama’s azz it’s comical. Oh, and who is going to lead a genuine investigations? The democrats? The State Dept? The media? ROFLMAO!!!!! Your pathetic attempts to chastise commenters here who want the truth are a laugh riot.
Now phuck off and go back to blowing your Obama doll.
HumpBot Salvation on May 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Petraeus should burn in Hell on Earth, and then some.
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM
verbie you lost your 2% of credibility on this thread. You are now the same as all the others, sadly.
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:38 PM
Obama, McCain and Rubio were fully pushing the Libya invasion.
Obama owns Benghazi.
Hillary owns Benghazi.
Benghazi proved, without a shred of doubt, that Hillary is as dumb at 3:00a.m., when the phone rings, as is Obama.
Obama flew to Vegas to campaing, the next day, after he’d gone to sleep after being told the embassy was on fire.
Some caring characters they are.
Most derelict are the parents of Amb. Stevens. Were they not so leftist they’d have pushed for answers before the election. How derelict are they?
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:41 PM
verbie, you’re needed on the Sheila Jackson Lee thread.
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:44 PM
Yeah sorry no. Based on the various revisions to the “talking points” out there, it’s pretty clear they were edited in a way that made it possible to push the patently false youtube video narrative, i.e. removed all references to AQ, Ansar al-Sharia, weapons and militants in Libya. To say their later statements reflect what they got from the CIA … lol.
rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM
You’re lying, verbaluce.
blink on May 7, 2013 at 5:57 PM
And as I offered back then, a valid point to question why Stevens wasn’t more secure…or provided with more security.
(And thanks…but I’ll leave you to whatever i going on re: Shelia Jackson.)
verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 6:01 PM
Yea…everyone’s lying.
/sarc
verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 6:02 PM
You clearly lied. You falsely claimed that they didn’t knowingly provide false information.
Even the admin itself is now admitting that it knowingly provided false information (while justifying it by saying that they were protecting classified info).
You just decided to blatantly lie.
blink on May 7, 2013 at 6:07 PM
Benghazi Embassy:
The official told story, as of now seems to be falling apart at a fast and ferocious paced. Just thinking about some things that may not mean anything but here goes!
Looking back to the internet posting of 11-13 September 2012, there are literally 10,000′s posting stating in one manner or another that Sam Bacile and his film caused the riots that caused the deaths. Then almost nothing until he is arrested and gets 1 year in federal prison for parole violation. Then nothing after that he seems to completely disappear of the grid. There seems to be some indication that he may be out and under Federal protection but nothing provable.
The internet acts fast BUT 10,000′s postings all pointing to a film, with in 24 hrs, look a lot more like a mass mailing then news and opinion reporting. There is very limited evidence of any sustainability of outrage.
Next thing I fine most interesting is: If all this was outrage caused by the film, then why is the film still available on Youtube and no one in the world cares anymore?
Just all seems a bit strained of ones imagination.
jpcpt03 on May 7, 2013 at 6:23 PM
Nope. Go back and read the thread.
Um, it would bother me if ANY Commander-in-Chief did it. I was and still am bothered about what was said in the lead up to the Iraq War.
Um, it means that he was NOT acting as a Commander-in-Chief should when the first Ambassador in 33 years has gone missing – he wasn’t told until the following morning that Stevens had died even though it was known before then.
Why would any President not be concerned enough to about a missing Ambassador and an attack on the Benghazi consulate? Why would he NOT being in touch with the Secretary of Defence?
And, we deserve the TRUTH about it.
A sitting American President lied to the American public, his fellow citizens, for political reasons about a terrorist attack and, therefore, was actually covering up the real reason behind the attack: Islamists militants and Al Qaeda in a country that he decided to destabilise by acting militarily without the consent of Congress and during an election when his narrative that ‘GM is alive, OBL is dead, and AQ is on the run.’
See Bob Scheiffer and Salon mag, to name two, about that.
Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM
What genuine investigation?
The Mullins-Pickering investigation that failed to interview Hillary Clinton?
The one that would not allow – think how Orwellian that is – Congress access to the survivors and went so far as to change the names of them in their own medical records?
The one that didn’t interview the people on the ground?
The one where the Obama administration said ‘No comment pending the report of the ARB’ and then started squawking that ‘Benghazi happened a long time ago. We need to move on…’?
Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 6:54 PM
Nice attempt at lowering expectations.
J/K Verbie, that was actually a pathetic attempt.
JusDreamin on May 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM
ted c on May 7, 2013 at 7:17 PM
I have known a number of federal agents. Up to a point, most feds just do as they are told and they have good days and bad and weak sisters (excuse the sexism) in different jobs.
As indicated above, the entire video and spontaneous protest meme was absurd from the start. So the obvious question is who was selling it or ordering people to include it in the narrative?
It certainly lived long enough. It was publicly cited by the two Dem POTUS candidates in statements. Money was spent on TV ads in Pakistan.
Repeat, slowly…“money was spent on TV ads in Pakistan”.
LOL
And these people control nuclear weapons and a billion rounds of ammo in DHS!
IlikedAUH2O on May 7, 2013 at 7:20 PM
So I see not Bret hair, or bill o idiot is talking about the whistleblowers.mwell there you have it. No big deal mova along
Conservative4ev on May 7, 2013 at 8:04 PM
Pretty sure the sign on Obama’s desk reads, “The Buck Stops …. uhhhh, in the Bush Administration.”
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 8, 2013 at 12:23 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3