What Reagan Bounce?

[Mattforclark]

Reagan died on June 5th. His death may have influenced poll results on June 5th, or they may not have (depending on when polling was conducted, and when people learned of Reagan's death), so June 6th would have been the first full day of polling.

Here are the Rasmussen tracking poll numbers for the past few days.

Date Bush Kerry
Today 45 45
Jun 6 46 45
Jun 5 45 45
Jun 4 44 45
Jun 3 44 44
Jun 2 44 45
Jun 1 46 44
May 31 45 44
May 30 46 43
May 29 45 45

In the first day of polling after Reagan dies, Bush goes DOWN a point. So where's the bounce? Is it there, just not captured by the poll yet? Or is there no bounce (or maybe even a dive)? Let's hope it's the latter. In any case, it doesn't seem like Reagan's death is massively driving up his polling numbers, on first examination.

-EDIT-

Look also at job approval ratings. Approval down, disapproval up.

Date Approve Disapprove
Today 51 48
June 6 52 47
June 5 52 47
June 4 51 49
June 3 51 49
June 2 50 50
June 1 52 48

[wryter2000]

1. Might be too early to tell

We'll see. But whatever bounce he gets, it won't last long.

[TexasSissy]

19. Yes. We should know by next week.

[ugarte]

2. 93 year-olds can't bounce

much less dead ones.

[rasputin1952]

4. I didn't like Reagan...

but I downright despise bush, there will be no "bounce". As lousy as Reagan was, and what he did to the poor of this nation, pales as to what this inhuman piece of trash is doing.

As for 93 yo's bouncing.....a visual I could do w/o, sort of like being at a Gallagher show....x(

[Spoon]

3. Rasmussen's daily poll uses the previous three days.

But any bounce should have started showing by now.

--The national telephone survey of 1,500 Likely voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports over the past three nights. Margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence--

[Nicholas_J]

5. Actually

Conservatives are making comparisons between Bush and Reagan and many conservatives are finding Bush quite wanting, so it does not appear that Bush will get much of a bounce, if any from Reagans demise.

On C-Span today, most of the callers calling in were bringing up many questions abgout Reagan which indicate that many Americans do not view Reagan with the Limbaugh like affection that much of the media is trying to extend to him.

[lanparty]

7. Agreed ...

Watch for Fox to pull the Reagan love fest early when they realize it is making Bush look like a petty, mean, tyrannical ASSHOLE when compared to Reagan.

[louis-t]

8. It's those comparisons that could

actually make * numbers go down. Didn't much like Reagan, but I'd take him any day over the current salamander-in-chief.

[David__77]

10. I wouldn't take Reagan over Bush.

Bush is a bumbling incompetent. I do not want someone of Reagan's competence carrying out such a reactionary, vile agenda. Bush's rise, interestingly, has been a boon to the left in many regards. We will reap the rewards in the coming years. It was so with hamhanded McCarthyism as well. I hope that the right never produces another like Reagan. THERE--that's my tribute to Reagan! It's a compliment of sorts, you must say...

[Nicholas_J]

16. Reagan was even worse than Bush was

When it came to the effects of his so called tax cuts.

One can make the claim that there was no middle class tax cut under Bush, but this can only be said to have occurred because of the increased taxes at the state and local leve that resulted from the cuts in funding to the states. In fact, about 56 percent of the tax cut money went to the lower 98 percent of income earners under the Bush plan, but the loss came in paying more out to the states adn localities.

Under Reagan, his convoluted and so called tax cuts actually raised taxes on the bottom 98 percent of income earners. Someone making 18,000-20,000 dollars a year, single, no children, no mortgage, go about 100-200 dollars back the year prior to Reagans income tax cuts going into effect. The years they went into effect, the same person eaning the same amount noted above, actually had to write a check to the IRS to the tune of 240 dollars. The Reagan tax cuts gave over 90 percent of the money to the top 2 percent of wage earners. On top of this, the idea that these people would invest the money that they saved in taxes on things like upgrading plant equipment and hiring new peopl never occurred. 95 percent of the money that businessews and individuals saved on taxes were not used to re-invest in businesses. Well let me correct that. 95 percent of the money was used to give the executives large bonuses, and to purchase perquisites for those executives, like golf courses, condos for them to hold working vacations in, increased stock options and so on, as Reagan also changed the tax codes to such a degree that there were no limits on executive remuneration. SO if it came to downsizing your business, working your FLSA 80 hour a week becaue they are not eleigible for overtime, not hiring new employees, and giving yourself a large bonus for figureing out how to utilize the new tax codes, and buying yourself 6,000 dollar shower curtains, this was as viable a way of reducing the corporations tax burdens as purchasing health insurance for your employees, or hiring more employees as your existing staff started to collapse due to lack of sleep. I bet you all remember the yuppie stories of middle managers working 80 to 100 hours a weeks beleiving that this is just what someone going up the corporate ladder does. Well it was Reaganomics 101 that caused this.

The end result wa finally the Enron, World COm and other Scandals that resulted from Reagan's most nightmarish deregulation. That of the Securitues industry. Anything that the executives could get away with was approve, and in fact, applauded.


Bush is simply the obvious outcome of Reaganomics.

[Indiana_Dem]

13. Well, thank God for that! n/t

[David__77]

6. There will probably be a modest "bounce."

This will mainly be because of a fantasy-land reprieve from the grim realities of Bush America. But reality will quickly sink back in. And Bush is no Reagan anyway. Reagan, on his better days, actually entertained visions of at least economic progress. Bush has no vision whatsoever, other than the accrual of naked power.

[Downtown Hound]

9. Here! Here!

Although Rasmussen is easily the most bogus poll out there, I don't see many people deciding to vote for Bush based on Reagan's death.

[cestmoi]

11. There might be a bounce but Michael Moore will make a bigger

bounce which will send the Reagan bounce into the ashcan. Farenheit 911 will open on the heels of this current b.s. When the smoke clears any Reagan bounce will be history.

[David__77]

12. Excellent point!

I am hopeful that there are many political weapons in store that can address any contingency.

[PVnRT]

14. There will be no bounce

especially if (when) Bush starts trying to paint himself as the natural successor to Reagan's conservatism. I imagine that if the starts trumpeting that, we'll see lots of Republicans be pushed over and vote Kerry or Libertarian, or stay home - at any rate, any one of those three options does nothing but help us.

[salonghorn70]

15. The Rasmussen Tracking Poll

Since it is a tracking poll, it is an average of the results for the three previous days. Consequently, the results presented on Monday would have been an average of the polling results obtained on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Since the polling is done at night, it would seem that about 2/3 of Monday's results was based on polling after Reagan's death.

[liberalnurse]

17. Reagan's death evokes the obvious

relentless recap of his Presidency. It's good for us democrats in the light of all this glitter, a shadow of weakness emerges, targeting what a lousy job this republican pResident is doing.......what a control freak-lier he is and one who does not love Americans.

[Mattforclark]

18. June 8th - still no Reagan Bounce

45/45 again today.