bounces

Every now and then I have a "Panasonic moment"---similar to their slogan that they were "slightly ahead of our time"

That feeling came again when I read PowerLine's Paul Mirengoff opine as follows: 

Bounce Wars

My column in the Sunday Examiner takes a look at the upcoming conventions. I've thought for some time that Barack Obama will receive a considerable bounce from the Democratic convention and that John McCain will receive a smaller one. Now I'm not so sure.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/08/021268.php

So, I copy verbatim (aside from some fixed typos) an e-mail I sent to various people on April 12, 2008  entitled "Bounces are so 20th Century"

Chuck Todd is a very bright guy who knows the past. So he is selling the idea of Obama getting a huge bounce from a Democratic convention.

 

I'm not seeing it. 

 

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/11/215744/027

 

Bounces were the result of independents and soft partisans finally tuning into the political process in late summer. As a result, the party holding a convention would get a sudden influx of support, much of which it was bound to pick up eventually anyway.

 

This year, however, the average voter has tuned into politics far earlier than in the past A July 2007 USA Today story pointed out that even 20 months out from the election, voters were starting to tune into the presidential race http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070307/a_poll07.art.htm With the long march of the Democrats to the nomination there has not been a respite in political news, and the attributes of the candidates has been discussed continuously 

 

Even in 2004, while it appeared Bush got only a slight bounce out of the NYC convention, it quickly resolved itself to a narrow--but reliable-- Bush lead. In that year it was apparent that the electorate was polarized, and anti-war or pro-life voters unlikely to consider the alternatives.  While the field may be more "open" this year it is offset by the early start. 

 

http://pollingreport2.com/wh2004a.htm#2way (I still believe Bush could have managed the 8 point win he had in the 10/16 CNN poll if he had not botched debate #1, but)

 

There was a clear bounce for Gore in 2000 http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2genT.htm but let's ask why

a) he had been off the campaign trail for months

b) He had been in Clinton's shadow

 

I would say in that era of peace and prossperity there was less attention paid to politics, and the sense of "Clinton fatigue" certainly caused the low information voter to arrive late to the game.

 

Same for the previous elections (without the Clinton fatigue). There were long gaps in the election calendar and even Bob Dole was a relative unknown to much of the nation compared to the incumbent president. I would say Barack Obama right now is a better known person to the average voter than Dole was in 1996 even being Senate Majority Leader

 

So we have a more polarized electorate that in the past, and fewer low information voters late in the process. What else has changed--technology. The Internet, blogs, 24/7 cable TV and YouTube now make the stage managing of a national convention far less relevant that the massive unfiltered amount of raw information available to the consumer before and after the convention. It's like comparing the Sun to CO2 for the earth's temperature

 

Finally, there's is serious bad blood in Dem ranks and while I recall Carter getting some bounce out of overcoming Teddy Kennedy. many of Teddy's "industrial Democrat" supporters were quick to jump ship once Reagan appeared rational and reasonable   

 

My money is on Obama being no more than 6 points up on Mac leaving Denver. That will be the best day of his campaign.

 

Four months have passed and virtually every expectation I had then has come to pass. But  now it's starting to become conventional wisdom