I have been writing about bounces since 2008 at openleft. I wrote the following at bleeding heartland last monday
here.
The average bounce since 1996 is 6.2 points. You will see different numbers, though if you read the piece you will see some of those fail to really understand the entire process.
Essentially convention bounces are the product of two events: the VP selection and the Acceptance Speech. That makes calculating this bounce complicated as Clinton named Kaine in the same time frame as the post GOP Convention.
The best was to get a sense of the bounce is to compare the same poll pre and post convention. So here goes:
CBS, 7/22-24, Trump 44, Clinton 43, Prior poll 7/16 40-40. Bounce Trump +1
CNN, 7/22-24 Trump 48, Clinton 45. Prior 7/16 Clinton +7. Bounce Trump +10
Morning Consult: Trump 44, Clinton 40, Prior Clinton 41, Trump 39. Bounce Trump +6
RABA, Clinton +5, was Clinton 41, Trump 29. N
Bounce +7
So the average bounce is: Trump +6. Which is just about the average bounce since 1996.
Just on the surface it looks to me that the polling that showed Clinton with larger leads no agrees with polling showing a tight race.
Make no mistake, though. Despite all of the posts in liberal blogsphere about what a disaster the GOP convention was, it was anything but.
I think the Democrats will get a larger bounce in part because Sanders will help. But a great deal is riding on Clinton’s speech on Thursday.
Certainly sensible. We’ll have to sit tight, wait and see how the Democratic convention plays out.
What would US media do if they didn’t find a polling bounce for a presidential nominee after a national convention?
Seriously, there were people sitting on the fence between HRC and Trump and moved to Trump after a laughably, inept convention in Cleveland? Excluding the totally sold die-hards and the equally sold for the opponent that tuned-in for a giggle, who else even watches these quadrennial spectacles beyond the clips shown on the news shows?
Not I! If anything of interest happens, a blog will report it. Why watch? And most of all, why listen to the insufferable “reporters” interpreting what you just heard.
Nor I. It may just be a sampling error on my part, but is does seem as if there’s far less minute by minute live blogging of the DNC convention than the RNC. (Admit that I haven’t checked in at dKos that always did a lot live blogging stuff.) Billmon either elected not to subject himself and tweet or is collecting it for a large piece.
Here at the Pond and from the FP, one wouldn’t even know that Sanders figured into yesterday’s portion of the convention and there were touching moments and his delegates walked out and left the hall partially empty. (Opportunity for those in the cheap seats to get primo seats. Bill should have called Trump and asked him for his list of available seat sitter extras for hire.)
On live blogging, I often check out the video clips to confirm what people are reporting. It’s usually highly inaccurate IMHO.
But it is striking that neither Martin nor the HillFans here have commented on the once-in-generation great man’s speech last night. FlaDem left on short comment about it and declared it sickening.
I left a link to a two minute sampling video of political speech. They don’t even change the words they speak. (Well worth the two minutes.)
caught a large % of it on the commute home.
Bill’s speech or the convention in general? Radio I presume. Ratio of talking heads to those on the podium?
Bill’s speech. a group of us standing around a teevee at transportation hub. disconcerting.
Trans hub or Bill’s speech disconcerting? Can you identify why?
I know as a citizen I should watch it, but at the moment just can’t. He speeches beginning in ’88 had always left me cold. Overlong and something else that I couldn’t readily identify and I didn’t bother studying to identify. The spectacle of his appearance at the 2000 convention infuriated me as he tried to steal the limelight and all the attention from Gore. Got through some of his speech but can’t recall if is was a little or most of it, and honestly didn’t want ever to have to listen to the man again.
well, as I’ve said multiple times, in dialog with you, in fact, I’m opposed to the spouse running for office. it was done, for example, in Argentina, to retain continuity despite term limits. Bill mentioned at one point what “we” will work on. I find it disconcerting. one of the other commuters thought Hillary would keep him in his place. maybe she’ll have her own presidency, I don’t know. actually, probably the campaign trail will tell.
I think her “bounce” will be more like a dribble. I really do. Every time Wasserman-Schultz’s nasty political hustler’s face appear on a screen, another 10% or so of the undecideds go “Oh!!! That’s what’s been running this party!!!???
And then they turn to Trump.
This bounce theory ain’t gonna work this time around, no matter how devoutly the centrist believers pray that it will. HRC has already been painted into a corner. She is the establishment, and the establishment has failed the people…at least as far as “the people” can see, which is far enough to know that they are going broke and fear for their lives when they walk down many streets that used to feel safe.
She doesn’t have the political wherewithal…neither her own political talent nor a political organization with any vision other than lining its own pockets…to make the necessary pivots that will be ] needed to effectively face down Trump on the battlefield. The Kaine choice is proof positive of this. Trump’s going to “establishment” her ass right out of the race.
Watch.
AG
The Hillary campaign’s failure to manage DWS has the hallmarks of all the worst features of her 2008 campaign.
And her political career. Prepare for the coming roller coaster ride.
New Gallop numbers yesterday….http://www.gallup.com/poll/193913/clinton-image-lowest-point-two-decades.aspx?g_source=Election%2020
16&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles