On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Wesley (in Texas) <[email protected]>wrote:
> Nate Silver just tweeted that the Clinton Speech may have given the Obama > campaign a 7-9pt jump in order to get the numbers to move as much as they > have thus far... http://goo.gl/VToZF (Tracking polls are rolling > averages.) Now, if that is so, and the jobs report blunts anything, we'll > see Monday and thereafter. > > But it seems one theory (lower ratings/more partisan divided electorate == > no significant bounces) has not panned out. > > From the looks of it, the RNC convention seems to have failed to change > the dynamics of the race. > > http://goo.gl/BZXlf > I did see that (Nate is one of the people I am following on the Twitter - though one of the things I can't figure out is when am I seeing the posts of only the people I follow, and when am I seeing some great scroll of everyone in the world's tweets?). I don't think I agree with you though about the ratings theory - which was that lower ratings and fewer undecided lowers the bounce of the challenging party. If Romneys bounce was in the 1 to 2.4 point range, then it is squarely in the range of recent, lower challenger bounces that (Obama: 1.8, Kerrt: .8, Bush: 4.3), and continues the trend that the smallest challenger bounces have been in the most recent conventions. What it does not do is clarify the causal relationships: are bounces lower because of lower ratings: are ratings lower because people are turned off by negative ads, which also lowers bounces? Are bounces lower because conventions are less persuasive, which also makes them less interesting, lowering ratings? I do agree with the last point, which I think is becoming the main take-home from this convention season. Obama has had a steady though small lead in the polls, Romney is the one who needed a game-changing convention, and he clearly seems not to have gotten that. He tried going with Ryan to change up the game, rather than a more moderate pick, with a little more gravitas; he tried appealing to his base during the convention. Since history suggests that a status quo campaign from here out will not have much effect in the polls, you have to wonder what other game changer he might be considering about now. He might, for example, announce some of his main cabinet appointments in advance of the election (though it is not clear what game-changing names he might drop - Marco Rubio for Attorney General?); he might come out for some specific, popular proposal - maybe a flat tax? Though that would be weird since he did not talk about anything like that at his convention). I think the most likely thing we are going to see is a turn to even more, and even more negative, campaign ads, with even less regard for the truth. From his point of view he has to be thinking what does he have to lose? He is not going to run for president again if he loses this election. I guess Ryan might want to avoid burning too many bridges since he must think he has a bright political future, but he does not appear to be the kind of guy who takes thought for the morrow. He is more of a bomb thrower. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
