If video killed the radio star, it appears that the internet killed the political convention bounce. Between 1968 and 1992, the only challenger not to get a double digit bounce out of his convention was George McGovern, and he still got a bounce bigger than Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004, or Obama in 2008. McGovern’s convention was, of course, a tremendous disaster because his running mate turned out to have received electric shock therapy.
Before the inception of the internet, most Americans were much more influenced by the political coverage of the conventions on television. People learned a lot about Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, and Bill Clinton by watching their conventions. They learned almost nothing about George W. Bush, John Kerry, or Barack Obama by watching theirs. I think Mitt Romney will discover that the trend remains true.
Today’s conventions are basically like big ad buys. You get a small and unsustainable bounce out of them, but they matter very little.
In 2008, the Democratic convention didn’t move the polls much but the flawless execution solidified the impression that Obama knew how to do big things. In 2012, the Republican convention had a lot of hiccups, which bolstered the idea that Romney can’t execute under pressure. We saw it with his foreign trip, and we saw it in Tampa. He reinforced negative perceptions about himself. He”ll get a little bounce just because he got a lot of attention. But it won’t last.
Looks like his bump is already fading.
What bounce? I saw something hit the road and roll into the gutter.
I would like to see analysis of the convention bounce for conventions before that of Richard Nixon. And for more exceptional conventions (like that of Humphrey 1968).
Richard Nixon was the first to script his convention so that there would be absolutely no surprises. Part of that owes to the increasing use of state party primaries so that there were not as many “favorite son” candidates sent to the convention as bargaining chips in a brokered convention.
After McGovern, the Democrats had to follow suit on the scripted convention or facing losing because of the media talking about minor conflicts.
The rise of 500-channel cable TV also has an effect by not obligating the national broadcast networks to broadcast gavel-to-gavel coverage of conventions as they did during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.
And as the public gained more viewing options and politics, especially conservative politics, became a rush to crazy in order to hold attention over against all those distractions, more people tuned out of conventions altogether. And the broadcast networks obliged.
Now that all media outlets are owned by various interests, even the supposedly neutral ones, the public tunes out even more. They know that the GOP owns FoxNews, the sponsoring organizations of the moment own the PBS News staff, and the cable operators own C-SPAN. None of these operate as independent news organizations anymore.
I think that it is up to Obama to seal the deal in his convention. Having brought in busloads of out-of-state police to crush what is mostly an Occupy Wall Street protest will not help the optics. But like Tampa, the Wall Street media will stay away from reporting that–unless they want to create the Chicago 1968 Chicago narrative to undercut Obama. The media’s reporting in Tampa, however, shows that they are not wild about Romney/Ryan no matter how much Ross Douthat and their bosses are.
I think the last paragraph is particularly important.
Currently, conventions are basically a party’s opportunity to tell whatever story it wants to tell about itself (and its opponent) over a 3-4 day period. So, what becomes significant is 1) what story does the party/nominee want to tell, and 2) how well does the storytelling go.
Republicans last week did a reasonably good job of telling a story about Mitt Romney as a three-dimensional human being and about the Republican Party as a non-scary group of people.
They didn’t do a particularly good job of having a coherent narrative (e.g., the love/respect tension on Night 1 between Ann Romney and Chris Christie’s speeches) about the election. They also reinforced their truth-telling problem–especially for Paul Ryan.
This refers to my previous post, as snarky as it was, there was no substance, no stick to your ribs, meat and potatoes, therefore no bounce. All rehash, nothing we haven’t heard before and really uninspiring.
It was Bush/McCain/angry man yells at chair. And don’t think for a second it went unnoticed.
If this was scripted, they should fire the writer.
right and for proof, look at what has received the most attention post convention – Eastwood, the only part of the convention that seemed unscripted
There’s only so far old hat hatred iced with fear can drum up followers. It’s gotten old even to the haters hence the applause and cheers for Condi’s optimism.
But the Dem Convention, now that will be dynamic. Full of ideas, humor, good rock and roll and speeches filled with specifics and a bump I’m betting makes the Rep’s sweat.
you got it right, mainsail.
Sooner or later, most people get tired of hating. It takes a lot of energy to rev up to the level of vehement disdain required to keep up ODS. Most people don’t have the physical resources to keep it up for a long time. They’re getting tired.
In places where you are able to maintain that level of contempt, no other progress is possible in society or business. re: The Deep South during the height of Jim Crow
Hmmm. I don’t know that very many people who truly hate someone o something, ever get tired of hating. But that’s probably the 27%. So who gets tired of what? Maybe it’s the people who are constantly being told they should be hating, and thus hold hate open as an option, that get tired of it as they gradually realize there’s no good reason why they should be hating.
Might want to do a bit of fact checking.
I was several days after the convention when reports that Eagleton had received electroshock therapy for depression. At that time, thanks in part to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, ECT was viewed very negatively within the imagination of the public.
After the 2000 DEM convention, Gore pulled ahead in the polls for the first time in the race. And seemed to hold that lead until the first debate.
Hey Booman, this is OT, but Is/could this be a big deal or not?
Romney’s Former Company Under Investigation For Tax Evasion
May be a big deal for the PE guys that likely would not have faced this scrutiny if they hadn’t backed one of their own POTUS and whose inability to release his tax returns resulted in more questioning of their slick conversion of income to equity.
Bhahaha
POLITICO (@politico)
9/2/12 12:09 PM
Via @DylanByers,The most popular GOP convention tweet was from Obama politi.co/N746SG
Sent from my iPhone
Many prior conventions had suspense, such as who will be the nominee, who will the nominee select as VP, what planks will dissident groups manage to bring to the floor. These have all gone away and conventions are phony. They do nothing. They are, as you say, giant four day ads, so people tune them out.
1980 was obviously a knockdown dragout fight. There was even tension in 1992 regarding a “stop Clinton” movement.