Where's the bounce?

[Bugsby]

There has been a lot of comment on how Kerry got no bounce in the polls following the democratic convention, something that is practically unheard of. Many people have blamed this on Kerry's inability to get a campaign together, and to some extent I agree with them.

However, there is another possibility. I think Kerry didn't get a bounce in the polls because the Democratic convention was nothing new. Kerry had been a lock for the nominee for MONTHS now. And ever since Kerry figured for president, the runnerup, Edwards, became a shoe-in for the VP slot, if for no other reason than geographic location. Normally, the convention reveals some things that had been unknown, or at least in question. All this convention did was restate everything that has been being said for the last 4 months. The convention just wasn't worth paying any attention to, and that's why it didn't up Kerry's standings. You can't expect an unimportant event to do anything.

That's not to say that Kerry's failure to perform is a good thing. He needs that bounce. I blame the fact that all other candidates (except Kucinich.... ugh) dropped out of the race right after Iowa. However, all is not lost. If my theory is correct, the lack of a bounce has nothing to do with Kerry's ability to campaign, and so maybe he has a chance come November... as long as he can get his shit together soon.

What do you guys think?

[Master of Ossus]

There's been a lot of analysis over why Kerry didn't get quite the "bounce" he was hoping for. I would say that most if it is because a surprisingly large majority of Americans have already picked their candidate, come hell or high water. However, I also think that part of the "bounce" that historically has accompanied the conventions is due to announcements like the running mate, which Kerry had already played earlier. Coupled with the increasing marginalization of the convention, it's really not that big a deal although it may be interesting for political analysts and historians.

[Stormbringer]

What do you guys think?

I think to paraphrase a guest on Dennis Miller's show: "John Kerry didn't bounce because he's wood. An expensive wood, maybe mahogny or oak, but wood none the less."

I think you're right about it Kerry didn't do anything that really should have given him a bounce worth noting. He gave a damn good speech but it didn't really do much more than give his muddled message of non-specifics ambitions and goals. Had there been anything that would have changed besides him hogging some air time he might have got a bit more sizeable bounce.

That and frankly, add that to the fact that this is probably one of most bitterly defensive elections for both sides and there aren't a lot of swing voters left to be awed. Both sides seem to be counting on them but I don't think they're there anymore. Both sides have done a lot of work to demonize their opponent, far more than I've ever seen. Because of that both sides have dug in and there won't be much bounce for either side. I think both sides while retaining some swing voters have effectively aliented those that might swing their way otherwise.

[Vympel]

On "The bounce"

It should also be noted that the right wing have been talking up the expectation of a (ridiculous) 10-15 point bounce, so that when it doesn't happen, they can say "I told you so".

[Stormbringer]

On "The bounce"

It should also be noted that the right wing have been talking up the expectation of a (ridiculous) 10-15 point bounce, so that when it doesn't happen, they can say "I told you so".

Yeah, in a race like this the idea of a 10-15 point bounce if simply ridiculous. But generally in just about all races they get some sort of bounce where as with Kerry it was virtually nil. I imagine, unless he does something unexpected, the same thing will hold true for Bush. The race is too much about party pride (a failing of both sides) and the candidates too unappealing for much to change.

[Howedar]

As I've said several times here, I believe that the current political situation is far too polarized for either candidate to get a noticable bounce.

[Jalinth]

On "The bounce"

It should also be noted that the right wing have been talking up the expectation of a (ridiculous) 10-15 point bounce, so that when it doesn't happen, they can say "I told you so".

Yeah, in a race like this the idea of a 10-15 point bounce if simply ridiculous. But generally in just about all races they get some sort of bounce where as with Kerry it was virtually nil. I imagine, unless he does something unexpected, the same thing will hold true for Bush. The race is too much about party pride (a failing of both sides) and the candidates too unappealing for much to change.

The problem is that the bounce can only come from "non-committed" voters. The US election seems to have a much lower % of undecided voters than normal (these are for people who vote - exclude those who never vote). So if you're dealing with a polarized electorate, 80% of the votes might already be locked up instead of the normal 50/60 (these numbers are for illustration only). So 20% of 50% undecided produces a nice number - 20% of 20% produces a minimal bounce, even though you swept the same % of voters. (Also, Kerry is rather wooden).

Also, the conventions are becoming more and more irrelevant. The candidates were decided upon months ago - no more floor fights.