Disaster In the Making: A Negative Convention Bounce????
Attack, repeat attack!!! Obama needs to destroy John McCain. Everything from senility to misogynism to cronyism and Keating---the kitchen sink. Just linking him to Bush is insufficient, and it clearly isn't working. This may be the first NEGATIVE convention "bounce" in history.
The rightwing mainstream media are countering every positive image coming out of Denver with Republican smears. Time to get in the gutter, Barack. That's where the slimeballs live. Exterminate the vermin once and for all!
The rightwing mainstream media are countering every positive image coming out of Denver with Republican smears. Time to get in the gutter, Barack. That's where the slimeballs live. Exterminate the vermin once and for all!
Advertisement
This may be the first negative bounce in history? Isn't that a little premature?
August 27, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Relax!
August 27, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, calm down. We still have W.J. Clinton, Biden and Obama. Clinton will remind America why the 90's were so much better than the last seven and a half years; Biden will stuff a straight talk sandwich down McCain's throat. Then Obama will close the deal with some uplift. The first night was a bit off, but it's all going well now.
August 27, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The cumulative attacks over the last 6 weeks are taking their toll.
If Barack comes out of this convention without some kind of bounce, the media, which still loves John McCain (he plans to drastically further cut THEIR taxes remember) will be writing his political obituary: "flash in the pan" "never was ready" "what were democrats thinking" "george mcgovern part II" "Hillary would be leading by 15 points". This stuff writes itself once the meme gets rolling.
August 27, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. Fact check on bounces:
1964 Aug. 24 - 27 63% (Aug. 6 - 11) 62% (Sep. unspecified) - 1
-1% "bounce" for the Democrats.
Psss, the Democtrats WON that year.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2008082101
More on MSM "bounce" fantasies:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/lets-preempt-the-msm-bounce-sp.php
August 27, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
SO LBJ dropped from 63% to 62% in 1964? Good Lord, I wish that was Barack's problem
August 27, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a simple correction. You made an inaccurate statement.
But the percentage floor shows how silly simple talk of a "bounce" is. The election has other dynamics than a "bounce".
August 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't make headway when you 1) announce your VP choice, and 2) accept your nomination, you got big problems
August 27, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Since no one got a bounce in 2004, why would either side get one now?
Not sure if it is because the nets no longer cover the conventions. Or if people already know so much about the candidates that if doesn't change minds.
That said, the main problem are disaffected Democrats. They will come home, but Hillary might actually stir up feelings in the short term but heal the party in the long term. It's a unique dynamic this year.
August 27, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also note that while Kerry got 0% in 2004, GBW only got 2%.
Sabato goes on to point out that bounces don't predict the general. And that is a fact.
August 27, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remind again, did Kerry win that one?
August 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the "while ," construction was too difficult for you to comprehend.
- GWB got only 2% bounce in 2004 and won.
- He only got 4% (less than Gore's 8%) in 2000, and still won.
- LBJ got -1% and still won.
Sabato's point is beyond dispute: Bounces predict nothing.
August 27, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you are saying in this post is EXACTLY what the McBush campaign will be saying on Friday - no matter what the polls say. The bounce is irrelevant. Who cares?
Right now, the right is trying to claim that there is no "Biden Bounce" Why should there be one?
The old adage is right. - All politics are local.
Obama's people know that and that is why they have put in place (started by Howard Dean) a FIFTY state operation.
McBush has practically nothing local. And he is foolishly running local attack ads that are so outrageous that they are getting national play.
Slimey lying ads lose as many votes as they get - IF you are lucky! More likely they will just lose you votes.
Example: McBush is running a rip-off of Clinton's 3am ad - at the exact same time as ABC is reporting that McBush takes Ambien and other drugs every night!! Think this ad will work???
August 27, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too many of the undecideds including many Democrats who voted for Hillary, are more than willing to have the fears about Barack, whether real or imagined, validated by McCain attack ads.
On the converse, none of these people is going to change their minds about John McCain just because a bunch of Obamacrats repeat the McBush mantra. They like McCain and more importantly, want to like him.
They are skeptical of Barack, not the old geezer. If properly "scared" it will be much easier to drift toward the known quantity over the unknown quantity. Most of them still believe that Al Qaeda is targeting their local Elks club.
August 27, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ad to above - attack ads can work to a certain extent if you can KEEP them local - which McBush has not been able to do - BECAUSE Obama's people are not letting them stay local - but he is using news surrogates to do it, not dueling attack ads.
Dueling attack ads do not work at all.
August 27, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poll after poll after poll is showing slippage to outright losing in state after state. Negative ads work. FEAR works. It's time to play the fear game right back at 'em!
Politicians who run principled campaigns are called LOSERS.
August 27, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, nothing else has run true to form this year so far, so I don't think it's worth running to the hills for. Actually, I almost hope it happens - Obama runs a much better 'underdog' campaign and it will reinforce to the youth that they ARE needed!
The simple fact is that most people have not yet made up their mind. If you asked a lot of them today, or even after the convention, they would say they are voting for McCain .... but I've worked in the same place for several decades and this is the ONLY time I can remember that the moderate Republicans here have been seriously watching and talking about the Dem. convention.
So there is a lot of curiosity and the McCain support is not 'hard.' The election is going to be decided by something, or some series of things, that happens between now and Nov. 4.
August 27, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink