As it turned out, early reports by Nate Silver and others was that Trump was going to get very little (if any) bounce from their convention. The next reports were that he was getting a huge bump after CNN and Ipsos/Reuters showed a double digit gain. At the end of the day, you had polls showing anything from a one point bump to an eleven point bump... and it seemed to settle into an average bump of about four points or so.
So if you put a gun to my head, I would offer that we will see something similar for Clinton. That you will see a couple of pollsters showing big bounces, a couple of pollsters showing a medium bounce, and a couple of pollsters showing little or no bounce.
The bigger issue at hand, is the overall trend that started before either convention. Trump had been closing a substantial gap in the polling, and his convention seemed to keep that momentum going. According to the two tracking polls, his improved numbers were able to stand up through the first two days of the convention, without any real reversal. I expect that will change at least to some degree after days four and five... especially as these rolling polls go further out from his convention.
At this point, patience is a virtue. Sometime around mid to late August we will see where things stand. I am expecting that we will be looking at a close race, and that everyone's attention will turn to the equally overrated events called "the debates".
8 comments:
Both of these candidates are quite capable of doing something that will generate a big bounce, only one for the other candidate.
Fwiw, I think the Democratic convention will help Hillary, but that her speech last night did not clinch the deal for her.
When it comes to conventions and any "long term help" I would offer that you can pretty much literally discount any of the red meat speeches from either side. Especially those where you could have guessed 90% of what they were going to say before they said it.
So whether that was Rudy Giuliani or Chris Christie tossing out the red meat for the Republicans, or Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden tossing out red meat for the Democrats. I don't believe it matters long term.
In fact, almost nobody gave any sort of speech that was particularly surprising on either side, with the exception of Ted Cruz, and that was only mildly surprising to about half the people. The other half would have been mildly surprised had he endorsed Trump.
It obviously matters how the actual candidates did. Neither did spectacularly and in my opinion, both could have shortened their speeches by a good 20 minutes or so.
Otherwise, the only speeches that mattered (in my mind) were the Trump kids (who provided some insight into their father on a personal basis) and to a lesser degree the two Vice Presidential candidates. Some would argue that Obama helps, but I think he did more to help himself (than Clinton) and possibly just made her lackluster speech look even more lackluster.
At the end, I am not surprised that Trump got a bounce. Mainly because he got through it without nearly as many issues as most expected. I also think getting to know his family was a plus. Make no mistake, the comparisons between Ivanka's speech and Chelsea's are inevitable. To some degree people will see those performances reflected onto the parent.
I believe Hillary will see some bounce, more so because of the sheer amount of positive coverage from the networks. All that gushing has to help. Btw... could you imagine how the media would have went bonkers had people at the Republican convention started chanting during a moment of silence for fallen police - but the Democratic convention - not a peep.
Unfortunately Chelsea inherited her mother's speaking style instead of her father's.
CNN really likes to party for Hillary, they got caught literally popping the cork and drinking in the booth for Hillary.
Just another in a continued string of Trump is right stories.
Unfortunately Chelsea inherited her mother's speaking style instead of her father's. "
She has Monicia's lips, wow
What a skank.
“I was curious if I could care about money on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t,” she told Fast Company
She lies like Crooked mom.
"What did NBC News’s Chelsea Clinton do for her $600,000 salary?"
No other rookie reporter at National BullSHit got paid like her.
Over at her Hubbies Hedge fund she was paid $350,000, to consult, nice.
and over at the Clinton Foundation she was paid at least $900,000 for doing nothing.
Yet, when I looked at the Money haters personal net worth, well hells bells Lordy look at this:
"Chelsea has a net worth estimated at $15 million according to Celebrity Net Worth.
Commonsense said...
Unfortunately Chelsea inherited her mother's speaking style instead of her father's.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
with a face only a mother, on a perpetual bender, could love.
Some would argue that Obama helps, but I think he did more to help himself (than Clinton) and possibly just made her lackluster speech look even more lackluster.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ol' skeets referred to HIMSELF 119 times during his speech.
Post a Comment