Democrats and Republicans hope to exploit Bounce Factor | Voice of America - English
 Political analysts are paying close attention to fluctuations in the popularity of the U.S. presidential candidates in the wake of last week?s Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, and this week?s convention of the Republican Party in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Some observers expect the events to yield an increase in the popularity of both nominees, Republican candidate John McCain, and his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.
American political commentators call it the ?bounce? or?bump,? and it usually happens after the two major parties hold their nationalconventions. Simply put, they say, it?s a short-term surge in popularityratings for candidates following the glitz and glamour of the gatherings theyhold to consolidate ahead of a presidential election. Candidates usually gain between five and eight points inpopular opinion polls immediately after the conventions, but these increasesusually taper off fairly rapidly as ?normal? campaigning resumes ahead of thepolls. U.S. political scientist John Aldrich says thereasons behind the ?bounce? phenomenon aren?t difficult to understand. ?One of them is that the party has just had an entireweek, basically alone on television and other media, to make its case beforethe public. And second, and very closely related of course, is that thenominee?is able to make his case to the public for more or less the first timewhen everybody?s paying attention and saying, ?Okay, now it?s getting serious;let?s pay attention to who these two (candidates) are going to be.? Aldrich is professor of politicalscience at Duke University, a former co-editor of the AmericanJournal of Political Science and the winner of multiple awards for his writing,which includes several books on U.S. elections. He says ?probably the most famous example? of the ?bounce?experience occurred in 1988, and concerned former Democratic presidentialcandidate Michael Dukakis. ?He got a bounce after his nomination (at the conventionbut) it went away and George H.W. Bush was able to win the election.? After the Democratic convention in 1988, Dukakis was about17 points ahead of the Republican George H.W. Bush. But the Bush campaign thenattacked him, accusing him of being weak with regard to fighting crime, and Dukakis?slead had faded by the time the Republicans held their convention. The eventprovided Bush with a significant ?bounce? and, unlike Dukakis, the Bushcampaign was able to sustain its momentum going into the polls. In 1980, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan emerged fromhis party?s national convention with a big lead of 16 percentage points overthe Democrats? Jimmy Carter, but this ?bounce? in Reagan?s popularity quicklydisappeared after the Democratic convention, which followed. Nevertheless, Reaganstill went on to win the 1980 election by a large margin. Four years later, theRepublican convention helped ?bump? Reagan?s popularity up by as much as 25points, and he held the advantage over Democratic candidate Walter Mondalethroughout the rest of the campaign. Aldrich also refers to a more recent example of the?bounce? phenomenon, in 1992, the year in which the Democrat?s Bill Clinton wasfirst nominated for president. ?Hewas behind (the Republican?s George H.W. Bush in terms of popularity) and got asubstantial boost after the convention, and it set him on course for hissuccessful election bid.? But Aldrich emphasizes that ?most of the time the bouncegoes away.? For example, former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry?spopularity increased after his party?s convention in 2004, but he ended uplosing the election to President George W. Bush. ?The magnitude of the convention bump is not a greatpredictor of an election outcome,? says Aldrich. Still, he maintains that thephenomenon should provide a ?useful guide? to what to expect during theelection. He?s convinced that the post-convention boost inpopularity provides the candidates with a great opportunity to build upon thesurge and to sustain it going into the polls. Aldrich says Bill Clinton in 1992saw the value in his ?bump? and exploited it to become president. ?He and (then-Democratic running mate and later U.S.vice-president) Al Gore embarked on a nationwide bus tour that continued tokeep attention focused on their nomination and kept the convention bounce highfor a much longer period of time.? Analystssay Clinton?s strategy after his convention triumph in 1992 still stands instark contrast to that of Dukakis, who seemed to stop campaigning after the1988 convention and didn?t capitalize on his subsequent increase in popularity.Dukakis thereby faded from public attention and allowed the Republicans toreclaim the spotlight and win the White House. But,says Aldrich, time is against Obama reaping reward from his post-conventionboost. ?Barack Obama this time won?t have the opportunity to takeadvantage of that because we?ve turned immediately from the Democraticconvention into the Republican convention.? The gap between the two conventions this year was justthree days -- much shorter than in past elections -- and also coincided withthe three-day national holiday weekend in observance of Labor Day. This,analysts say, has made it very difficult for pollsters to gauge public opinionto measure the impact that the Democratic convention has had on Obama?spopularity. And the focus then shifted almost immediately to the Republicans,with their national convention in Minneapolis. The time factor, says Aldrich, has placed the Republicansat an advantage. Following the Democratic Party?s convention in Denver lastweek, opinion polls revealed no significant increase in Obama?s popularity.They say there?s still little to separate him and Republican candidate JohnMcCain as the election approaches. Analysts also feel that McCain?sannouncement of the little-known governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, less than 12hours after the Democratic showpiece event, slowed news coverage of Obama?s andhis party?s impressive performance and dented his prospects of getting a big ?bounce.? However, a CNN poll taken after the convention revealsthat people who watched the event ? the most watched political convention inhistory ? were more likely to vote for Obama. CNN Polling Director KeatingHolland told the network, ?Sixty-four percent rated Obama?s acceptance speechas excellent or good, giving it significantly higher marks than any otherrecent acceptance speech. The Democratic Party?s favorable ratings went up, andthe (Republican Party?s) favorable ratings went down. Historically speaking,the convention was better than some and worse than others in the public?s mind- not a home run, but a hit nonetheless.? Aldrich maintains that the Democrats remain in a betterposition this year to try to boost Obama?s popularity. ?This time, they (the Democrats) have the money and aren?tbound by the financial rules (governing elections) because they?reself-financing their campaign. They have the (means) to spend substantialamounts of money to try to capitalize on their bounce.?