Please explain the 1st debate "bounce" to me
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 09:01:50 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Please explain the 1st debate "bounce" to me
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Please explain the 1st debate "bounce" to me  (Read 3909 times)
ChrisFromNJ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,742


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -8.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 18, 2012, 10:42:37 PM »

Was it really a bounce? Or just two pollsters who were proven to be extremely wrong in the cycle - Rasmussen and Gallup - having some extreme volatility in their tracking polls?

If there was a bounce, what explains those voters going from Romney to Obama at the end? Or was the "bounce" just the case of some soft independents (read: Republicans) supporting Romney after previous declaring themselves undecided?

I am wondering if this 1st debate "bounce" was just a media narrative to make this a horse race. Convince me otherwise.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,562
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2012, 10:44:45 PM »

It was real, and Romney probably held a PV lead in the first few days of the debate's immediate aftermath, but Obama never lost an EV lead, there was already a return-bounce going on before the VP debate, and the Democratic wins in the next three debates all gave little bounces. Obama held a narrow but definite lead before Hurricane Sandy, which then allowed him to expand his lead; then those weird folks who don't make up their minds till Election Day (they do exist) broke for Obama; so he won by more than many expected.
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2012, 10:50:36 PM »

Was it really a bounce? Or just two pollsters who were proven to be extremely wrong in the cycle - Rasmussen and Gallup - having some extreme volatility in their tracking polls?

If there was a bounce, what explains those voters going from Romney to Obama at the end? Or was the "bounce" just the case of some soft independents (read: Republicans) supporting Romney after previous declaring themselves undecided?

I am wondering if this 1st debate "bounce" was just a media narrative to make this a horse race. Convince me otherwise.

Actually, I think Rasmussen was one of the pollsters who didn't see much of a first-debate bounce. I seem to recall an article by Scott Rasmussen on their website to that effect at the time. And given that his polls are weighted by party ID, it's not surprising that a debate "bounce" of greater enthusiasm among Republicans didn't show up in his numbers.
OTOH, Pew showed an enormous debate bounce...
Logged
TomC
TCash101
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,973


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2012, 10:59:39 PM »

Yes, soft Independents. Romney etch-a-sketched into a reasonable moderate but also pleased conservatives because he came out as a fighter.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2012, 11:01:12 PM »

The first debate is NOT as clear as it first appears.

1. Romney was already getting positive traction before the first debate... so it's hard to determine how much was natural movement and how much was clearly debate-related.

2. Whatever movement Romney got was muted by the 'good' economic numbers straight after, it took almost a week to see the full impact of the bounce... which was not a 'bounce' it was movement.

The underlying point is that Romney's base was already coming home by the start of the first debate. In fact, the overwhelming response to the first debate accelerated a process already taking place. It excited the GOP base and moved some independents and undecideds into the Romney camp.

It's a bit like the smaller 'bounce' people say Obama got after the 2nd debate... but it's clear he was already re-gaining ground before the debate.

In hindsight, losing that first debate will probably be seen as an absolute God-send for Obama.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,131
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2012, 11:04:02 PM »

The first debate is NOT as clear as it first appears.

1. Romney was already getting positive traction before the first debate... so it's hard to determine how much was natural movement and how much was clearly debate-related.

2. Whatever movement Romney got was muted by the 'good' economic numbers straight after, it took almost a week to see the full impact of the bounce... which was not a 'bounce' it was movement.

The underlying point is that Romney's base was already coming home by the start of the first debate. In fact, the overwhelming response to the first debate accelerated a process already taking place. It excited the GOP base and moved some independents and undecideds into the Romney camp.

It's a bit like the smaller 'bounce' people say Obama got after the 2nd debate... but it's clear he was already re-gaining ground before the debate.

In hindsight, losing that first debate will probably be seen as an absolute God-send for Obama.

Couldn't Obama have demolished Romney to the point of no return had he won that first debate, though?
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2012, 11:08:50 PM »

In hindsight... obviously, he could have. But Obama losing forced him to start fighting again, it forced new life into the campaign. He had to prove to people that were wavering that he really wanted it.
Logged
pa2011
Rookie
**
Posts: 234
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2012, 12:12:18 AM »

You have to wonder, had Obama won the first debate, if Romney wouldn't have develped momentum in late October. Lets not kid ourselves, it was pretty clear the media was looking for a Romney comeback story after his disastrous September and weak convention. Had that narrative not taken hold in early October after first debate, it likely would have after a subsequent debate or some minor campaign event... Not sure Romney could have ever won the race, considering it almost seems based on the results it was set back in April and May, but Romney with the late momentum could have made it far closer.
Logged
NCeriale
Rookie
**
Posts: 147


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2012, 12:16:09 AM »

The Bob Dole effect would have happened though. It's hard to push a story when the new story is that there is no money coming in.

Although if I'm Romney Inc I wouldn't lie down and take it, I'd do everything to mount an insurgent campaign. While the comeback narrative could reemerge, the way Romney clumsily attacked when on the defensive (Jeeeeeep) could just as easily backfire.

How would a 2nd debate Obama showing up at the first debate have changed the outcome? Probably more in the PV (plus one or two points; if he had been able to get to 55 it would have been a dem wet dream)  and maybe adding North Carolina and maybe maybe Arizona (if the middle moved and Mexican Americans in AZ could carry it)
Logged
badgate
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2012, 12:22:15 AM »

I'm one of the people who are convinced many in the media were itching, probably not consciously, to write the comeback story. They'd just spent a month of Romney: The Already Lost Election stories.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2012, 12:24:02 AM »

You have to wonder, had Obama won the first debate, if Romney wouldn't have develped momentum in late October. Lets not kid ourselves, it was pretty clear the media was looking for a Romney comeback story after his disastrous September and weak convention. Had that narrative not taken hold in early October after first debate, it likely would have after a subsequent debate or some minor campaign event... Not sure Romney could have ever won the race, considering it almost seems based on the results it was set back in April and May, but Romney with the late momentum could have made it far closer.

I think the race would have narrowed, having it earlier, rather than later helped Obama.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,851


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2012, 12:34:44 AM »

How would a 2nd debate Obama showing up at the first debate have changed the outcome? Probably more in the PV (plus one or two points; if he had been able to get to 55 it would have been a dem wet dream)  and maybe adding North Carolina and maybe maybe Arizona (if the middle moved and Mexican Americans in AZ could carry it)

Dems would have taken the House back, narrowly.
Logged
NCeriale
Rookie
**
Posts: 147


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2012, 12:37:31 AM »

This. Or at least put it in play:

How would a 2nd debate Obama showing up at the first debate have changed the outcome? Probably more in the PV (plus one or two points; if he had been able to get to 55 it would have been a dem wet dream)  and maybe adding North Carolina and maybe maybe Arizona (if the middle moved and Mexican Americans in AZ could carry it)

Dems would have taken the House back, narrowly.
Logged
Warren 4 Secretary of Everything
Clinton1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,203
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2012, 01:42:52 AM »

I'm one of the people who are convinced many in the media were itching, probably not consciously, to write the comeback story. They'd just spent a month of Romney: The Already Lost Election stories.
I've been saying that since the second debate when they declared Obama did "better than expected" but a romney still did "excellent".
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2012, 07:45:47 PM »

Romney may have closed slightly without it, but there is no way the money would have kept rolling in nor would he have been "really in it" without that first big debate win. The problem for Romney was that he needed a second debate win, preferably at the townhall debate to finish the job with regards to the comeback and instead that was a disaster.


Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,891
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2012, 07:51:51 PM »

Romney may have closed slightly without it, but there is no way the money would have kept rolling in nor would he have been "really in it" without that first big debate win. The problem for Romney was that he needed a second debate win, preferably at the townhall debate to finish the job with regards to the comeback and instead that was a disaster.

Romney's performance in the second debate was not much worse than in the first. The difference was all on Obama's side.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2012, 08:06:33 PM »

Romney may have closed slightly without it, but there is no way the money would have kept rolling in nor would he have been "really in it" without that first big debate win. The problem for Romney was that he needed a second debate win, preferably at the townhall debate to finish the job with regards to the comeback and instead that was a disaster.

Romney's performance in the second debate was not much worse than in the first. The difference was all on Obama's side.

Whether you win or not, depends upon your performance relative to the other guy's and the format of the event

You can't replicate the first debate strategy and tactics in a townhall style event and the fact that both tried to do that resulted in both screwing over the format and riding rough shod over the questioner. Had one refrained from doing that, I think they would have gained significantly with independents and undecided voters.  Romney needed a seperate and distinct "townhall debate strategy" aimed at connecting with the problems average Americans are facing and connecting his solutions to those problems as part of his vision for the future. Instead he was playing the tit for tat, each man correct the other game that Obama wanted to play, which ended up draining Romney and caused him to lose his focus by the time of the Libya question, when a perfect opporunity for him ended up getting turned into Obama's best moment.
Logged
dadge
Rookie
**
Posts: 49
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.00, S: -4.50

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2012, 09:15:52 PM »

The 1st debate bounce was a similar phenomenon to the 1st debate bounce that Nick Clegg got in the UK election. What most of us don't realise is that Romney was still unfamiliar to a lot of Americans. Okay, they knew he was the candidate, they'd seen lots of commentary about him and seen some soundbites from the man himself. But for the people who aren't obsessed with politics, this was the first time they'd seen him speak, really speak. And he was okay - no horns or pointy tail - so he suddenly went up in average Joe/Jane's estimation.
Logged
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,053
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2012, 09:59:51 PM »

If you look at the polls after that debate from Dave's front page, the electoral college margin did narrow as did some of the close states, but the president's performance in the final debates was better and he closed well. 
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 24, 2012, 11:17:32 AM »

I read an article somewhere that Obama's very sophisticated polling operation showed no such bounce unlike the buzz out there that it did.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2012, 11:26:45 AM »

I read an article somewhere that Obama's very sophisticated polling operation showed no such bounce unlike the buzz out there that it did.

IIRC the bounce was merely anti-Obama voters who were unsure about Romney.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2012, 12:00:39 PM »

I read an article somewhere that Obama's very sophisticated polling operation showed no such bounce unlike the buzz out there that it did.

IIRC the bounce was merely anti-Obama voters who were unsure about Romney.

I don't think that was all of it. IIRC, Obama lost some points in the polls as well as Romney picking up some ground. Kind of what was mentioned earlier of voters who were down on Romney as the lesser of two evils who first got a chance to see him beyond sound bites or attack ads in the role of Moderate Romneytm.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,947


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2012, 03:27:11 PM »

Are we talking about the Big Bird debate, which Romney sucked at as usual?
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2012, 04:15:58 PM »

If the election was held three days after that first debate, Romney probably would have won. I do think it was real.

Still, Romney needed to win the second debate to keep things going. I predicted that if there was a decisive winner in the second debate, that candidate would win the election. To me, the second debate wasn't as much of a draw as people though—Obama had a big win.

My script for Romney's second debate was always something like this:

[Woman asks a question about the economy.]

MITT: You know, thanks for that question. Sorry if this is strange to say, but when I first saw you sitting there, you reminded me of my mother. The way you carry yourself, the way you talk, the concerns you have for this country... I understand that women out there are really struggling. And you bring up an issue which my mother was so passionate about. I thank you for your question. (etc.)



A win in a townhall debate was exactly what Romney needed. If he'd gone positive and engaged with the audience instead of with Obama, I bet he'd be the President-Elect right now.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 12 queries.