.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Friday, January 04, 2008

The Iowa "bounce"

With a shorter window, New Hampshire votes in only four days, will there be less of a "Iowa bounce?"

Is the "bounce" based on winning, or is it based on a shift in media tone and increased "free media" time for the frontrunner, both of which would be less with this smaller window?

posted by mikevotes at 8:05 AM

6 Comments:

  • I think there's a bounce coming out of Iowa, but I think who gets the bounce is different every go-round. It's totally dependent on the mix of candidates, the current political zeitgeist running through the electorate, who's in the White House, current events, expectations, etc., etc.. My point is that all the reflections on who got a "bounce" in past go-rounds is by and large an exercise in foolishness. This isn't 1980, or '88, or '92... It's a new time with new motivation.

    And I think were seeing the influence (finally) of the post Vietnam generation. I'm wondering if we've reached a critical mass of people like me (mid-40s and younger) who are too young to have been personally affected by the whole '60s thing and who are politically active.

    By Blogger -epm, at 11:34 AM  

  • My point in this is that the bounce is a media generated thing. McCain was supposed to get a bounce by coming in third. The only people who really cared about that were the media and the McCain folks.

    To your second point, I'm getting alot of a Obama as JFK kind of generational feel, too. I don't really know how to put it in words, but I think it's notable that the college students and young didn't just support Obama, this time they actually voted.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:51 PM  

  • I disagree that the bounce is media generated. At least not exclusively. Take me, for example. I was leaning Edwards, but with Obama not only winning but winning decisively, I'm now firmly in the Obama camp. I'm not alone in this.

    I can't really speak to the GOP, but if you didn't like Romney but thought he was invisible, his loss in IA would seem to reinvigorate anti-Romney and pro-McCain voters. At least in NH.

    Regarding Obama... Of the Kennedy's, I see him more as an RFK than a JFK. Maybe I'm splitting hairs.

    By Blogger -epm, at 2:05 PM  

  • Hey, I don't know. That's the whole question I was trying to posit in my post.

    As for JFK, RFK, I have no idea, but I do feel that generational thing you're talking about. When was the last time college kids affected any election?

    (And I'm assuming that's a Freudian slip on Romney being "invisible."

    Made me laugh out loud.)

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 2:42 PM  

  • Freudian slip, indeed. I'm not that bright...

    OK. So I'm splitting hairs with the RFK thing. The interesting thing is the generational shift. I don't think it's just college kids though. As I said, I think it's a broader generational thing. People born since the early sixties... the 18-45 demographic. If college kids really are coming out to the polls -- and I'm not sure this is fact or just presumption with regard to IA -- then it truly will be a movement. I know my son and his wife (in their twenties) are big-time Obama fans... and they actually vote.

    By Blogger -epm, at 3:01 PM  

  • Agreed. If you dig into the analysis. young urban, single, so, yeah, 20's and 30's.

    As for college students, I'm doubt it's just Iowa. We'll have to wait and see.

    (And all we're really talking is an increase, not huge, huge numbers. It's just that the young vote has been historically so low, any uptick is considered significant.)

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 3:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home