Nate Silver ( http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/aug-31-tv-ratings-may-be-leading-indicator-of-convention-bounce/) has an interesting article on data he compiled in a regression analysis of TV ratings (share of American households that were tuned into the convention during prime-time) and the convention bounces enjoyed by the challenging candidate (the one whose party is not currently in the White House). He finds that 47% of the variance in bounces is predicted by TV ratings (bad news for Romney, the ratings were down this week).
More interestingly to me, Silver's data shows that the three smallest challenger bounces since 1968 have been in the last three election cycles (2008, 2004 and 1998) - and four of the last five in the last 4 cycles (the exception was McGovern, who in 1972 got a smaller bounce than Dole in 1996 - this on McGovern's way to one of the biggest wipeouts in American political history). The lower ratings are no doubt due to several factors - as we know television is more fragmented in the 21st century than it was previously, and viewers have more options, and as has been well covered, the conventions themselves have become more orchestrated and less spontaneous, making them less interesting television (though we do still get the occasional Uncle Clint moments). I suspect the significantly nastier tone of presidential campaigns, and the significantly increased supply of money that pumps so many negative ads into the televisions of battleground states during primary season, and now even during the preconvention summer weeks, turns off a lot of viewers to both parties. And I suspect that the decreased coverage by the networks reduces ratings share as well - if the networks were covering them 8-11, I think the audience for the 10:00 speeches would be higher than when they only cover at 10:00. One thing I have learned the last few years is how much higher ratings are at 9:00 than they are at 10:00 for primetime "shows". In any event, reduced TV ratings, whatever their cause, seems to be hurting candidates from the challenging party, and may be one reason we have not had a one term president since the one elected in 1988. Of course that is good news for me, since my guy is currently in the White House, but not so good for the principle of a vigorous democracy. BTW - Nate is predicting a 4% bounce for Romney, which would be higher than Obama and Kerry, but lower than Bush and Dole. We should know the actual bounce on Monday, but Saturday and Sunday the picture will be starting to form. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
