Speaking Politics word of the week: bounce

A post-convention bounce in the polls can happen, but it's usually fleeting.

John Minchillo/AP
Donald Trump is looking for a post-convention bounce.

Bounce: A presidential candidate’s post-convention rise – generally temporary – in polls.

Like quite a few other political words – “borked” and “sherpa” come readily to mind – “bounce” is popular because it’s short, vivid, and fun to say. It already has frequently worked its way into coverage of this week’s Republican convention and to a far lesser extent, the ensuing Democratic one.

Polling expert Nate Silver has determined that the bounce “begins to manifest itself in earnest as of about the third day of the convention.” After that, he said, “the bounce accelerates quickly, peaking approximately 6-7 days from the start of the convention – that is, the weekend afterward, if the convention runs from Monday through Thursday. It then dissipates in a roughly linear fashion over the next 3-4 weeks.”

The late language guru William Safire traced the phrase’s origin to 1980, when Jody Powell, who was President Jimmy Carter’s spokesman, described the 10-percentage-point jump after that year’s Democratic event as “the post-convention bounce we hoped for.” The bounce, obviously, did not last, with Mr. Carter losing in the fall to Ronald Reagan.

The University of California, Santa Barbara’s American Presidency Project has tracked every post-convention bounce since 1964. Bill Clinton had the biggest overall in 1992, when he left the Democratic National Convention with a 16 percentage point surge in polls.

Mr. Clinton was the beneficiary of a near-flawless convention that year in which he closed his acceptance speech with the now-iconic phrase “I still believe in a place called Hope.” Skeptics scoffed, calling it momentary, but it lasted – Clinton ended up never trailing President George H.W. Bush.

Reagan in 1980 and George W. Bush in 2000 had the largest GOP bounces, with eight percentage points each. Barack Obama’s bounces were smaller – four percentage points in 2008 and two percentage points four years later. (The poll noted that the margin of error on the latter was plus or minus two percentage points, thus rendering the event bounce-less).

The candidates who didn’t bounce: Democrats George McGovern in 1972 (his post-convention polls didn’t move) and John Kerry in 2004 (he dropped one percentage point) as well as Republican Mitt Romney four years ago (he also dipped one percentage point). Needless to say, none of them ended up becoming president.

Chuck McCutcheon writes his “Speaking Politics” blog exclusively for Politics Voices.

Interested in decoding what candidates are saying? Chuck McCutcheon and David Mark’s latest book, “Doubletalk: The Language, Code, and Jargon of a Presidential Election,” is now out.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.