First Convention night, I posted "If TV media keeps this up," no bounce?

[DeepModem Mom]

Like others here, I'm waiting for more accurate and trustworthy polls than Gallup's, but I wanted to make the point that I don't think we should underestimate the effect of television coverage of our convention. Outrage at CNN, in particular, has been expressed all over this board. We held an awesome, to use Barack Obama's word, Convention, with incredibly good speeches every night. Kerry's speech on the final night was magnificent. Obama and Kerry did receive good reviews on TV, although CNN immediately split their screen after Kerry's, allowing Ed Gillespie to trash the speech, and their commentators followed with snarky analysis.

Could it be that Bush people watched Fox, while Democrats had the sense to watch CSpan or PBS, and those "swing" voters watched CNN, thinking they were getting legitimate commentary from a "trusted news source"? IMO, the TV media, and WH manipulation of it, is our biggest obstacle. If other polls show no bounce, and if we lose this election, it will be the result of our media.

I don't know how the DNC, the Kerry campaign, or interests on our side with money and power fight this -- but I hope they find a way.

[jpgray]

1. Be patient. It's been about four days

Any bounce would only likely assert itself this coming weekend, based on historical precedent.

[LittleApple81]

2. Agree. THE MEDIA ARE PART OF A CORPORATE CAMPAIGN TO SACRIFICE AMERICA.

There is no hope of getting the Media to report the truth.

[meti57b]

3. there's little bounce because there are few undecided voters out there.

[Longhorn]

4. Howard Fineman had the nerve to say on the Today Show

this morning that the convention received "favorable coverage." He was discussing the surprising lack of a bounce in spite of it.

[lapfog_1]

5. Pretty much

Let's see, we have a very divided country right now (despite the Kerry's
best speech of his life)... there are probably only 10 percent at most
of "likely voters" that are undecided. Possibly less.

They show only 3 hours of prime time on traditional networks for the
entire DNC, and the rest of the time is talking heads interviewing
each other.

A lot of people (especially in swing states) have been bombarded
with $80M negative ad campaign by the BFEE leading up to the
convention.

If you DID tune into the talking heads, all you saw was RNC talking
points and THK doing the "shove it" thing.

People, for whatever idiotic reason, think shrub is better at "terra"
than Kerry and, conversely, the country is headed in the wrong
direction.

I'm not at all surprised that there isn't any "bounce" among
likely voters. The interesting question this time is
a) how much is Nader going to hurt Kerry
and
b) how many new voters and registered but not likely to vote actually
bother voting.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. True -- much depends on who gets out and votes -- n/t

[DeepModem Mom]

7. And thanks for the reminder that the week's coverage started w/ "shove it"

That blown-up incident, with no light shed on the "reporter" in question, dominated the beginning of Convention coverage.

[Mr_Spock]

8. I commented here that I thought there weren't many undecideds

and that there would be a minimal bounce - if any. Just because the "media" in order to push their coverage said that this is where people will get to "know" Kerry, doesn't make it so. Most people know where they stand and it has nothing to do with Kerry. It all has to do with hatred of Bush and fundamental ideology. Anybody who thinks this is like elections of the past has not been paying attention or isn't mad enough. I'm pissed - Bush is turning us into a nation of idiots and we need to stop him.

I'm gonna just post this here again and again.