General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNate Silver: 7-9% since the Clinton Speech
Nate Silver, posting on Saturday, indulges in the ever-tempting sport of deducing the daily segments of a multi-day tracking poll
http://twitter.com/fivethirtyeight
Mister Silver is not saying it is all due to the Clinton speech, but identifying that Wednesday night as the beginning of the move.
Since not that many people watch conventions anymore, and most of those who do now are partisans one way or another, I have to think that the incredibly positive media reaction to the Clinton speech was significant. Since right-wingers felt they could somehow belittle Obama by praising Clinton, the effect was that it was praised by everyone. Seems not to have belittled Obama, however.
(That belief shows the RW's inability to step outside their echo chamber. Not everyone is looking for reasons to think poorly of Obama. Would they expect that a rousing and brilliant speech by Ronald Reagan endorsing George H. W. Bush would have made voters turn on Bush because he wasn't Reagan?)
jimlup
(7,968 posts)As I thought Michelle's was pretty damn good too.
Maybe people don't swing on character and generalities. Poly Scientists would probably say they want practical/tangible economies.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)My first thought is that those who missed Michelle's speech live heard and read the reviews and were drawn in the next day.
Her speech drew more views (I think counting all views, including after the fact video hits) than the entire GOP convention combined.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)mucifer
(23,545 posts)It was well timed.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)A lot of people were watching television already, staying up later than usual, and got sucked in once Clinton started to talk. I think the supposed negative of going up against the NFL was a HUGE ADVANTAGE for getting the audience that he did.