NOTE from 9 Sept. -- apparently this post may have been wishful thinking on my part. A lot of the same factors that provoke strong feelings of disapproval for me are, of course, selling points to a large fraction of the U.S. electorate. Or at least that might be the lesson to draw from the latest polling data. At the same time, legendary "bounces" have a way of succumbing to gravity as people consider the details, especially when a candidate is as unknown to all but the right-wing fringe of that electorate. In the spirit of showing that I'm as human and fallible as Candidate Palin, I'm leaving this bit of hubris in place. Consider it a bow to my Puritan ancestors or something of that sort.
It seemed clear to me that there was none of the widely touted "bounce" for either candidate in the aftermath of either convention, so I did some looking.
Seems there hasn't been a "bounce" in many years, at least since party conventions learned to turn themselves into content-free, no news zones, something usually blamed on the '68 Democratic convention in Daley's Chicago, and the damage it was said to have done to the Democrats at that time, in a year when Nixon was already a widely reviled figure to many, at least many who would have (or did) vote Democrat.
It also led me to track down what many now tout as the best alternative to opinion polling as a predictor of the November result. There's more on market-based prediction in this MSNBC piece from Friday.
Here is the price history from the Iowa Electronic Markets for this election.
Check out the Iowa Electronic Markets site for more details and more stats.
If this one gets stolen you know the fix is in and the democratic process is no longer at work in the U.S.