Performers would perfect an act and then take it on tour. By the time they got back to where they had started from it might be several years later and there would be a new audience for the old act, or some people would be willing to see it again. This was also true of traveling plays – some actors did the same part for their whole career.

When movies came along everyone across the country could see the act at nearly the same time. There was no novelty when the live act showed up in the town where the film had already been seen. Actors realized this quickly and knew that appearing in a film was going to end their careers.

I think we may see something similar with the stump speech and YouTube. Once a speech is online it can be viewed by those interested in the campaign. They will be less inclined to hear it again in person. Certainly candidates can’t come up with a new speech every time (or even every few days), so I don’t know how they will adapt. If they prohibit filming (assuming this is even technically possible) then they lose a potential audience, just like the Vaudevillians.

What would happen if the leading candidates just withdrew from the public eye for the next six months or so? They could continue to raise money by appearing at sponsored functions, but otherwise they would just stay off the stump. There is ample time to put one’s face before the public starting in the Fall and skipping the next six months lowers the chance of putting one’s foot in one’s mouth.