"Go convention bounce, go convention bounce! Go convention bounce! I don't see anything happening. Go convention bounce! Go convention bounce! Go convention bounce! Standby confetti. Keep coming, convention bounce. Come on, guys, lets move it. We need a convention bounce. What's happening to the convention bounce? What the hell! There's nothing bouncing! What the #$%^&* are you guys doing ? We want a convention bounce, more convention bounce. More convention bounce. More convention bounce!"

Being already ahead before the convention, it is quite hard to get a major bounce. 50-44 is not a bad lead and being preferred both as a C-i-C and on the economy (66-33) means Kerry can begin to write his inaugural. It's a pretty disgusting idea and one knows for sure that OBL, al Zarqawi and the Iranian mullahs will love it, but those are the facts, I'm afraid.

Yes Peter, Kerry should begin working on his inaugeral speech just like Dukakis in '88 and Mondale in '84. I'm not sure which poll those CIC and Economy numbers are from but both the WAPO and Newsweak polls had oversized Dem samples (39% Dem vs 29% GOP). The latest Fair model at Yale is predicting 58% for Bush and the Iowa electronic market has Bush back up to 53-54%. Let's see where the polls stand after the RNC.

The new mantra, which Page touches on and others have focused on with greater intent, is that "There are no more convemntion bounces" -- at least not this year because "All the voters' minds are already made up."

You'll be hearing that continuiously for the next four weeks, and it will reach a crecendo the week of the RNC convention. Of course, if it turns out Bush does get a bounce from his four days in the spotlight, it will mean only one thing to the media commentators -- the pollsters are slanting their questions or samples towards the Republicans, and they don't mean anything, anyway, because it's the debates that really count.

Well, on my local left leaning public radio station (WMNF 88.5) they are saying that since there are not a lot of undecideds, the lack of a bounce is actually bad for Bush. I think they were quoting Zogby, but I missed the beginning part of the conversation.

Buttercup - evidence that the left/Dems are spinning this as fast as they can. Before the convention Dowd's prediction of 15pts was considered high but most pundits were expecting 6-10pts. Again lets see what happens with the RNC and the bounce Bush gets.

Buttercup;

Nothing personal, but your radio station is making no sense at all. If there are in fact undecideds and Kerry got no bounce, it's very difficult to see how that is bad for Bush. The only explanation that isn't bad for Kerry is the end of convention bounces. I'm predicting a small to none (

AOG: Hey, they don't have to make sense. After all, their slogan is "As Far to Left as You Can Get" (referring to their position on the radio dial).

But, I did see on Fox this morning that the pollster, Zogby, has been claiming that a lack of undecideds is bad for Bush and the lack of a convention bounce shows that the race will be extremely close but favoring Kerry.

Ooops, I should have noted that that slogan also refers to their political view point.

He certainly secured the soggy-hamster vote, but the dry hamsters still have their doubts. Another Dem convention or two could get Bush up to 75%.

It's not the plan...it's the Cardboard Man.

Buttercup - Zogby openly came out in April/May and predicted Kerry the winner. If you look at poll results at realclearpolitics (both national and state polls) Zogby's tend to be more favorable to Kerry/less favorable to Bush than others.

What impressed me about the Democrat convention was how phony it was. It was so obviously phony to everyone and they all said it was phony. "See, I am smiling -- George Bush -- never heard of him -- I am smiling -- I am such a phony." I think it dis-spirited Democrats, annoyed independents and enraged Republicans.

Just my theory.

The debates will not be kind to Kerry.

Kerry will show his "on the one hand/on the other hand/but, let's look at hand one again" style of decision-making, and Bush will look like a down-home guy who can make things happen.

Remember, Gore was supposed to be a "Commanding Debator", but struggled to win even one of the debates.
I don't expect Kerry to outshine Gore.

Plus, there's always the chance that Nader could factor in, either at a debate, or in a swing state with a broadcast rebuttal after a debate or two.

Buttercup;

Clearly the Democratic Party cut off my reply.

I wanted to add that the Zogby is wrong, the no bounce scenario isn't so good for Kerry either. Challenger support tends to ebb away in the run up to the election so a challenger needs the bounce more than an incumbent. Moreover, in this particular race, the challenger has already gone all out on the attack, while the incumbent is still loading the guns. On top of that, Kerry seems to have amazingly poor political instincts,if the rate of gaffe stories is any indication. Expect to see enhanced ebbing once the Bush campaign is running. It will likely come down to getting out the base and Bush has been spending like Niagra on party organization.

The only valid spins for Kerry are "disturbing" (no bounce for anyone) and "desperate" (bounce for Bush). If Bush does get a bounce, contrary to my prediction, then OJ's got a good shot at being right.

Slate has an article somehow illustrating that the poll numbers show Kerry will decisively beat Bush.

I personally think the race will be closer than expected, but Bush will win. My feeling is that many people are fed up with a lot of mistakes that the administration is done and that the President is weak on a lot of areas, but the Democrats have done the impossible and nominated an even weaker candidate.

My guess is that the voters will decide against risking the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

One of the Democrat's more annoying tics this year is their insistence, based on absolutely no evidence, that Kerry is intelligent.

The story about the Wendy's fiasco should haunt Kerry for the rest of the campaign. I saw video of only the beginning, where he waved Edwards off, trying to show generosity. He looked pained. I don't know if his meeting with the Marines was on film, but the still shot of him poking the Marine in the chest was awful.

The 19 meals from the 'classy' restaurant in Newburgh, which were sitting in the bus, should be put to music for an ad. And while Kerry would never win Texas, it can't help that Teresa (the worldly sophisticate) did not know what chili is.

I wonder how he ate his Frosty? I know how my son eats his (hint: very aggressively).

Robert - I am a Republican and far from being enraged, I was delighted by the Dem convention. First, the fact that the Democrats felt obliged to moderate themselves suggests that Bush's original promise to bring a new tone to Washington is working. Second, it builds on Kerry's flip-flopper image; if he can't take an authentic stand, it confirms the idea that he doesn't have convictions. This is important because it leads to the conviction that he won't be a decisive leader in the war on terror. The terror-sponsoring nation strategy is to avoid counter-attacks by using stealth and deception to hide their culpability for terror attacks. If you can't respond to a nation unless you have overwhelming evidence, you're giving them many free shots at us, because most of the time, we won't have overwhelming evidence of who's responsible. Kerry's indecisiveness and need for universal approval and a clearcut case makes him inappropriate as commander in chief against stealthy enemies.

David,
Good point. The Kerry backers love to flash their own academic credentials, and Kerry's Yaleness. They never ever compare Bush's graduate school (Harvard) with Kerry's (Boston College). It would be interesting to know if, despite all the posturing, Kerry was at BC Law School because Harvard and Yale turned him down, or didn't apply there because he lacked the necessary academic credentials. Those are the law schools one would expect a Yale graduate looking for a New England law school to apply to.

"One of the Democrat's more annoying tics this year is their insistence, based on absolutely no evidence, that Kerry is intelligent."

I know I've said it here before, but I believe that when a member of the press describes a politician as intelligent, all it means is that said politician is a Democrat. I mean, Al Gore was frequently called "the smartest kid in the class", a phrase that would not come to my mind if I had to describe the man.