] The most dramatic polls were those published immediately
] after the Republican convention. Among likely voters, a
] poll by Gallup for CNN and USA Today found Mr Bush seven
] points ahead; Time put the lead at 11 points; a Newsweek
] poll gives the same lead among registered voters. No
] challenger has overcome a deficit that size after Labour
] Day and come back to win.

Bush's lead is not a temporary "post convention bounce."

] The most dramatic polls were those published immediately
] after the Republican convention. Among likely voters, a
] poll by Gallup for CNN and USA Today found Mr Bush seven
] points ahead; Time put the lead at 11 points; a Newsweek
] poll gives the same lead among registered voters. No
] challenger has overcome a deficit that size after Labour
] Day and come back to win.

Bush's lead is not a temporary "post convention bounce."

[ Fortunately, he doesn't have to overcome that since those numbers are bullshit. Both Time and Newsweek collected their data *during* the convention, and NONE of the polling since then comes even close to echoing that kind of a lead. The word I've been seeing is that the bounce is closer to 4, and that in some highly independent areas, Bush actually lost support during the convention.

I wouldn't make the statement that the RNC was a failure, but it was not the coronation that Time and Newsweek made it out to be. The conspiratorial buzz on the liberal blogs is that the media purposefully inflated that score in order to generate a "Kerry's Unbelievable Comeback!" story down the line. I don't buy that either, but I'm convinced that Time and Newsweek are outliers, and that the real bounce, the small bounce, *is* temporary, particularly in light of the barrage of AWOL documentation, the worsening Iraq situation, the horrendous job picture and the mounting deficit projections.

In fact, this article supports what i said above, despite it's retarded headline. Their own poll put the bounce at 1. ONE. That's not even outstide the MOE, which means it's fucking worthless.

Also they blather about how there's some kind of "crisis of confidence" in the Kerry camp because some personnel was added after the RNC? Maybe it's because the campaign was saving their limited funds until after the convention, and that they wanted to see what was said there before hiring on the people that will help counter it. Deep fucking analysis there.

Did a bunch of us get a whole lotta worried when the first "BUSH IS KICKING ASS" stories started coming out? Hell yeah. But it's temporary, seeing now that those were retarded claims which never should've been published.

There are some trends which are disturbing, but it's way too early for fatalism here, and this article misleads. -k]