Gallup says that the convention cost Kerry support:

In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, the Democratic ticket of Kerry and John Edwards trailed the Republican ticket of Bush and Dick Cheney 50% to 46% among likely voters, with independent candidate Ralph Nader at 2%.

Before the convention, the two were essentially tied, with Kerry at 47%, Bush at 46%.

The change in support was within the poll's margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points in the sample of 763 likely voters. But it was nonetheless a stunning result, the first time in the Gallup Poll since the 1972 Democratic convention that a candidate seemed to lose ground at his convention.

That may be because there are some other similarities with the 1972 Democratic convention.

The really bad news is that this was a partial weekend poll, which usually tend to favor Democrats (they seem to be home more for surveying on the weekends than Republicans).

Speaking of hamsters, there's some pretty phunny photoshopping here. I can't decide which I like better: "Saving Private Hamster" or the operating room scene with the bunny suit.

Here's a mental image you probably don't want:
http://www.duranki.us/images/licorice.jpeg

Eeeeuuuuwwwww.

Makes you wish you could put it and the Al Franken version in the same cage to see if they'll bite each others' heads off.

They're funny, all right, but the best one is the bill to Acme Computer Cleaners.

After looking at those pictures, I need them! :-p

Not to defend Kerry, but another explanation is that quadrennial conventions no longer matter. So don't get all excited about this unless you are willing to listen to weeks of Looney Lefties crowing about Bush's lack of a bounce. (Then again, they're going to spin the coming convention as a disaster no matter what happens.)

I'm personally of the opinion that it will be a close race, and have no idea who is likely to win.

But, as Gallup noted, this is the first time in a very long time that a convention has failed to achieve a bounce in ratings. More to the point, this comes on the tail of a mid-term election which, against ALL precedent (iirc), saw the party in the WH gain seats in the House and Senate.

So, at a minimum, this is a pretty odd occupant of the WH, who's able to pull such things outta his hat (at least so far). It's even more surprising for someone who's consistently described as moronic, stupid, and an idiot.

If the conventions were suddenly going to have no impact on how people regard the candidates nominated at them, wouldn't we have seen some warning of it in previous election cycles?

Bush got a bounce out of his 2000 convention, and then Gore got one from his. The one parallel to Kerry's experience in observed history is not a case of neither candidate getting a bounce, but George McGovern's anomalous non-bounce convention.

There is no evidence to support the notion that Kerry's convention failed because conventions don't matter, and all kinds of evidence to support the hypothesis that Kerry's convention failed because of John Kerry.

I used to think that politics was something I really should get interested in; but never managed to. I considered this a failing in myself.

Then I saw a TV program about how few and small the differences were between the major parties- the big spenders were planning on spending a mighty 1% more, but there were also other enormous samenesses too.

I yawned and moved on.

I suspect that the differences between the American parties are actually pretty similarly small. Nothing to get excited about. But the parties are trying to emphasise the 'HUGE' differences to encourage you to vote at all.

Just make sure you vote appropriately if somebody really right wing (as in Adolf Hitler) or left wing (Chairman Mao) stands, and everything will probably be ok. Or as ok as it was going to be anyway, pretty much.

The election: Are we there yet?

Yes, I know I'm late commenting. Been away for awhile. Got to see British coverage of the Democratic convention without any filtering at all -- because I was in England and Wales at the time. BBC correspondents did point out the difficulties Kerry is facing. They calmly instructed their audience on some of the differences between the UK and the U.S. Perhaps Dale Amon and Samizdata crew would see things differently, though.

I'm utterly confused about this election. I really don't know who's going to win. A gut feel says Bush, but then I encounter data points like this: a middle aged married woman, active in her church, a mainstream service organization, a veterans' organization (yes, women can be veterans too) and the Republican party. I hope I've sufficiently obscured her identity. Solidly in the Bush camp? Actually, no. She's voting for Kerry -- and Republican the rest of the way. Then there are retired military people I know -- voting for Kerry. OK, I'm a bit unusual and have friends that are not at the center of the norms. But still, these kinds of personal experiences do affect my views.

I tend not to see either Bush or Kerry as demons. But some of their backers do raise some hackles. When some Republicans, for instance, denigrate 9/11 commission chair Tom Kean as "not a real Republican" I wonder if they're taking some drugs they try to outlaw for the rest of us. For the record, I lived in New Jersey when Kean (pronounced "Cane" for outsiders, not "Keen") was governor. He was one of the finest governors NJ had in the 20th century. Any sane, well informed Republican would be glad to have him.

There are times I've facetiously suggested we modify the Constitution in a small way. Let's ban men named "Ralph" from politics. Just think how much better off we'd be without the careers of Ralph Nader and Ralph Reed.

4 points of error?

Then it could be 50% Kerry - 50% Bush, OR
it could be 42% Kerry - 54% Bush...

My. That's rather revealing...