If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

<high-fiving nimh on choice of Edwards for VP.>

Seems to me more like an unsure/visibility thing. At least it's not in the bad column yet.

Matthew Dowd, the chief strategist for Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, calculated several years ago that if the Republican ticket were to take the same percentages of the Hispanic, black and white vote in 2004 as it did in 2000, it would lose the popular vote by three million ballots and the Electoral College. In 2000, Mr. Bush received 544,000 fewer votes than Al Gore but won the Electoral College."

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

A new Gallup survey, which includes large oversamples of blacks and Hispanics, finds President George W. Bush losing the support of Hispanic voters. In the 2000 election, former Vice President Al Gore easily won the Hispanic vote, 62% to 35%, according to the networks' exit poll. But early in his presidency, Bush seemed to overcome the Democratic tendency of most Hispanics, receiving job approval ratings from that group at the same level as from non-Hispanic whites.

In the past year, Bush's job approval rating among Hispanics dropped significantly, while approval from whites declined only modestly. Now, more Hispanics disapprove than approve of Bush's performance, and a majority indicate they will vote for Sen. John Kerry and for the Democratic representative in their districts in this fall's elections. [..] The poll was conducted June 9-30, and the sample includes approximately 800 non-Hispanic whites, 800 blacks, and 500 Hispanics. [..]

they are predicting "up to" a 15 point boost.

But they are probably intentionally overstating it to portray any boost as expected.

nimh wrote:

Hmm ... I almost agreed with you, but then I realised the dichotomy:
[Kerry's] not been visible enough for as many people to like him as Bush -- but apparently he's been visible enough for as many people to dislike him as Bush?

I'm guessing that there's a starting trend of people not disliking and tending to be favorable.

Then the difference between bush and kerry seems to be pretty much in the unsure category

Was it HarryTruman who said that the vp's job "wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit."
Similarly, many analysts contend that the vp candidate doesn't end up having much effect after the initial bounce. But if Edwards can deliver NC (with its 15 electoral votes) and perhaps VA (with 13), that could be a big contribution.

The bounce seems to be some nine points on this first day.

Two weeks ago, the three-way NBC/WSJ poll had Bush at 45, Kerry at 44 and Nader at 4. Today, an impromptu NBC/WSJ poll has Kerry-Edwards beating Bush-Cheney 49% to 41%, with Nader-Camejo at 4%.

Convention bounces generally occur due to partisan voters coming home to their candidate, and undecided independents being swayed at least momentarily. Not all independents are equal; studies by Pew and Gallup have shown that some independents routinely vote Democratic, and some independents routinely vote Republican. Exit polls routinely show that each party gets a minimum of 35% of the independents. Any support below this level is bound to 'come home' to their undeclared party with as much regularity as declared partisans returning to the party fold.

Before the Democratic Convention in 1992, Mr. Clinton had only 67% of Democrats saying they were definitely going to vote for him, with 11% saying they were definitely going to vote for Mr. Bush (Data according to Pew Research). After the convention, Mr. Bush was getting under 5% of them, and Mr. Clinton was well above 80%. The Democrats came home. Among independents, Mr. Clinton had been getting just a quarter beforehand-- an extremely low number. Mr. Clinton was well set to have a sizeable convention bounce

Where Mr. Clinton in 1992 and Mr. Gore in 2000 faced the opportunity for a healthy bounce by bringing home the Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents, Mr. Kerry's situation is more similar to Mr. Dole's [..]. Mr. Kerry [already] has 73% of Democrats [while his opponent] has just 6% of Democrats. Mr. Kerry [also] already has 37% [of independents]; those who lean Democrat already are with him. And it is not that Mr. Bush is doing poorly with independents, either. 35% of them say they will certainly cast their vote for him.

Mr. Kerry will get about a 4-7 point bounce as the 73% certain support among Democrats increases to 80-85% and the few Democrat-leaning independents not already in his camp swing his way. Any bounce beyond that will have to be accomplished by wooing voters who are either neutral to Democrats or normally disinclined towards them. Further making it difficult for Mr. Kerry is the fact that the networks will be dedicating significantly fewer prime time hours to convention coverage.

I would not be surprised to see both candidates end up with convention bounces smaller than normal. If this happens, then it is going to be difficult for Mr. Kerry to avoid the perception that he did not live up to expectations. Where incumbent Presidents have had less than a 10-point bounce on average since 1976, challengers to an incumbent President have enjoyed a bounce closer to 16 points. [Bush campaign strategist] Mr. Dowd has primed the coverage to anticipate a double-digit bounce for Mr. Kerry, and so did Mr. McAuliffe [who suggested it will be between 8 and 12 points]. More is expected of Mr. Kerry's bounce, even though the terrain is not favorable for it being large.

I would not be surprised to see both candidates end up with convention bounces smaller than normal. If this happens, then it is going to be difficult for Mr. Kerry to avoid the perception that he did not live up to expectations.

leading to the conclusion The Edwards Bump is transient if not illusory.