Some of my thoughts

[Vosem]

After considering some things, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. The Democratic Convention was indisputably more successful than the Republican Convention. This baffles my mind, but you can't argue with statistics. The Republican bounce was no more than 1-2 points, whereas the Democratic bounce is more substantial; 5 points or so.

2. Speaking from a historical point of view, the Democratic bounce was weak (Nate Silver said the average bounce was 7-8 points). It's just that the Republican bounce was even weaker.

3. Obama will not do as well as he did in 2008. Period. At the height of the convention bounce, he is doing only as well as he did then.

4. The bigger convention bounce indicates that there are more soft-Romney supporters than soft-Obama supporters, which makes the small edge the President has (probably around ~2-3 points after the bounce recedes) more substantial than it seems.

5. Romney does still have advantages. The two key ones are that the recovery seems to be weakening, at least to me, and that considering Europe it is perfectly possible we will slip into a recession this fall (or at least that the next two job reports may show us losing, not gaining jobs). In any case, it seems very unrealistic to hope for good economic news for Obama. The second one is that, without factoring in outside groups, Romney and Obama are about even in terms of campaign spending -- much better than a usual challenger. When you do factor them in, Romney is dominating. That is very unusual for a challenger.

6. It seems unlikely there will be any significant foreign-policy news this fall except European economics, which will help Romney -- speaking purely from the vantage-point of electoral politics, a highly-publicized conflict somewhere, in the Middle East or Caucasus, would help Obama, who has the incumbent advantage.

7. It is looking increasingly likely that the election result will be a Bush '04-esque victory for Obama (in terms of size in the EC), Republicans picking up the Senate 51-49 (which seats is debatable, but it always seems comes back to this number, for me), and that the House will not see significant change, with either Republicans or Democrats picking up <10 seats.

8. 2013 seems like it will be painful for whoever is in charge without several miracles. Very painful.

[Supersonic]

I agree with you on all points.

[MorningInAmerica]

2. Speaking from a historical point of view, the Democratic bounce was weak (Nate Silver said the average bounce was 7-8 points). It's just that the Republican bounce was even weaker.

3. Obama will not do as well as he did in 2008. Period. At the height of the convention bounce, he is doing only as well as he did then.

Considering these 2 points alone, you could actually argue that at the height of his convention bounce, he is falling just short of his 2008 margin (which was 7.3 points). Looking at all the national polls to come out after the convention, in order of the size of the Obama lead, it's IBD +2, Gallup +5, Reuters +5, Rasmussen +5 (+4 w/ leaners), CNN +6. Feel free to add in any national polls I'm missing.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I agree with you on all points.

First time I've ever said that about you. Congratulations Vosem!

[Skill and Chance]

2. Speaking from a historical point of view, the Democratic bounce was weak (Nate Silver said the average bounce was 7-8 points). It's just that the Republican bounce was even weaker.

3. Obama will not do as well as he did in 2008. Period. At the height of the convention bounce, he is doing only as well as he did then.

Considering these 2 points alone, you could actually argue that at the height of his convention bounce, he is falling just short of his 2008 margin (which was 7.3 points). Looking at all the national polls to come out after the convention, in order of the size of the Obama lead, it's IBD +2, Gallup +5, Reuters +5, Rasmussen +5 (+4 w/ leaners), CNN +6. Feel free to add in any national polls I'm missing.

But remember that the 2008 convention bounce also had Obama up +5-6 after being +1-2 in late August.  He didn't start leading by 7-8 until October 2008.  Also, McCain led after his RNC.  Romney only tied.  Even Mondale tied Reagan out of his convention in 1984!

So I would say this is mapping most closely to 2008 without the financial crisis, which would probably have been inverse 2004 or 50-48 Obama in the end. 

[MorningInAmerica]

So I would say this is mapping most closely to 2008 without the financial crisis, which would probably have been inverse 2004 or 50-48 Obama in the end.  

I can definitely agree with this statement. That's about where I see this race headed right now.

Here are some polls from Obama's bounce in 2008. As big as 9, as small as 1.

[Skill and Chance]

So I would say this is mapping most closely to 2008 without the financial crisis, which would probably have been inverse 2004 or 50-48 Obama in the end. 

I can definitely agree with this statement. That's about where I see this race headed right now.

The ironic thing is that Obama would probably be in much better shape today if the crisis didn't happen.  Dems wouldn't have come close to getting 60 senate seats, so Obama couldn't have told the GOP to shove it in 2009.  And budget deficits wouldn't be half this bad in a 2001-07 economy, even if you hold all spending constant.

[後援会]

So I would say this is mapping most closely to 2008 without the financial crisis, which would probably have been inverse 2004 or 50-48 Obama in the end. 

I can definitely agree with this statement. That's about where I see this race headed right now.

The ironic thing is that Obama would probably be in much better shape today if the crisis didn't happen.  Dems wouldn't have come close to getting 60 senate seats, so Obama couldn't have told the GOP to shove it in 2009.  And budget deficits wouldn't be half this bad in a 2001-07 economy, even if you hold all spending constant.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why would it be painful for Obama? Just jack up public debt from 110 percent to 160 percent. Problem solved.

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why would it be painful for Obama? Just jack up public debt from 110 percent to 160 percent. Problem solved.

The Republicans will probably still control the House, maybe the Senate too. Obama can't do literally whatever he wants.

[Mehmentum]

Though even when democrats controlled congress, Obama still couldn't do whatever he wanted.

[King]

Obama is going to be a lame duck for the first half of his second term if the GOP keeps the House. His second half success and legacy rides on the 2014 healthcare provisions showing immediate effect and stimulating the economy in the process thus giving democrats the midterm.

[Landslide Lyndon]

ECB's decision to purchase bonds from all the troubled nations makes a Eurozone collapse in the next months rather implausible.
So don't bet the farm on an Obama defeat due to us.

[Hoverbored123]

On #1, I'm inclined to agree, even if the bounce is only temporary (my guess is that it is). 

#3 I agree with strongly.  As Wayne Allyn Root opined some months ago, Obama has nowhere to go but down compared to 2008. 

#4 could be true, but it's largely speculation.

#5 is definitely true.  No matter what the convention bounce is for Obama, the economy is still working against him. 

#7- I wouldn't be at all surprised if the GOP won control of congress, but I wouldn't forecast an Obama victory just yet.  As Michael Berry of CU-Boulder pointed out, Jimmy Carter in 1980 would have the same odds Obama has now.  This isn't to say that 2012 will be a Romney landslide, but a Romney upset is far from impossible. 

Sadly, I have to agree on #8.  If Romney manages to go all the way in November, he'll have his work cut out for him come January. 

[7,052,770]

So I would say this is mapping most closely to 2008 without the financial crisis, which would probably have been inverse 2004 or 50-48 Obama in the end. 

I can definitely agree with this statement. That's about where I see this race headed right now.

The ironic thing is that Obama would probably be in much better shape today if the crisis didn't happen.  Dems wouldn't have come close to getting 60 senate seats, so Obama couldn't have told the GOP to shove it in 2009.  And budget deficits wouldn't be half this bad in a 2001-07 economy, even if you hold all spending constant.

Wrong, Obama needed 60 to pass PPACA.

[opebo]

8. 2013 seems like it will be painful for whoever is in charge without several miracles. Very painful.

Not so buddy.  Well, maybe the one year.  But cyclical recovery is coming soon - obviously the masses will still be in a state of misery, but overall, the upswing is coming.   (which is the biggest reason I would dread a Romney victory - he would take credit!)

[Silent Hunter]

So I would say this is mapping most closely to 2008 without the financial crisis, which would probably have been inverse 2004 or 50-48 Obama in the end. 

I can definitely agree with this statement. That's about where I see this race headed right now.

The ironic thing is that Obama would probably be in much better shape today if the crisis didn't happen.  Dems wouldn't have come close to getting 60 senate seats, so Obama couldn't have told the GOP to shove it in 2009.  And budget deficits wouldn't be half this bad in a 2001-07 economy, even if you hold all spending constant.

Wrong, Obama needed 60 to pass PPACA.

He had it until MA changed hands with Scott Brown - then things got a bit more difficult to pass it.