There's an interesting article in The Economist this week that's luckily free for web readers (unlike much of their other content). In the vein of Zogby, Rasmussen, Tuxeira and many in the blogosphere, the publication goes through the recent spate of polling, weeding out the outliers and meaningless drivel, to find out what the actual state of the race is.

To begin, let me pass on the following nifty graphic, which explains a lot about the current status of the Presidential campaign and is thus quite useful.



Here's what they write under the headline "How big was the 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.

All three polls need to be handled with care. Both Time and Newsweek conducted their research while the Republican convention was still going on; so whatever they were measuring, it was not the impact of Mr Bush's acceptance speech, or the convention as a whole.

The Time and Gallup polls surveyed likely voters (likely in the opinion of pollsters). But polls of registered voters are usually regarded as more accurate. The margin among registered voters was lower: eight points according to Time and one point according to Gallup. Newsweek's poll, also among registered voters, used an odd sample—38% Republicans, 31% each for Democrats and independents, when current party registration has Democrats with 33% and Republicans with 29%. All three measures may exaggerate the size of Mr Bush's lead. But they do not invent it. Other polls from the same period show the president ahead, albeit in a much closer race—by two points, according to Zogby, and one, according to both the American Research Group and The Economist's own poll, conducted by YouGov, a British polling firm.

The “bounce”—that is, the difference between Mr Bush's level of support before and after his convention—is also there, again modestly. In our poll and Gallup's Mr Bush increased his vote by two points. That is better than Mr Kerry's non-bounce (his vote actually fell after his convention).

This is great analysis by The Economist save for one point: Their claim that Kerry has a "non-bounce" and that "his vote actually fell after his convention" is not accurate, at least according to their polling.

Kerry had a three point positive bounce in their poll from the week before the convention (Kerry 45, Bush 43 among RV) and the week of the Democratic Convention (Kerry 45, Bush 44 among RV) to the week after the DNC (Kerry 48, Bush 43 among RV). Bush, during the two week period from before to after his convention, had a bounce of just 2% in the Economist/YouGov poll, so Kerry's bounce was in fact larger than Bush's.

The Economist concludes thusly:

This is the first presidential contest since the attacks on the World Trade Centre, and the first since 1972 to take place at a time of war. Normally, elections that take place at a time of war or foreign crisis produce a decisive victory. Until now, the contest has been tied. The question from the polling evidence is whether that may be beginning to change. A big Bush victory, while still not the most likely outcome, has become a real possibility (italics added).

I think that sums up the state of the race perfectly and fairly. It's too bad most of the American media outlets can't be this balanced in their campaign analysis...