Undecideds at 5-10%. will they decide the election? a lesson from history

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

Think about it. In 1992 Bush Sr, while behind 15%, started to catch up in the weeks before the election. Was this because of the undecideds? In 1996, Clinton was over 50% in the horserace until the last minute, when Dole made up some of the difference. Was this also because of the undecideds? In 2000 Bush was ahead of Gore in the polls up until the last day, when Gore broke ahead and won the popular vote. Was this because the undecideds broke for him? In OH in 2000, Gore was behind 11% in the polls, and pulled out of the state, and only lost it by 3%. Was this because the undecideds broke for him? In 2002, the dems were tied in the congressional races until the last day, when the republicans broke heavily into the lead. Was this because of the undecideds? Undecideds in OH number 5-10% as well as nationally. If Kerry wins OH, he wins the election. Undecideds usually break heavily for the challenger. What if?

[Barney Rocks]

1. Historical data

on how the undecided people have broken in the past. I did not put this together--I was sent this breakdown by my brother. It includes all presidential races back to 1936.

Year Race 1 Month Out Next To Last Poll Result Verdict

1936 Incumbent FDR vs. Landon FDR 51, Landon 44 FDR 54, Landon 43 FDR 61, Landon 37 Broke towards incumbent.

1940 Incumbent FDR vs. Willkie FDR 51, Willkie 42 FDR 51, Willkie 42 FDR 55, Willkie 45 Broke evenly.

1944 Incumbent FDR vs. Dewey FDR 47, Dewey 45 FDR 47, Dewey 45 FDR 53, Dewey 46 Broke towards incumbent.

1948 Incumbent Truman vs. Dewey Dewey 46, Truman 40 Dewey 50, Truman 45 Truman 50, Dewey 45 Broke towards the incumbent.

1952 No incumbents. Democrats the incumbent party. Ike vs. Stevenson Ike 51, Stevenson 38 Ike 48, Stevenson 39 Ike 55, Stevenson 44 Broke evenly.

1956 Incumbent Ike vs. Stevenson Ike 51, Stevenson 41 Ike 51, Stevenson 41 Ike 57, Stevenson 42 Broke towards incumbent.

1960 No incumbent President. Incumbent VP Nixon vs. Kennedy Kennedy 49, Nixon 45 Kennedy 49, Nixon 45 Kennedy 50, Nixon 50 Broke for incumbent VP.

1964 Incumbent LBJ vs. Goldwater LBJ 64, Goldwater 29 LBJ 64, Goldwater 29 LBJ 61, Goldwater 38 Broke towards challenger.

1968 No incumbents. Democrats the incumbent party. Humphrey vs. Nixon Nixon 43, Humphrey 31 Nixon 44, Humphrey 36 Nixon 43, Humphrey 43 Broke towards incumbent party.

1972 Incumbent Nixon vs. McGovern Nixon 60, McGovern 34 Nixon 59, McGovern 36 Nixon 61, McGovern 38 Broke evenly.

1976 Incumbent Ford vs. Carter Carter 47, Ford 41 Carter 48, Ford 44 Carter 50, Ford 48 Slight break towards incumbent.

1980 Incumbent Carter vs. Reagan Carter 47, Reagan 39 Carter 47, Reagan 39 Reagan 51, Carter 41 Broke strongly towards challenger. So did some of the decideds.

1984 Incumbent Reagan vs. Mondale Reagan 58, Mondale 38 Reagan 56, Mondale 39 Reagan 59, Mondale 41 Broke evenly.

1988 No incumbent President. Incumbent VP Bush vs. Dukakis Bush 49, Dukakis 43 Bush 53, Dukakis 39 Bush 53, Dukakis 46 Broke evenly from a month out. Broke slightly towards challenger from the 2nd to last poll.

1992 Incumbent Bush vs. Clinton Clinton 47, Bush 29 Clinton 43, Bush 36 Clinton 43, Bush 38 Broke towards incumbent.

1996 Incumbent Clinton vs. Dole Clinton 48, Dole 39 Clinton 52, Dole 41 Clinton 49, Dole 41 Broke evenly.

2000 No incumbent President. Incumbent VP Gore vs. Bush Bush 48, Gore 43 Bush 47, Gore 45 Gore 48, Bush 48 Broke towards incumbent VP.

With only three exceptions, the incumbent party's candidate did at least as well as the challenger with the late breaking vote, and usually did a lot better. The three exceptions? Barry Goldwater and Mike Dukakis each made small gains while remaining considerably behind in an impending crushing defeat. Ronald Reagan proved to be the exception to every rule, winning not only the undecideds but also taking away considerable support from Jimmy Carter during the last weeks of the 1980 election.

[NDFan]

3. Source?

Your brother's sources for these stats?

[Barney Rocks]

4. he used average polling numbers

for the more recent ones 1976 onward (at least that is what he said).

The older ones (prior to 1976) all came from Gallup--I believe that is the only polling org that was around in like 1948.

[papau]

7. Can you have your brother state the source of his numbers - exactly, yr by

year and date poll taken.

They do not agree with what I "have" as last poll averages - but I do not want to be doing an apples and oranges comparison!

Thanks

:-)

[Awsi Dooger]

9. Here's a link with the chart his brother forwarded

http://www.dalythoughts.com/Update-05-26-04.htm

That is a well reasoned article and I'm sure the numbers are legit. (On edit: however, your point is well taken. The author of the article includes the "next to last poll" for some inane reason. That certainly can influence the conclusion regarding undecideds)

When was Bush 41 ever 15 points behind Clinton in '92? I was in Europe for the Barcelona Olympics, but following the race and I don't remember anything like that. Maybe immediately after the Democratic convention.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. In Many Of Those Races...

The person behind was so far behind some closing was inevitable...

[papau]

13. The data is legit - but the use of Gallup post change in late 50's with

early Gallup is apples and not-apples.

But a great site for data and interesting pundity.

He does not get into quality of past polling - but maybe that is best for his site.

[Barney Rocks]

16. yep--that

looks identical. I can't get ahold of my brother right now--he is off on a kayaking trip in South America--but it looks like the source all right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Is Your Brother A Republican?

He includes all the Republican talking points in his analysis...


Here's a nice non-partisan discussion of the incumbent rule.


www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm

[WoodrowFan]

14. great article

thank you for the reference, that's a great article.

[Barney Rocks]

15. Oh yes---

he has turned freeper. I figured it to be a republican analysis--but just presented it as he sent it to me. I wanted to see how the folks here would critique it (the comments too).

I have been fretting over the undecideds for a while. He sent me this in answer to my questions--which I like because it does have some data to look at--but of course there are a multiple of factors at play in all these races (for example some were 3 way--not 2 way and some were impacted by "October Surprises".

However, what I come away with is that it is not certain--the undecideds can break either way--or they can break pretty evenly. So in other words--we cannot just count on the undecideds (in my mind at least) we need to make sure we do a really good job of turning out our base.

However, I believe that in this case it will be most like 1980 in the final analysis--with Kerry in the role of Reagan as the effective and popular challenger. I believe this because I see so much anger toward Bush. The undecideds definitely KNOW that they do NOT want Bush. It may not always be this strong--but this year--I believe that is what the undecideds feel (if indeed they are undecided).

[Zynx]

12. Never include polls before 1960. They were worthless.

Their methodologies were terribly off.

[NDFan]

2. I think

Clinton's smaller-than-expecter percent of the popular vote (49%) can be attributed to the fact that no one voted. Only 49% turned out to vote. Clinton was an incumbent, no one thought Dole had a chance in hell, and so thinking the race was won already, everyone stayed home. The low turnout helped Dole narrow the gap.

And remember, Clinton's 1996 victory three-way race: Clinton (49%), Dole (41%), and Perot (9%). So you could say the undecideds broke for Perot, not Dole.

[tedoll78]

5. Well..

Not quite sure here. Zogby says that about 25% of them think that Bush deserves 4 more years; it seems like the undecided deck is stacked against the Chimp, and other polls have produced similar results. Undecideds just need to be nudged-over, and to actually show-up to the polls.

[Fluffdaddy]

6. Undecideds at 5-10%. ?? BS. No more then 3% Undecideds.........Tops

[Awsi Dooger]

8. States may be higher, but nationally you're right

The national polls are generally 3-6% undecided, or less. Interesting that Zogby has it somewhat higher.

[DemocracyInaction]

17. There are things in this election year that I don't think are going to

fit so nicely into past trends, etc. We were attacked on main land soil. We have tv pumping a glorious war (but now the glorious war has gone terribly wrong); yet it leaves a funny divide in people. We have a president who is a brain dead loser but can put on the CIC suit and a bunch will automatically follow. The attack and the war are great places to hide his total encomic failure. We are increasingly a nation of "screw the common good---I have mine so fuck you". We are terribly politically ignorant and getting worse with every passing year. Don't go to the bank on which way the undecided may break----in fact, how many of the 'undecided' really now are just people who have been caught off guard by a pollster, are mired in ignorance, and have no intention of voting anyhow??? We either get the base out or we lose. Time to stop chasing shadows.