Can someone educate me about past elections?

[Clobbersaurus]

I've just begun to get into politics the past couple years so I know very little about polling, trends, bounce, etc. etc. I hear Kerry is "trending up" and his "probability of winning" is in the 90s. But what is this based on?

What were Gore's "trends" and probabilities in the last week before the election? Were people expecting a Gore win based on the data? Any other elections in history playing out similarly to this one?

If someone has the time/inclination/knowledge, I'd like to learn more...

[Technowitch]

1. No, actually, all the polls were calling for a pretty massive Shrub win

Now mind you, these are the same ridiculously biased polls that continue to show Shrub ahead now when actual voter demographics ought to have him roughly 5 points behind.

Instead of a significant win, Shrub lost the popular vote and only got the electoral vote by stealing Florida -- and through Repug voter fraud in other states that actually went unnoticed by the media.

Oh yeah, and Nader, who if he had any decency, would pull out now, declare that he's made his point by running, and throw his support behind Kerry. But he doesn't, it's all about his ego, so he won't.

Going back though, to "incumbent versus challenger" elections, the incumbent, whether ahead or not, always loses percentage points as the election day actually draws closer. An incumbent ahead 60 to 50 might see that drop to 54 or 53. An incumbent who is trailing will lose even more significantly than the polls indicate.

The undecideds always break for the challenger, on a 2 to 1 ratio, give or take.

Kerry will win, unless the voter fraud is too great to overcome.

[NAO]

2. I've been looking for the same stuff...

I wonder how the actual election results matched up with the polls days, weeks, months before the election.

If they are way off, does anybody ask why or are people just too happy/discouraged that their candidate won/lost?

[snowbear]

3. past years...

They're saying that this year will probably make us heave all prior trends in the garbage.

Bush's approval rating sucks
Bush sucks
The economy sucks
Bush lied about Iraq
Stocks are plummeting
Bush sucks
Bush lied about Medicare
Bush is lying about Social Security
Bush lied about the National Guard
Bush lied about the 28 pages
BUSH SUCKS
What else.. this list could go on forever..

But they say ("they" as in Carlos Watson and all of the other so-called analysts) are assuming that it's still the "911 effect" that is keeping this race so close.

At the end of the day though ~~ Kerry WILL still win! :thumbsup:

[Bucky]

4. Nah, in 2000 half were expecting Bush to win; half couldn't tell what next

This is surprisingly like the 2000 race. Bush was doing better in the polls in late October, but was doing better in early October than he was in late October. The boy doesn't hold up to scrutiny very well and late-breakers tend to vote for non-Bush people.

Essentially the working class voters who tend to vote Democratic don't tend to pay too much attention to the polls until the last 2-3 weeks of the campaign. Republican voters tend to get engaged about a month before the Democratic voters.

Over the last ten years the trend has emerged that Democrats tend to be undercounted in opinion polls by 1-3 percentage points. The only election in which this was not the case was 2002, when the late breakers went for Republicans. In all other elections since the 1990s late breakers (people who decide at the last minute) tend to go for Democrats.

2002 may have been unique because of 9/11 or because the Dems had really crappy morale that year. We're in much better shape this year.

[Clobbersaurus]

5. Interesting stuff guys - Thanks. (n/t)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

6. The critical difference is this year shrub is an incumbent president.

There was no incumbent running last time.

The dynamics of an incumbent race are completely different than a "lame duck" race.

"Undecided" voters have had 4 years to check out the incumbent. They have obviously already rejected him. They are "deciding" whether or not the challenger is an acceptable and sufficiently palatable alternative. That is why the "undecided vote" favors the challenger in such races.

In a "lame duck" race, undecided voters are only guessing at the potential performance of the candidates as president, and hence things can swing back and forth among them even more than this year.

[elsiesummers]

7. My amateur opinion - no inside info FWIW

I think this election is a whole new ball game, except for 2000, no other is applicable - yet the level of challenge to voting that did not fully play out in 2000 will play out this round. Also think polls are more unreliable than polling companies want you to believe. While current polls are mostly tied within margin of error, there are variables that will determine the outcome.

-In a way, the vote is only the starting block. This election will prove that the system isbroken.

-The turnout - will work in Kerry's favor - new registered voters may be more easily challenged, though. If there is enough of a landslide that a win is not aggressively challenged, it will be a Kerry win on the surprise turnout - and will prove that pre-election polls are poor predictors and new methods will be explored.

-The voting machines, balloting, counting and technical snafus - how these will go and what locations will become problem locations I don't know - but you can bet there will be issues.

-Republican challenges (claims of fraud) - you can tell by the way they are setting up the spin that they are planning to do this, post election. On one hand, this seems promising for Kerry - that Republicans are going to this length means that they are assuming enough losses that they will not win outright and will go straight to challenging the result. I am left thinkng that the presidency will actually be won in the contests and court challenges and am curious as to what possible Republican bombs are being preset and hope the Democrats are ready for anything. The fervor of the Bush supporters will be scary.

-The rare undecided voter - many will not vote - others probably will not break as favorably for Kerry as some speculate. Why I think this: the power of the Bushies to spread fear of terror attacks among people who live in rural areas or small towns is ridiculous. Some people are easily and irrationally scared and their tendency to quake should not be underestimated.

-Polling intimidation and polling chaos: It seems like there will be efforts to slow down and intimidate voters (reducing Democrats - and we have to wonder how many Republicans are voting early for this reason) and possibly to declare problems with the vote in certain precincts where Democrats are likely favored.

Post election legal battles: This is likely where the presidency will be won.

All in all, I speculate that the failure to fix the voting system and to unify the system on a national level after 2000 - that this will play out and be the story of 2004. After this election it will be more clear than it was in 2000 that Democracy, or at least voting/polling, is broken in the United States. On an international level this will become quite scandalous, and even if Bush manages to retain the presidency, any words that he speaks about "spreading freedom and democracy" will be evident, worldwide, as the words of a dictator. World opinion towards the US will then undergo a REAL shift, not the paltry "we are not pleased" attitude of the present.

[sandnsea]

10. Not scared, patriotic

I don't think anybody in a rural area is afraid THEY will be attacked. They just respond to their country being attacked so they have to kill those who attacked. It's patriotism, not fear.

[Renew Deal]

8. Probability is based on today's polls.

So he has a 90% probability of winning based on today's numbers. That can change tomorrow. It's only really accurate the day before election day. That's the way I understand it. TruthIsAll knows more.

[sandnsea]

9. Bad wars

Americans don't re-elect (so to speak) Presidents who are running bad wars. In '52 and '68, the Democratic Party got rid of its Presidents on its own, they both chose not to run. This was in spite of a great economy in 68, don't know about 52. We also went to the opposing party. But, since people also seem to think Bush is doing well on terrorism, that could offset their anger about Iraq. Factor in the economy, and Bush should lose. He should also have below 40% approval ratings by now though. Without the "war on terror", he'd be sunk for sure. Tough to really predict what will happen. I just think overall outrage by the masses is what will move him out.