80% of undecided voters will vote for Kerry

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

This is from PollingReport.com

Incumbent Races:
Closer Than They Appear

by Nick Panagakis


How will undecideds vote on election day? Traditionally, there have been two schools of thought about how undecideds in trial heat match-ups will divide up at the ballot box. One is that they will break equally; the other, that they will split in proportion to poll respondents who stated a candidate preference.

But our analysis of 155 polls reveals that, in races that include an incumbent, the traditional answers are wrong. Over 80% of the time, most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger.

The 155 polls we collected and analyzed were the final polls conducted in each particular race; most were completed within two weeks of election day. They cover both general and primary elections, and Democratic and Republican incumbents. They are predominantly from statewide races, with a few U.S. House, mayoral and countywide contests thrown in. Most are from the 1986 and 1988 elections, although a few stretch back to the 1970s.

The polls we studied included our own surveys, polls provided to us directly by CBS, Gallup, Gordon S. Black Corp., Market Opinion Research, Tarrance Associates, and Mason-Dixon Opinion Research, as well as polls that appeared in The Polling Report.

http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm

[tedoll78]

1. And when you add this to the new voter factor..

you have Kerry winning in the Electoral College with more than 300 votes.

I hope to god that this trend holds..

[ogradda]

2. and you know those statistics must have *

squirming in his crib at nite.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. Add those new voters and those who don't come out usually.....

this will will be a victory for Kerry!!!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

5. I disagree

another article on The American Prospect detailed why an incumbent's polling numbers are typically their ceiling (or near their ceiling) and the challenger's numbers are typically at or near their FLOOR.

This bodes ill for bush. The 50% incumbent rule is not looking good for bush. It is HE who has needed to be clearly above 50% all along and he has not.

Edited to say I just read your edits and they are......interesting, shall we say.

Anyone who is that affected by a terror alert this late in the game (and doesn't smell election games) was already voting for bush anyway. Most of us stopped paying attention to those colors long ago.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

12. You make a

rather insistent argument for bush winning, don't you?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Quixote1818]

19. You have a lot of catching up to do

Take a look at this site: http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/000580.php

Also, your statement about people feeling safer with Bush fails to take into account that most polls show that people also feel safe with Kerry they just feel a little safer with Bush. The latest Democracy Corps poll showed Kerry's ability's on terror just under Bush's yet if you looked at a straight up poll that puts Kerry against Bush on terror Bush would lead by perhaps ten points. That would not show that people also give Kerry high marks on protecting us. So Bush is probably over playing his hand on terror and not spending enough time on domestic issues. Kerry can loose on terror and still win because people do actually feel safe with Kerry and he wins on most of the other issues.

[CAcyclist]

6. If you're going to state "facts", please provide links

"But in a presidential race you have two incumbents really, because all the advantages of incumbency from money to name recognition are wiped out."

I don't understand that comment. Most people hardly know Kerry even now. I didn't even know anything about him until the Dem primary.


"It is also a fact that in a presidential race undecideds and last minute voters break for the incumbent not the challanger."

As stated in the title, please provide a link for a "fact" like this.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

8. The article in this thread (at the top)

directly contradicts what he is saying, but it backs it up. Also, good point, I didn't know who Kerry was before the primaries, either.

[CAcyclist]

59. Whoa, would you look at all the bodies

Hi, came back to reply and the thread has become a graveyard. :)
I feel like I'm standing in a field with fallen enemy all around me.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

17. Knowing them does not make for two incumbents

bush is the one who has BEEN in office for four years, he is the one under whose policies we have suffered.....Kerry is not.

That doesn't make two incumbents. What a silly notion.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Quixote1818]

11. Republican pollster Luntz said his internals showed the undecideds would

break for Kerry. Also, most polls say around 49% want someone new even though they say Kerry is several points below 49%. That means that those four or five percent undecideds are basically already in the Kerry camp they just don't know it yet.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

26. You do know how things are looking in Florida and Ohio right?

And how the bush internal polls are looking right? Clues leaked to Washington Post in an article of today confirm what we've been suspecting: the bush internals don't look good at all.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NinetySix]

16. Undecideds typically break for the incumbent?

An election like this one is a referendum on the worthiness of the incumbent to serve a second term. Why should undecideds, more precisely those who are not convinced of the incumbent's ability or efficacy, choose in the end to vote for him on impulse? I find it far more likely that such a person would be much more likely to give even a challenger who is relatively unknown to them a chance at bat.

Are you going to vote for Kerry like most of the rest of us here?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

20. So.

You aren't voting for Kerry. And most likely voting for bush.

Here's a funny thing: I got that feeling from reading your first post.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

25. Can I ask why you are here

on a huge Democratic website for information and activism if your vote is so without hope?

Are you hoping to be convinced? Or do you just want to have a bit of fun with the Dems?

Just wondering as to movitation. You should know the wagons have circled here several weeks ago. I'm just sayin'.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

37. Sniff, sniff

[Quixote1818]

40. Fill us in on how he flip flopped on the current war????

He has changed his mind just like most Americans as new information has come to light. He also warned Bush to have his Ducks in a row and build a coalition when he did vote for the war. He also gave a speech on being prepared for the post war situation before casting his vote. I would say he has been extremely consistent and his foresight on what might happen if we didn't do things right was remarkable. He still plans on staying in Iraq and fixing the mess Bush started.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Quixote1818]

55. It's not a flip flop if you are given new information

If you are the coach of a football team and you have a game plan that everyone thinks will work then you go 0-11 and still want to keep the same game plan don't you think that coach should be fired? Put in the assistant coach who was originally for the game plan but when he was given new information decided he wanted to change. Then people like you call the assistant a flip flopper????? I suppose you would want to keep a coach who has had four loosing seasons? Not too smart.

Also, it was not Kerry who was PROMOTING the war and scaring the HELL out of everyone trying to sell his blood bath!!!! Their is a HUGE difference between being for the war and promoting it wit scare tacts like warning of mushroom clouds and death and destruction of your children. You guys amaze me at your tunnel vision. You see things one way and you won't take a second to take a breath and look at the facts.

[Quixote1818]

57. Also, when Tennant showed Bush the case for WMD's and Bush

said "Thats it??? Thats all we have???" and then Tennant said "It's a slam dunk". Why didn't Bush ask Tennant to show him this so called slam dunk????? We went to war because the CIA director said it's a slam dunk??? Thats not a good enough reason and Bush should have turned over every stone before taking our kids into HELL!!!!! But no, Bush talked to God and decided he was the chosen one and it was his destiny to turn the whole middle east into a shining democracy so he would go down as the second coming of Christ. It's easy to go to war when it's not you or your kids on the front line. I am still so furious about this my blood just boils when I think of what those kids are going through all because Bush talks to God!!! OMFG, do I worry about this country!

[NinetySix]

45. If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their ass every time they jumped.

IF Kerry had had his way? IF? This is a reason to vote against him? Why not just say that IF George W. Bush had been the President in 1991 instead of his father, we'd be in the same Goddamned mess we're in now, only further along the timeline, with no coalition, uncontrolable insurgency, probably tens of thousands of US casualties, an irreparable reputation in the international community, and suffering under the crushing costs of continued military operations? As long as we're speaking in hypotheticals, that is.

A hypothetical whose antecedent is false gives a positive truth value, but only because the falsity of the statement cannot be logically determined; the only way to prove a hypothetical false is to show that the consequences do not follow from the antecedent, hence, for Cheney to be proven false, Kerry would have had to ACTUALLY be the President in 1991, faced with the same situation, and acted differently than Cheney asserts. In other words, such hypothetical assertions are empty. QED.

[JohnnyCougar]

51. Here, read this.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

If Kerry were president, maybe Osama Bin Laden would have had more funding problems.

[Strelnikov_]

32. Why Can You Not 'Bring Myself To Vote For Kerry'?

We know the boy emperor's track record.

We know the Reich-wing agenda is to re-establish a late 19th century capitalist oligarchy.

So Kerry is not perfect. What human is.

There is always a choice. When in doubt, throw the bum out, and hope the new boss isn't the same as the old boss.

As they say, past accomplishments are the best predictor of future performance. I, for one, really don't want to see the chimp's second act.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

38. Keep talking

just keeeep talking. LOL.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

48. Funny how he doesn't answer that, eh?

[Strelnikov_]

50. You, Sir, Have Been Watching Too Much Faux News

Reagan did not defeat the Soviets, they beat themselves with a flawed economic system. Kinda like the same way Boosh and the GOP are going to bring down our country.

As for the 1st Gulf war, I agree with Kerry's vote. American blood spilt for petro-oligarchs.

Oh, yes, taxes. Most reich wingers do think it is better to borrow and spend instead of tax and spend. Problem is, this only works up to the point where the borrowing results in interest rates going through the roof, with subsequent economic collapse.

Fine, go ahead and vote Boosh.

And when you are bleeding to death in a foxhole for the petro-oligarchs, or you are holding your child as they starve to death during Great Depression II, you can hold your head up high and say 'I Supported Boosh, My Life For Him'.

[Quixote1818]

52. 9/11 Changed everything friend! I am sure Kerry has a different

mindset as we all do. He won't be soft on the terrorist but he also wont start a war that inflames millions of Muslims and has caused an increase in terror attacks and made us LESS SAFE. As to weather the Soviet Union would still be around?? I doubt it as they were going down sooner or later. How come so many Generals as well as Ike's son are supporting Kerry? Don't you think these guys have a little idea who the best man for the job is?

[JohnnyCougar]

53. Well, if past acts...

If Bush/Cheney hadn't given Saddam WMD in the 80's and given him intelligence, and given him the green light to invade Kuwait, than maybe he wouldn't have invaded Kuwait.

[kaitykaity]

56. Oh, go back to swallowing Hannity's swill and leave us be.

This post quotes verbatim the BS Hannity spews daily
and has no place here.

You have revealed yourself for the FR***tard you are.

Go away.

[NinetySix]

23. Just to help you increase your post count,

it looks like you're undecided between yourself and Mayor Daley. Does that mean you're likely to break for the incumbent?

As long as Kerry polls ahead of Bush, he stands on a hill while Bush stands in a hole. I'm not too concerned that Kerry will lose support among those who now support him, but if I were, I'd be equally concerned about it at 51% as at 47%. In any case, polling is notoriously imprecise; it is nothing but an imperfect 'snapshot' indicator of movement in trends over relatively longer periods of time.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

31. Is he tombstoned yet?

Can't tell from no profile.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NinetySix]

58. Bye Greg. Good luck to ya in Illinois.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

35. Maybe he's a Republican who wants to join

Republicans for Kerry? ROFL!

Hey Greg, it's a big group with some smart folks, why don't you talk to them?

You can find a link to them here: http://www.republicansforkerry.org/

Have fun!!! :hi:

On edit: are you Greg Gibas??? Media Director for that organization?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

47. You are such a huge fan of his you can't even spell his name!

ROFL! Give it up. You are voting for bush and you know it. Puh-leeze. You think we don't hear your kind of right wing talking points (see your posts above about Kerry) ALL the freaking time? This might work on people you know in real life, but not here.

Edited to add: are you Greg Gibas? That college repukes group isn't exactly that big.

[Barad Simith]

49. But the nominee is Kerry, and the goal of DU is to...

...re-defeat Bush. Therefore, you're probably wasting your energies here.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

33. If WE need that to happen WE'RE in trouble?

I think you are confusing all your stories here. You said you aren't voting for EITHER candidate (just can't bring yourself to say you are voting Kerry when you are really voting for bush, can you?) so why would you use the pronoun WE when speaking of this race?

[zaj]

7. This does NOT say 80% of undecideds will vote for Kerry...

... it says that 80% of the time 50+% of the undecided vote goes to the challenger.

That could mean 79% of the time 51% of the undecided vote would go to Kerry and 1% of the time 100% of the undecided go to Kerry.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

9. 80% of undecideds

is what it says.

[zaj]

13. Yeah, that's what I was refering to, but I edited my post to be more clear

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

14. Oh ok thanks!

Cheers!

I'll take 80% of the voters, though!

[Awsi Dooger]

54. Thank you, finally someone read the sentence correctly

"In 127 cases out of 155, most or all of the undecideds went for the challenger"

That's the 80% figure, folks. Percentage of races, not percentage of votes.

I've studied this for 8 years. The established estimate is 2/3 toward the challenger. I've found that it varies based on the type of race and the partisanship of the state. In 50/50 races, undecideds tend to break less toward the challenger than in lopsided races either way. My Excel models allocate 62.5% of the undecideds to Kerry. Undecideds also do not break in huge number against the grain of the state. In a GOP leaning state Kerry will naturally receive a lesser percentage of the undecideds than in a Dem leaning state.

Greg from Illinois was an obvious freeper. Still, one of his points had basic merit: challengers in a presidential race are so well scrutinized and defined they lose some of the typical challenger advantage, i.e. anyone but him. However, Kerry benefits from the estimates that 60-65% of the current undecideds are women, who generally support Dems. If you look at the breakdown of state polls, virtually every battleground state lists more women as undecided than men.

Understand I am referring to undecideds at this point in the race when estimating the 62-63% split. The presidential race is like the Super Bowl for pollsters; they treat it differently than any other poll. Beginning next week, most pollsters will begin allocating undecideds based on leans or their own criteria. The polls will begin showing lesser numbers of undecideds as a result.

Chris Bowers of MyDD.com, who is generally very good, did a recent study of 28 presidential polls since '76 and concluded 86% of undecideds broke to the challenger. However, that study was flawed because he utilized polls with an average of only 2.4% undecided, in other words the final polls AFTER undecideds had been distributed. So it is possible Kerry WILL receive 80+% of the absolute latest undecideds, but that block may not be large enough to put Kerry over the top if he underperforms with the 4-5% undecideds who "decided" earlier.

I hope that makes more sense than it did to me, while typing it:)