Posted on 10/19/2004 1:02:47 AM PDT by narses
|
by Nick Panagakis
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. In 127 cases out of 155, most or all of the undecideds went for the challenger:
The fact that challengers received a majority of the undecided vote in 82% of the cases studied proves that undecideds do not split proportionally. If there were a tendency for them to split proportionally we would see most undecided voters moving to incumbents, since incumbents win most elections. Similarly, even accounting for sample error, its clear from the chart above that undecideds do not split equally. For poll users and reporters this phenomenon, which we call the Incumbent Rule, means:
Undecided about the Incumbent It seems that undecided voters are not literally undecided, not straddling the fence unable to make a choice the traditional interpretation. An early decision to vote for the incumbent is easier because voters know incumbents best. It helps to think of undecided voters as undecided about the incumbent, as voters who question the incumbents performance in office. Most or all voters having trouble with this decision appear to end up deciding against the incumbent. The exceptions we found to the Incumbent Rule help support the theory on why this happens. Many challengers who did not get a majority of undecideds were recent or current holders of an office equal to the one they were seeking. Voters were equally or more familiar with the challengers past performance in a similar office, so the challenger assumed incumbent characteristics. Other exceptions include well-known challengers or short-term incumbents. Some examples of where more undecideds voted for incumbents or split evenly: Last year in Minnesota, where Hubert Humphrey III challenged Sen. David Durenberger; and in Nebraska, where Bob Kerrey, the former governor, challenged David Karnes, who had been appointed to his Senate seat. In 1986 in Florida, when incumbent Sen. Paula Hawkins faced ex-Gov. Bob Graham. And in Chicago in 1979, where two-year incumbent Mayor Michael Bilandic split undecided voters with challenger Jane Byrne. These examples and similar ones account for 17 of the 28 exceptions to the Incumbent Rule that we uncovered. In some of the remaining cases, the incumbent simply turned the race around in the final days. A good example of this is the 1982 Missouri Senate race pitting incumbent John Danforth against Harriet Woods. Other exceptions can be explained by sampling error. There is an interesting pattern in the polls where most undecideds voted for challengers. In 98 of the 127 cases (77%), the incumbents final polls standing was plus or minus four percentage points from the actual election result. The most frequent result was two points gained by the incumbent over the final poll preferences -- 24 cases in all. In 41 cases, or 32% of the 127, the incumbent ended with less than his stated poll percentage. This means that about one in four of all 155 polls actually overstated the incumbents percentage. Of the 127 challengers who gained more undecideds than did incumbents on election day, 78 gained 10 or more points over their stated poll percentage. Making allowances for factors stated above, most polls appear to estimate support for the incumbent. All or most undecideds end up with the challenger regardless of the size of the undecideds. Most troublesome are polls showing an incumbent leading but who ends up losing the election. Some examples: In Wisconsin in 1986, incumbent Gov. Tony Earl and incumbent Attorney General Bronson LaFollette were ahead in the late polls with less than 50%, but lost by five and seven points, respectively. In 1986, one poll showed Georgia incumbent Sen. Mack Mattingly ahead by 10 points, but he gained only one more point to lose with 49%. In 1984, incumbent Illinois Sen. Charles Percy led with 45% and 49% in final polls and wound up losing the election 48% to 50%. ... Avoiding Election Day Surprises |
. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Incumbent races should not be characterized in terms of point spread. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
. . . data should be analyzed according to what they mean, not what they say. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It helps to think of undecided voters as undecided about the incumbent . . . . |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
. |
HOME | TABLE OF CONTENTS | SEARCH THE SITE |
See http://chris-bowers.mydd.com/story/2004/7/31/16855/7535
Last night on MSNBC, Joe Trippi, a Democrat campaign manager noted that in most races most undecideds go towards the challenger EXCEPT for the Presidential race, where most go to the the incumbent. It was also noted that many pollsters are also feeling that a number of Kerry voters, particularly Democrats, have said when being polled that they would vote for Kerry but that they feel (these are large organizations like Gallup) that in reality there are a number of silent Bush supporters who are embarrased to say they are voting for the President. Just my input! Thanks!!!!!
by Anonymous Hero on Thu Sep 2nd, 2004 at 02:16:43 PM EST
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.
Post 4 is an excerpt of a much longer post that can be found here:
http://www.dalythoughts.com/Update-05-26-04.htm
Thank you! I though, as the election nears and polling gets more heated, this data ought to get out.
The 1944 numbers seem interesting...
FDR = GW, wartime Presidents?
I don't think the rule applies to presidential elections because people are familiar with both choices - it works when the contest is between a familiar name and "door number 3." Most of the exceptions occurred when both candidates were equally well known, such as an incumbant senator running against a governor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.