quick question regarding undecideds

[One Taste]

Historically, do they usually vote for the incumbent or the challenger?

[TheDebbieDee]

1. I think I heard that, historically...............

the undecideds break for the challenger, their reasoning being that they already know what the incumbent can do.

[calico1]

2. Historically they tend to break for the

challenger. The reasoning is that if they haven't decided by election day that they want to give the incumbent a second term they won't vote to and instead vote for the other guy.

[One Taste]

3. this is what I thought I remembered..

I'm in a bit of an argument over this, does anyone have a link?

[Barney Rocks]

4. they go for the challenger

60-80%. So most of those people will be ours. I believe that TruthIsAll explains this is some detail in his computer modeling. (which I very much appreciate)

[One Taste]

5. yes i think that is where i first saw it

[Barney Rocks]

6. me too--

but I have read several things on polling that back this up. TruthIsAll, really knows his stuff and I am very glad he is here. I think (if things follow the historical trends) those undecideds are mosly ours!

[kwolf68]

7. Undecideds are undecided

Because they do NOT like the incumbent. However, they have yet to formulate an opinion on the challenger.

This is pretty much a fact. If one likes Bush, they aren’t undecided. If one doesn’t like Bush, they could still be undecided because they may like the challenger less.

Basically, the undecided are completely Kerry’s audience. He can win them or lose them. Nothing Bush does or says will change that. Kerry has to connect with them. If he does, Bush gets put on dry-dock.

[pmbryant]

8. Some historical review

2000: N/A (no incumbent)

1996: Clinton won, but by significantly less than the polls indicated he would. Undecideds appear to have broken for Dole, the challenger.

1992: Clinton won by less than predicted. Perot got a lot more votes than predicted. Given Bush's pathetic showing, it is unlikely undecideds broke in his direction. They appear to have gone to Perot, a challenger, but a unique one.

1988: N/A (no incumbent)

1984: Reagan won by approximately what the polls indicated, I think. No clear break. Result: ?

1980: Reagan won what had appeared to be a relatively close election. Undecideds appear to have broken for the challenger.

1976: Carter won narrowly in a race he had been up significantly in. I think late polls indicated a tossup though, so I'm not sure if there was a clear break at the end. Ford was an incumbent, but an unelected one, so perhaps this election isn't comparable. Result: ?

1972: Nixon won by approximately what polls indicated, I think. Result: ?

1968: N/A (no incumbent)

1964 and before: Extremely little knowledge of the polls, so I'll stop here.

So out of the last 5 elections with an elected incumbent, 3 showed clear breaks for a challenger on election day (1980 Reagan, 1992 Perot, 1996 Dole), 2 (the landslides) showed no clear break that I am aware of. In none of these cases did the incumbent gain an advantage at the last minute.

That's what I come up with off the top of my head.

--Peter