Good analysis on undecideds; Kerry wins them, but not overwhelming 70+%

[Awsi Dooger]

http://www.socastee.com/understand_undecided.html
(note: text very small, at least via my browser)

"In races involving incumbents, most "undecided" voters usually break strongly in favor of the challenger. This is because most incumbents begin the election campaign with nearly universal name recognition, while challengers lag behind primarily because voters simply don't know who they are or what they stand for. Additionally, if a high negative rating is present, that is a clear sign that the incumbent has limited upward mobility. Therefore, the "undecided" column is generally comprised of voters who have reservations about the incumbent, but don't have enough information about the challenger to comfortably commit their support. An incumbent who is running under 50% is always vulnerable, even if he holds a 12-point lead."

"There are a few exceptions to this rule, most notably presidential elections. Point-spreads in presidential races tend to hold up better. This is because the challenger usually achieves universal name recognition early in the campaign, and voters form their opinions of the candidates at a relatively early stage of the race. Support tends to "lock-in" more quickly, and late voter shifts are far less likely to occur. This pattern is also true when two high profile politicians square off, such as when a sitting governor decides to challenge an incumbent U.S. Senator. Point-spreads are more relevant because both candidates enter the race with similar name recognition."

I continue to estimate 62-63% undecideds for Kerry, below the normal tendency of races involving an incumbent. I'll revise upward only if Bush's approval rating dives toward 40%. It should be noted Bush's approval rating among undecideds is much lower than among all voters. He has a 68-25 disapproval mark among undecideds, according to Charlie Cook in August. Regarding the economy alone, it was 69-24 disapproval according to Cook.

Given the name recognition realities of how undecideds break, we will also not get the standard cut in the key Knowles/Murkowski senate race in Alaska. Knowles was a two term Democratic governor and no doubt has more statewide name recognition and familiarity than Lisa Murkowski. Knowles' tiny lead is tenuous at best.

[meti57b]

1. thank you ... something to think about

[lancdem]

2. I think 62 percent is too low

The incumbent's share of the vote is the same or less than in the final preelection polls, if you look at recent presidential elections, so incumbent presidents obviously get few undecideds.

[Awsi Dooger]

3. It's admittedly difficult to judge, based on such a short sample

By definition, you can only have a presidential incumbent once in 8 years, tops. I hate to make definitive judgements without hundreds/thousands in the mathematical sample, so this is obviously guesstimation.

Both Carter and Bush 41 had extremely low approval ratings, much less than GW's. I think Carter was high 30s and Bush 41 very low 40s. Clinton was mid 50s and it's true Dole received a huge chunk of the undecideds.

My 62-63% may be somewhat conservative. But I have looked at races very close to 50/50 in the final polls and undecideds do not break as much toward the challenger as typical in those polarized races. In the disputed Alabama gov race of 2002, incumbent Siegelman actually received a majority of the undecideds in a 50/50 race. Analysts had concluded Riley's small lead in the polls would turn into a much wider margin of victory based on undecideds.