Is there really a significant number of "undecided" voters?

[porphyrian]

Maybe my part of the world is different from yours, maybe I run in isolated social circles, but I just don't believe all this crap I keep hearing about "undecided" voters. Who the fuck is still undecided? This is the most politically polarizing administration in my existance. Who, besides maybe someone who's been in a coma, could still be undecided at this point? Isn't this really just another excuse for the right-wing leadership of our party to continue to pull right-of-center rather than appeal to the enormous throngs of lefties who don't vote Democrat because they don't feel adequately represented?

Again, are there really enough "undecided" voters out there to continue attempts to appease them, or is this just an excuse from corporate whores and conservatives within the Democratic party for avoiding too much change to the status quo?

[slackmaster]

1. I'm undecided on your poll question

:dunce:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. You have to understand one thing

polls only look for registered, or even worse, "likely" voters. This ignores the only true law of American politics:

People with an axe to grind get off their asses and vote.

And guess who has an axe to grind this year?

[Bill McBlueState]

3. people are undecided about whether to vote

People are undecided about whether to vote. And some people are still deciding between Kerry and Nader (but not very many). Almost nobody is still trying to decide between Kerry and Bush.

There are a lot of people my age (mid-20's) and younger who completely hate Bush -- but it remains to be seen whether they'll actually show up at the polling place and vote for Kerry on November 2.

That's an important place to focus our efforts.

[porphyrian]

5. Agreed. - n/t

[BillZBubb]

4. Their is not a large percentage of undecideds.

But the 10-12 percent currently undecided will determine the outcome of the election. So, the are significant since nobody has 50 percent solid support. That's why the Dems are wooing them, it's not a conservative conspiracy--they have to peel the undecideds away from Bush*.

I'd say Bush* has solid support from 42%--the usual morons. Kerry (aka ABB) has about 45% solid. The rest are fluid. The good news is that if Kerry can just get half the undecideds, he can win.

[porphyrian]

7. 10 - 12%?

I don't see them here. I'm sure there are some, but I think your numbers are high. What I do see is a bunch of real liberals who either don't vote at all or who have joined other parties in an attempt to get represented since the Democrats have abandoned them. None of them I've talked to are voting for Bush, but it seems stupid to me that we aren't getting these easy votes and are instead pursuing some elusive imaginary undecided voting population.

[UdoKier]

6. Believe it or not, I think there are.

They are the ones that spend a lot of time watching reality TV, bungee jumping, doing jello shots. People that don't spend a lot of their lives thinking about anything and are pretty apolitical. They don't even pay attention until the debates.

[RodneyCK2]

11. I agree with this.

I have seen the interviews on TV demonstrating that the so-called, undecided vote is actually undecided or complacent. I think there are a majority that just do not want to hear about the election, pure laziness on their part.

It makes me sick to see people take voting for granted.

[jobycom]

8. A lot of undecideds are former Bush supporters

That's one area he's in a lot of trouble. A lot of former Bush voters can't bring themselves to support Kerry yet, but are upset with Bush. Some think he went too far to the middle, some too far to the right, some just realize he's a murdering traitor. It takes a while for people to change their views. That's why these polls go down to the last second undecided, and why the lead changes so often near election day. A lot of people don't fully admit to themselves that they were wrong until the last moment.

A lot of Bush supporters will walk into that booth not knowing what they will do. And a lot of those will stare at the ballot several minutes, visualize the future, realize suddenly that voting is the most grave action they can take as a citizen, and then vote based on what they know, rather than what they have been trying to believe all along. A lot of those votes will go to Kerry.

There are other groups of undecideds. Naderites and others who feel Kerry is no different, but want to beat Bush badly. Right-wingers who wish Timothy McVeigh could run. Third Partiests, flat taxers, flat earthers, etc. They have no real candidate, so they are undecided. But these are a small number, and they split both ways. The closer you get to the election, the less you have to worry about undecideds, because they just stay home.

[readmylips]

9. If every one who votes is already decided.....

bush loses. The repigs have to continue saying that the country is divided, and that the percentage of undecided is huge. This is what Prez Clinton referred to in his speech. Little bush and cronies (religious right), cater to the extreme right group. The extreme right group are not the conservative republicans, which are the largest block of the repig party. The extreme right is isolated. Conservative republicans are angry but must support the extreme hateful right. 'This is not your father's republican party,' is right.
Most moderate republicans were once democrats, Reagan democrats. A little push like Clinton did in his speech, and this group will vote democrat. Republicans are not at a win-win.

Those nasty republican pundits are even admitting that the label 'Liberal' is not working.

[porphyrian]

12. Barring cheating, this election will be a landslide. - n/t

[Sparrow]

10. undecideds don't DESERVE any attention

they must be stupid ignorant idiots who don't know whats going on in the world, yet they get all the pandering.

[RodneyCK2]

13. I don't know about that..

I think it was Al Franken who stated a statistical fact that if all registered Republicans voted, they would only make up 30 or 33% of the voting block. The others are the so called undecided, middle of the road folk, so you see how important they are to both parties.

[porphyrian]

14. ...assuming those numbers are correct...

...and that there are only two parties that count. Sure, you can lump everyone who isn't voting Kerry or Bush into a group called "undecided," but I don't think that's being intellectually honest. I like Al, but he leans farther right than I do, and I think this data applies better to past elections than the one we're currently facing.

[RodneyCK2]

16. Here you go...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/5/215551.shtml

[porphyrian]

17. ...Newsmax...?

I could make stuff up that's more accurate than what they push.

[RodneyCK2]

20. Actually ...

as stated, the actual source is from Ballot Access News, just to be clear. Take it or leave it. I haven't seen any sources, yet, stating otherwise.

Don't make me quote Theresa on you. LOL.

[HFishbine]

15. I don't know about the number

But if you want a glimpse into the minds of some Ohio undecideds, I found this very interesting (if not dispiriting):

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04072304_focus.rm

[TX-RAT]

18. Interesting poll in J/PS

[bbodaies]

19. Undecided?

I'm one. And I assure you I'm no idiot.

[porphyrian]

21. You're really undecided? Now?

Why?

[porphyrian]

22. Are there any other undecideds out there?

I'm curious about why anyone is undecided.

[bbodaies]

23. Why I'm undecided....

I disagree with most of what Bush has done, however, I'm extremely hawkish on fighting terrorism. I might get banned from DU for saying so, but I was and still am for invading Iraq.

Were they an imminent threat? No. But anyone who thinks Saddam didn't have or was not trying to get WMDs (read nuclear) is fooling themselves. And I believe in my heart of hearts that he would have found a way to use them against the US. His hatred for the US runs amazingly deep and I convinced he would have taken the enemy of my enemy is my friend, route. He would have teamed up w/ al Queda eventually.

Now, I'm NOT pleased w/ the way Bush led us into this conflict or how it has been conducted. Trying to connect Iraq w/ al Queda was idiotic. He should have done a better job of explaining how if/when Saddam got his hands on something that could be levied against the U.S., it would be too late to do anything about it. I'd rather err on the side of caution than look at an American city leveled by a nuclear bomb (especially the one I live in). Could it still happen? Sure. But one candidate has been eliminated.

I'm against Bush's tax cuts...our parents sacrificed personal comfort during WWII, so can we.

I'm against almost ALL of Bush's domestic agenda. His gay marriage ban is ludicrous. Ashcroft is an ass hat. The war has been waged poorly. Abu Graib was and is a disgrace. Bush is extremely divisive. His administration has been slow to protect our borders.

I think Kerry's a good man. I think he can do a solid job as POTUS. My one concern is that he seems to believe in subjugating U.S. interests to the U.N. The U.N. is a fucking joke that's run by thugs and thieves. If he can convince me he won't be the U.N.'s bitch...he has my vote.

[eridani]

24. The very LEAST likely candidate has been eliminated

The nuclear (and other WMD threats) to this country are Pakistan (whose leading scientist has already peddled nukes anywhere and everywhere) and most especially Russia and all the other ex-Soviet states. We're talking hundreds of thousands of tons here, secured by rusty bike locks and guarded by people who don't get paid very often. The Psychopath in Chief slashed funding intended to help them get better control of this stuff in pursuit of imperial conquest of a country which, even if it had gotten back up to its 1991 strength level, represents about one hundredth of 1% of the actual threat to us.