|
Edited on Thu Jul-22-04 08:13 PM by louis c
Undecideds break this way:
Since 1948.
We discount 1948 for two reasons. First, polling was in its infancy and therefore unreliable. Secondly, there was a four man race.
Since 1948, then, in races in which the incumbent stood for re-election, the challenger received a vast majority of the undecideds. The reasoning behind this theory is that most voters have already made there mind up about the incumbent. If it is not favorable in his fourth year of office, and they are not committed to him by then, the challenger has the advantage to win their support.
Even in landslide years like 1964 and 1972, the challenger received a majority of the undecideds. Of course, in these years, so many voters were already committed to the sitting President that it had little impact on the outcome.
So, measuring the years in which the incumbent ran for re-election the undecideds break for the challenger in 1956, 1964, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1992, and 1996. Open seats don't count, because the image of both challengers is fluid.
If you research this, you will find that, regardless of the ultimate winner, the challenger receives the bulk of the undecideds. Also, the closer to election day you get, the larger that percentage becomes, but the smaller the volume gets.
So, the challenger receives somewhere between just over the lowest percentage of 60% that went to McGovern in 1972, to the highest of nearly 80% by Reagan in 1980. All other challengers fall somewhere in between. In 1992, Clinton and Perot combined for over 80%.
So, it is a safe bet to assume that Kerry will receive no less than 70% of the undecideds in November. In addition, no pundit expects Nader to receive above 2% of the vote. Nearly every Nader vote now that goes some place else will go to Kerry.
Bush needs a 7% lead at this point to win in November by a slim margin.
Any Kerry-Edwards lead now trends toward an easy victory, IMHO.
|