Undecideds break for the Challenger?

You may see reference to this article saying that the "undecideds break for the challenger" rule is wrong.  

Thus, from the data, incumbents won over the "summer undecideds" in 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1956, 1976, It was a mixed bag in 1972, while the challenger picked up the undecideds in 1964 (barely), 1980, and 1996 (barely). The only strong challenger year was 1980.

But maybe the "undecideds break for the challenger" rule comes from polling data closer to the election? This seemed like a plausible possibility, so my next step -- and the most relevant for purposes now -- was to see what the results were from a month out. This was the easiest, as Gerry from Daly Thoughts had already calculated this from Gallup results. Going from these findings, undecideds broke for the incumbent in half of the years -- 1936, 1944, 1948, 1956, 1976 (barely), and 1992. They broke evenly in four -- 1940, 1972, 1984, and 1996 -- and for the challenger in 1964, and 1980. The data was a little stronger, but it still indicated that undecideds would break for the incumbent or evenly, rather than strongly for the challenger.

When I averaged the final polls and compared that average to the actual results, it showed the following:

1996. Clinton -1, Dole +3 -- Net +4 Challenger
      
1992. Bush +0, Clinton -2 -- Net +2 Incumbent
      
1984. Reagan +2, Mondale +2 -- Net 0
      
1980. Carter +0, Reagan +6 -- Net +6 Challenger
      
1976. Ford +2, Carter +3 -- Net +1 Challenger
      
1972. Nixon +0, McGovern +2 -- Net +2 Challenger
      
1964. Johnson +5, AuH2O +3 -- Net +2 Incumbent
      
1956. Ike -1.5, Stevenson +1.5 -- Net +3 Challenger
      
1948. Truman +5.5, Dewey -4.4 -- Net +9.9 Incumbent
      
1944. Roosevelt +3.5, Dewey -2.5 -- Net +6 Incumbent
      
1940. Roosevelt +3, Wilkie -3 -- Net +6 Incumbent
      
1936. Roosevelt +5, Landon -7 -- Net +12 Incumbent

Again, the results are mixed at best. Discounting polls from before the 1948 debacle, there finally is some evidence of undecideds breaking for challengers, as they did in five of the eight elections. But even here predictions of a strong break for the challenger were unfounded -- on average the challenger netted only 3.5 points on the incumbent. Leaving aside 1980 creates even less spectacular gains -- an average net gain of 2.

Update [2004-10-19 3:34:44 by KariQ]: Forgot the link. Whither The Undecideds

Don't panic.  The writer is wrong.  Here's why:

First of all, in 1992 and 1996, he left out Perot.  In 1996, it doesn't matter much.  But in 1992 from the final polls to the election, Perot picked up all the votes that Clinton lost.  So the net gain for the incumbent was actually 0.  Second, Gallup was wildly off that year, so much so that it makes more sense to exclude them entirely (A practice recommend in all elections since 1984). if we exclude Gallup's numbers and recalculate all the numbers we get:

1992 Clinton -1, Bush +0, Perot +3 -- Net +2 Challengers

The only other year after 1956 that he shows the challenger not picking up votes is in 1964.  In that year, he has the numbers wrong.  The correct numbers are

1964 Johnson -3, Goldwater +3 -- Net +6 Challenger

Polling from 1948 should not be compared because Gallup stopped polling in mid-October that year so there is no true comparison.  Polling from before that shouldn't be used period since polling methods have changed dramatically since then.  So if we correct the chart it looks like this:

1996. Clinton -1, Dole +3 -- Net +4 Challenger
      
1992. Clinton -1, Bush +0, Perot +3 -- Net +2 Challenger
      
1984. Reagan +2, Mondale +2 -- Net 0
      
1980. Carter +0, Reagan +6 -- Net +6 Challenger
      
1976. Ford +2, Carter +3 -- Net +1 Challenger
      
1972. Nixon +0, McGovern +2 -- Net +2 Challenger
      
1964. Johnson -3, Goldwater +3 -- Net +6 Challenger
      
1956. Ike -1.5, Stevenson +1.5 -- Net +3 Challenger

In other words, since 1956 the best the incumbent can hope for is to equal the results of the poll immediately before the election.  On average, the challenger has a net gain of 3 points.

Here's the link in case you want to verify the information for yourself:

Final  National Presidential Poll Results, 1936-2000

•  The Rule

  that undecided break to the challenger is based on a lot more than just presidential contestsl.  It is based on Senate and Governors races as well.

  And the undecideds broke something fierce for Perot in 1992 and to a good extent in 1996.  Since the general assumption in both races on election day was that Clinton was going to win no matter whom I vote for, a lot of people decided to make a protest against the American political system by voting for an insane gnome.

  by LeftCoastTimm on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 12:29:09 AM PDT

  •  ha ha

    
    The insane gnome line is classic. He lived a few blocks from my [preppie] high school. One night in 92 we stole some Bush signs from someone's lawn and put them up next to Perot's security wall (we were hoping for his actual lawn, but no dice). We're probably lucky we didn't get shot.

    by m3 on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 12:47:39 AM PDT

•  but what about the 'fear factor'?

  Bush's campaign theme is 'vote for kerry or die'...so will undecideds show up and vote for Kerry?

  My concern is that if they dont like Bush (as zogby numbers tend to indicate), and are 'afraid' of Kerry, they might just not vote (which of course is exactly what Rove is trying to do since he knows he cant turn them to Bush he is just trying to scare them and/or dissillusion them away)

  ...i find it astounding that 8% of people are considered 'likely' voters but still cant make up their mind (while at the same time people who have made up their mind to support Kerry are being discounted by the same likely voter models)

  by California Dreamer on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 12:48:53 AM PDT

  •  Undecideds

    I don't think that they really are undecided.  They have already made up their mind but just aren't expressing their opinions to the pollster, or want to take as much time as possible to make sure they haven't made a mistake.  Their extremely low approval numbers for Bush show that they are really Kerry voters.  Now we have to rely on GOTV efforts to make sure they get to the polls.

    by KariQ on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 01:05:59 AM PDT

    •  Call my Pollyanna

      but I also believe, though this is a tangent, that many Republicans who tell pollsters that they're voting for Bush, actually won't. It's one thing to admit your 'betrayal' of the Republican Party to a stranger. It's another to pull the level for President Kerry when you're alone in a booth, worried for the future of your country.

      by GussieFN on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 05:56:45 AM PDT

    •  Hesitation

      While canvassing this month, I've found a sizeable portion of Kerry voters reluctant to indentify themselves as such until I told them who I was canvassing for.  

      by Just John on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 06:46:26 PM PDT

•  Incumbent Republicans

  1956. Dem +3
        
  1972. Dem +2
        
  1976. GOP +1
        
  1984. 0
        
  1992. Dem +2

  1976 was a sort of unusual election, since President Ford had never even ran for President or VP before.
   

  by jfern on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 12:55:10 AM PDT

•  yes

  Most of that commentary is pointless. The rule isn't that the undecideds from whenever (summer,month before) break for the challenger, but strictly that the undecideds on the eve of the election break for the challenger. Also, the rule is confined to the topmost races on the ballot, because downballot money comes increasingly into play. If the challenger doesn't have the money to make himself well-known and credible, the undecideds who are soft on the incumbent end up breaking his way anyhow, simply because they don't know the challenger well enough.

  This person's own data shows that the rule applies quite well all the way back to 1956. As you already mention, Perot was also a challenger in 1992, and you can't just discount him. Note that NONE of the undecideds in his own data broke for Bush Sr (+0). The farther back you go, the more unreliable the polling itself gets (we all know that) but even where the incumbents picked up it was easily in the margin of error of the polls themselves - Reagan +2, Ford +2 - with the exception of 1964 Johnson +5. Even there, the overall Incumbent +2 is in the margin of error and the data is based on only two polls.

  Most Republicans trying to argue that the rule is a myth (it's always Republicans this year .. wonder why) try to twist the data by including open elections (1960, 1968, 1988, 2000). At least this one didn't do that. A VP running to succeed is still not the incumbent, no matter how much the Republicans wish it were so. =)

  by GoKeever on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 04:07:07 AM PDT

  •  Just a note on Johnson

    He didn't pick up votes from the final poll.  The author of the original order made a mistake in the numbers, which I corrected in my post.  He actually lost 3 points from the final polls.  Both polls (Gallup and Harris) showed Johnson at 64% and he actually received 61%.

    by KariQ on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 04:26:57 AM PDT

    •  thanks!

      I stopped reading after your 1992 comments, because I was so antsy to post. (hanging head in shame)

      I'll go back and read the rest now!

      by GoKeever on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 04:36:22 AM PDT

    •  Slightly OT, but...

      ...can you imagine a presidential candidate polling 64% on the eve of an election?  It's worth remembering how vilified Goldwater was in '64.  And, with the very notable exception of his hostility to the Civil Rights Act of that year, how reasonable he looks in retrospect in comparison to our current crop of wingnuts.

      by GreenSooner on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 09:44:36 AM PDT

  •  Oh and Ford

    CBS conducted its first poll that year and didn't have the science down yet.  If you average only on the Gallup and Harris polls, Ford's numbers were 48, exactly what he received.

    by KariQ on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 04:30:01 AM PDT

•  +2% to the Challenger is Huge

  +2% to the challenger means that you could be behind in a poll with a MoE 3% by 45% - 49% and still win.

  The thing about undecideds is if you figure that there are 7% undecideds and a 60%/40% split to the challenger means about a 1.5% advantage to the challenger.

  by dvogel001 on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 04:39:09 AM PDT

•  John Anderson 1980

  What effect did he have on the poll numbers of Reagan and Carter?  I thought that he polled something like 19% of the popular vote in 1980?  Also, what about the segregationist candidates in the 1960s?  

  by bpmckenna on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 08:46:15 AM PDT

  •  Anderson

    He got 7% of the vote which is a little lower than he was polling, typical for a 3rd party candidate.  If he is included, that would be a -2 for the challengers, which still makes 1980 a healthy Net +4 for the challenger.

    The only time there was a 3rd party candidate in 1960s was in 1968 when there was no incumbent running, so it doesn't have any effect on the incumbent rule.

    by KariQ on Tue Oct 19, 2004 at 02:02:52 PM PDT