Voting for the leader - does that happen??

Over and over, people here at dKos have been repeating the canard that "people want to vote for the winner" and that therefore, the perceived leader in the polls come election day will pick up more votes.  

This does not make sense.  Who votes this way?  Is this what happened in 2000, 1996, or 1992?  As I recall, Gore, Dole and Perot all seriously outperformed their poll numbers come election day, even though all 3 were perceived to be "losers."

I think that this perception must be based on the primaries, where partisan voters are trying to find a candidate that will win the general election.  Therefore, a candidate that begins to win early primaries may gain this "vote for the winner" support in later primaries, such as Kerry did this year.  But this is because "winnability" is a quality looked for during the primaries.  In the general election, this is no longer important, and the idea of voting for a winnable or electable candidate becomes nonsensical.

There is, however, a danger from being a perceived loser going into the election, and that is that some supporters may not turn out to vote.  This "vote for the winner" idea, however, unless there is data somewhere to support it, is not a factor.  Anyone who would vote based on who "looks like they are going to win" is much more likely to be sitting out the election.  If someone has some actual numbers to show this, I would be willing to change my view.  Otherwise, please, for the love of (insert preferred deity here), stop repeating this idea in every single open thread or polling thread!!

•  What we see

  We pick up images with our eyes.  Our eyes "see" and send a message to our brain.  We have a belief system, our BS, forms  our opinions.

  Example:  Slender people are perceived diferently than a heavy person.  I know this to be true because I have been both fat and thin.

  Even though many of us feel we form our opinion on facts, we are always influenced by the images that are shown to us.

  by swami on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 09:47:42 AM PDT

  •  Freudian slip or intentional?

    Sorry, I just had to laugh about this part:

    "...our BS, forms our opinions."

    Was that intentional?  Because it's certainly true a lot of the time!  ;-)

    Nevertheless, I need to see some numbers before I believe that people vote for the guy who's ahead just because he's ahead.

    by SLKRR on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 10:13:25 AM PDT

    •  It was intentional

      I love calling it BS... causes a stir, makes people stop to think.  This is a good way to train the mind to think differently.

      by swami on Fri Oct 22, 2004 at 02:23:38 PM PDT

•  Middle America is about Conformity...

  Yes, I definitely believe that those without a clue, (still undecided?), will slant toward the perceived winner.

  Who hasn't made a "safe" decision based upon what others think?

  To my mind the Republicans have been winning because they have worked this to its fullest....

  by edwardbanderson on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 09:59:14 AM PDT

  •  But where are the numbers?

    I understand that a lot of people believe this, but where are the numbers?  Where did people slant towards the perceived winner?  It didn't seem to happen in the last 3 Presidential elections.  

    I grew up in Middle America (Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas), and it is not about conformity.  Midwesterners are known for being polite and not rocking the boat - but that is just to your face.  Behind your back, we can be downright ruthless motherfuckers.  We're friendly but we don't put up with bullshit.  So, maybe a Kerry "leaner" in Branson doesn't put up a sign, doesn't tell all his neighbors he's got doubts about Bush, etc., but I don't see any sign that he's going to vote for Bush just because he's perceived to be in the lead.  

    With apologies to Cuba Gooding, Jr., "SHOW ME THE NUMBERS!"

    by SLKRR on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 10:11:01 AM PDT

    •  Imagine the a-political spouse....

      Or the person who watches "The Dukes of Hazzard" religiously.

      Based upon what are they making their voting decisions?

      If you can't get around to understanding "Go With the Winner" thinking, I'm not sure what I can do to get you there.

      It's a phenomenon. It definitely exists. And I'll leave it up to the social scientists to try and quantify it.

      by edwardbanderson on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 10:31:32 AM PDT

      •  They aren't voting

        Sorry, but the religious Dukes of Hazzard watcher and the apolitical spouse are probably not going to vote at all.  If the a-olitical spouse DOES vote, he or she's probably going to just vote the same as his or her partner, regardless of which candidate is ahead.    

        What you are saying is that Bush was perceived to be the winner by the vast majority of polls in 2000, therefore a certain number of undecideds voted for Bush "just because" he was the winner - yet Gore won the popular vote by half a million.  Where was this mythical break for the leader?  Where was it in 1996?  1992?  If you're so sure about it, show it to me.  I'm not going to take it on faith, like the Falwell and Bush followers, sorry.  

        Here's an example to help you out: in the municipal elections here in Aracaju this year, the incumbent Deda was polling between 53% and 60% of the vote, with the principal challenger Susana getting between 19% and 20%.  The final vote tally, however, was 71% to 17%.  So, here there was a numerical break for the leader.  However, and this is a big however, voting in Brazil is mandatory, so all the apolitical losers who have no choice but to vote very likely do just vote for the leader, because the fact is that they don't care.  I just don't see it in the American Presidential numbers, though, because anybody who only votes for the "leader" is not going to vote at all.  

        by SLKRR on Fri Oct 22, 2004 at 05:07:53 AM PDT