The Incumbent Rule: 80% of Late Undecideds Vote for the Challenger

[JimBowie1958]

Incumbent Rule

The fact that challengers received a majority of the undecided vote in 82% of the cases studied proves that undecideds do not split proportionally. If there were a tendency for them to split proportionally we would see most undecided voters moving to incumbents, since incumbents win most elections. Similarly, even accounting for sample error, it’s clear from the chart above that undecideds do not split equally.

For poll users and reporters this phenomenon, which we call the Incumbent Rule, means:

Incumbent races should not be characterized in terms of point spread. If a poll shows one candidate leading 50% to 40%, with 10% undecided, a 10-point spread will occur on election day only if undecideds split equally (i.e. a 55% to 45% outcome). Since most of the 10 points in the undecided category are likely to go to the challenger, polls are a lot closer than they look – 50% to 40% is likely to become 52% to 48%, on election day. If a poll is a mirror of public opinion, think of an incumbent poll as one in which objects are closer than they appear.
An incumbent leading with less than 50% (against one challenger) is frequently in trouble; how much depends on how much less than 50%. A common pattern has been for incumbents ahead with 50% or less to end up losing. Final polls showing losing incumbents ahead are accurate. The important question is whether results are reported with an understanding of how undecideds decide.
Many polls may have been improperly analyzed and reported. Some postmortem accounts of polls have been inaccurate -- many polls remembered as wrong were, in fact, right. It’s only natural to interpret the term "undecided" literally. But as with so many other findings in survey research, data should be analyzed according to what they mean, not what they say.

These polls that show large undecided vote and the President at less than 50% are bad news for Obama. If the poll shows 47% Obama and 45% Romney, that means Romney picks up 6% of the undecideds for the 51% win.

 

[courseofhistory]

Incumbent Rule

The fact that challengers received a majority of the undecided vote in 82% of the cases studied proves that undecideds do not split proportionally. If there were a tendency for them to split proportionally we would see most undecided voters moving to incumbents, since incumbents win most elections. Similarly, even accounting for sample error, it’s clear from the chart above that undecideds do not split equally.

For poll users and reporters this phenomenon, which we call the Incumbent Rule, means:

Incumbent races should not be characterized in terms of point spread. If a poll shows one candidate leading 50% to 40%, with 10% undecided, a 10-point spread will occur on election day only if undecideds split equally (i.e. a 55% to 45% outcome). Since most of the 10 points in the undecided category are likely to go to the challenger, polls are a lot closer than they look – 50% to 40% is likely to become 52% to 48%, on election day. If a poll is a mirror of public opinion, think of an incumbent poll as one in which objects are closer than they appear.
An incumbent leading with less than 50% (against one challenger) is frequently in trouble; how much depends on how much less than 50%. A common pattern has been for incumbents ahead with 50% or less to end up losing. Final polls showing losing incumbents ahead are accurate. The important question is whether results are reported with an understanding of how undecideds decide.
Many polls may have been improperly analyzed and reported. Some postmortem accounts of polls have been inaccurate -- many polls remembered as wrong were, in fact, right. It’s only natural to interpret the term "undecided" literally. But as with so many other findings in survey research, data should be analyzed according to what they mean, not what they say.

These polls that show large undecided vote and the President at less than 50% are bad news for Obama. If the poll shows 47% Obama and 45% Romney, that means Romney picks up 6% of the undecideds for the 51% win.

Yeah, and it'll be the same in 2016 if Romney wins. His failed policies will do him in!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Incumbent Rule

The fact that challengers received a majority of the undecided vote in 82% of the cases studied proves that undecideds do not split proportionally. If there were a tendency for them to split proportionally we would see most undecided voters moving to incumbents, since incumbents win most elections. Similarly, even accounting for sample error, it’s clear from the chart above that undecideds do not split equally.

For poll users and reporters this phenomenon, which we call the Incumbent Rule, means:

Incumbent races should not be characterized in terms of point spread. If a poll shows one candidate leading 50% to 40%, with 10% undecided, a 10-point spread will occur on election day only if undecideds split equally (i.e. a 55% to 45% outcome). Since most of the 10 points in the undecided category are likely to go to the challenger, polls are a lot closer than they look – 50% to 40% is likely to become 52% to 48%, on election day. If a poll is a mirror of public opinion, think of an incumbent poll as one in which objects are closer than they appear.
An incumbent leading with less than 50% (against one challenger) is frequently in trouble; how much depends on how much less than 50%. A common pattern has been for incumbents ahead with 50% or less to end up losing. Final polls showing losing incumbents ahead are accurate. The important question is whether results are reported with an understanding of how undecideds decide.
Many polls may have been improperly analyzed and reported. Some postmortem accounts of polls have been inaccurate -- many polls remembered as wrong were, in fact, right. It’s only natural to interpret the term "undecided" literally. But as with so many other findings in survey research, data should be analyzed according to what they mean, not what they say.

These polls that show large undecided vote and the President at less than 50% are bad news for Obama. If the poll shows 47% Obama and 45% Romney, that means Romney picks up 6% of the undecideds for the 51% win.

Yeah, and it'll be the same in 2016 if Romney wins. His failed policies will do him in!

That combined with his lies and duplicity are going to pile on on top of that.

Maybe we will get a real President that isnt bought and paid for by Wall Street bankers one day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, on this date in 2004, Bush was leading Kerry 46.3 to 44.8,

leaving 9% undecided.

Then the challenger Kerry got 80% of the undecided,

and Kerry won,

52 to 48.

LOLOL, you people will believe anything.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So, on this date in 2004, Bush was leading Kerry 46.3 to 44.8,

leaving 9% undecided.

Then the challenger Kerry got 80% of the undecided,

and Kerry won,

52 to 48.

LOLOL, you people will believe anything.

I really wasnt expecting the jack asses to understand it.

The only surprise in your response is that you didnt accuse me of being a racist for what I posted, lol.

 

[auditor0007]

Incumbent Rule

The fact that challengers received a majority of the undecided vote in 82% of the cases studied proves that undecideds do not split proportionally. If there were a tendency for them to split proportionally we would see most undecided voters moving to incumbents, since incumbents win most elections. Similarly, even accounting for sample error, it’s clear from the chart above that undecideds do not split equally.

For poll users and reporters this phenomenon, which we call the Incumbent Rule, means:

Incumbent races should not be characterized in terms of point spread. If a poll shows one candidate leading 50% to 40%, with 10% undecided, a 10-point spread will occur on election day only if undecideds split equally (i.e. a 55% to 45% outcome). Since most of the 10 points in the undecided category are likely to go to the challenger, polls are a lot closer than they look – 50% to 40% is likely to become 52% to 48%, on election day. If a poll is a mirror of public opinion, think of an incumbent poll as one in which objects are closer than they appear.
An incumbent leading with less than 50% (against one challenger) is frequently in trouble; how much depends on how much less than 50%. A common pattern has been for incumbents ahead with 50% or less to end up losing. Final polls showing losing incumbents ahead are accurate. The important question is whether results are reported with an understanding of how undecideds decide.
Many polls may have been improperly analyzed and reported. Some postmortem accounts of polls have been inaccurate -- many polls remembered as wrong were, in fact, right. It’s only natural to interpret the term "undecided" literally. But as with so many other findings in survey research, data should be analyzed according to what they mean, not what they say.

These polls that show large undecided vote and the President at less than 50% are bad news for Obama. If the poll shows 47% Obama and 45% Romney, that means Romney picks up 6% of the undecideds for the 51% win.

Had this been true in 2004, Kerry would have defeated Bush.

 

[auditor0007]

So, on this date in 2004, Bush was leading Kerry 46.3 to 44.8,

leaving 9% undecided.

Then the challenger Kerry got 80% of the undecided,

and Kerry won,

52 to 48.

LOLOL, you people will believe anything.

I really wasnt expecting the jack asses to understand it.

The only surprise in your response is that you didnt accuse me of being a racist for what I posted, lol.

So he's a jackass because he called you on your bullshit theory? It didn't hold true in 2004; that's a fact.

 

[MeBelle]

"This article appeared in the February 27, 1989, edition of The Polling Report."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Incumbent Rule

The fact that challengers received a majority of the undecided vote in 82% of the cases studied proves that undecideds do not split proportionally. If there were a tendency for them to split proportionally we would see most undecided voters moving to incumbents, since incumbents win most elections. Similarly, even accounting for sample error, it’s clear from the chart above that undecideds do not split equally.

For poll users and reporters this phenomenon, which we call the Incumbent Rule, means:

Incumbent races should not be characterized in terms of point spread. If a poll shows one candidate leading 50% to 40%, with 10% undecided, a 10-point spread will occur on election day only if undecideds split equally (i.e. a 55% to 45% outcome). Since most of the 10 points in the undecided category are likely to go to the challenger, polls are a lot closer than they look – 50% to 40% is likely to become 52% to 48%, on election day. If a poll is a mirror of public opinion, think of an incumbent poll as one in which objects are closer than they appear.
An incumbent leading with less than 50% (against one challenger) is frequently in trouble; how much depends on how much less than 50%. A common pattern has been for incumbents ahead with 50% or less to end up losing. Final polls showing losing incumbents ahead are accurate. The important question is whether results are reported with an understanding of how undecideds decide.
Many polls may have been improperly analyzed and reported. Some postmortem accounts of polls have been inaccurate -- many polls remembered as wrong were, in fact, right. It’s only natural to interpret the term "undecided" literally. But as with so many other findings in survey research, data should be analyzed according to what they mean, not what they say.

These polls that show large undecided vote and the President at less than 50% are bad news for Obama. If the poll shows 47% Obama and 45% Romney, that means Romney picks up 6% of the undecideds for the 51% win.

That article is from 1989. The world is a vastly different place now, when it comes to politics. We live in a much more information-filled world now.