Who Can Really Say?

Down the Stretch They Come

Does Bush have a lead? Will he fade like Smarty Jones in the stretch at the Belmont?

Last week I linked to the Mystery Pollster's take on whether after the final polls are taken before election day, undecided voters tend to move towards the challenger in Presidential elections. His main point:

None of this implies that the current standings will determine the final outcome. Where the race ends up a month from now could obviously be different. However, the incumbent rule tells us that, at any given moment, the President's percentage of the vote relative to 50% is a better indicator of where the race stands than the margin separating Bush and Kerry. It also suggests the appropriate way to read the final polls just before the election (and these are my ranges – others may differ): If the average result of all the final polls (including undecided) puts Bush's percentage at 50% or higher, the President will likely win. If Bush's percentage is 48%-49%, the race is headed for a photo finish. At 47% or lower, the President will likely lose (add 1% to these ranges in any state where Ralph Nader is not on the ballot).

The main point: The incumbent's level of support is more important than the margin.

But James Joyner, linking to today's LA Times, is not impressed:

Hmm. Let's see. We have a whole series of polls showing Bush with a lead with two weeks to go. And yet the focus is on the fact that he's only slightly above a meaningless 50% threshhold? Because undecided voters typically rally for the challenger? Riiight.

*****

So, our data consists of eight cases, one of which was before television began to dominate political campaigns and only one of which takes place during the modern era of 24/7 news coverage? And all based on a single poll, Gallup? And, oddly, Gallup is the poll with Bush well over 50%?

It's also worth noting that four of the eight races in the sample involved substantial third party candidates, whose numbers are often quite volatile: conservative Democrat George Wallace in 1972, liberal Republican John Anderson in 1980, the highly popular Ross Perot in 1992, and a dimished Perot in 1996. Nader will apparently be a virtual non-factor in the national vote, given that he hovers in 1% range.

There are all sorts of reasons for Bush supporters to be worried in what continues to be a close race. This seems to be among the sillier, however.

On the other hand, James Lindgren accepts the "conventional wisdom" that undecideds move to the challenger, and says:

I don't disagree that the election is too close to call. What I do think is that, if the election were held today, it is slightly more likely that Kerry would win than Bush. But then the election will not be held today.

Where do we stand today? Rasmussen's daily tracking poll has it Bush 47.5, Kerry 47.3. Back on the 15th, he had it Bush 49, Kerry 45.5. On the 10th it was Bush 49.5 and Kerry 45.5. Real Clear Politics Poll Average has it Bush 49 and Kerry 45.3.

My gut feeling is that Bush needs to head into the election at 49 or higher to have a slight sense of comfort, however slight that might be. I appreciate Joyner's scepticism but think the Mystery Pollster is probably right that a wide Bush spread over Kerry come the last poll is not that meaningful if Bush isn't at are damn near 50%, or better. And all of this, of course, discounts the need to manage and calculate the polls in various battleground states, including the wild-card in the deck -- the CO referendum to game the election change the apportionment of its Presidential electors.

[Linked to the Beltway Traffic Jam.]

Posted by Peter at October 18, 2004 06:26 PM