In anticipation of the release of June’s Brown University(*) poll on the upcoming November elections, I compared past Gubernatorial and Senate election results to the corresponding Brown poll taken closest to the election date. I was curious to see if evidence of the current conventional wisdom -- that in races involving incumbents, undecided voters tend to “break” in favor of the challenger -- existed.
Three Rhode Island Gubernatorial or Senate races since 1994 have involved full-term incumbents seeking re-election. In none of these cases did undecideds (as measured by the Brown results) break in favor of the challenger...
First, there's no obvious ideological bias in the Brown University result set. In the three cases where undecideds split evenly, (John Chafee, both Almond/York races), everyone’s support was understated about equally. In three cases (Reed in ’96 and ‘02, Weygand in ‘00) eventual Democratic support was understated and in one case (Carcieri in ’02) eventual Republican support was understated.
Second, the results suggest a necessary refinement to the idea that undecideds not supporting an incumbent are likely to vote for a challenger. In Almond/York II, for instance, the controlling dynamic was probably as much "if I didn't vote for her before, why would I vote for her now?" as it was a referrendum on the incumbent. The number of undecideds that a challenger picks up is likely inversely proportional to how well-known the challenger is going into the election.
Third, most interestingly, there may be a factor called the phenomena of the surly New England independent in play here...
(*)The Brown University poll is conducted by Brown University Political Science Professor Darrell West, Director of the Taubman Center for Public Policy and the John Hazen White Sr. Public Opinion Laboratory. I mention this in full detail because 1) I believe in giving full credit where credit is due and 2) because I would never think of slighting the fine contributions the Whites have made to the civic culture in Rhode Island, especially when John Hazen White Jr. might be looking in innovate directions to find for moderators for a series of political debates.
Andrew,
Very interesting and insightful piece. To me the big issue in the Nov elections with the governors race is the casino. If the people get the right to vote on the referendum then many undecides will stick with Carcieri. Poeple have been angry with what they perceive as the governor blocking their ability to vote on a casino. If they get that right many will forgive Carcieri. On the other hand if the governor goes to court and this question is again blocked from the voters then Carcieri is all done. The casino and the people's perception that the governor has blocked their ability to vote has been the big issue which has eroded the governor's numbers.
Letting the people finally get the casino question will be a good thing for the governor in November.
I'm not sure there's any hard and fast theory about how the late undecideds break - it's at the mercy of events and the candidates' tactics.
In '96, Reed got the late break because of the heavy-handed ad campaign the RNC launched against him (much to Nancy Meyer's displeasure). In '02, York made an attack on events overseas at one of Carcieri's companies which just didn't resonate with R.I. voters - she overreached. Reed and Carcieri capitalized on the opposition's mistakes.
Carroll,
The October Chafee/Weygand October 2000 poll may have been influenced very heavily by the fact that John Chafee passed away around that time. I don't know if it was before or after the poll, but it may be a reason for why that poll was different.
Either way, your analysis does lend credibility to West's polls. Generally, he appears to have been accurate in the past.
Posted by: Anthony at July 5, 2006 6:49 AM