For the Media

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama on Sunday will surely continue to draw media attention - at least through Tuesday. It seems unlikely though, that the endorsement will actually make a difference. There is not much political science evidence that endorsements matter in the general election. However, I don't think you need to be a political scientist to see why the endorsement probably won't matter. In fact, I think it will matter as much as all the other single campaign events that might seem to matter, but probably don't: debates, conventions, advertisements. I think there is actually a simple way to get a good idea of whether those single events will matter: ask yourself, do you know anyone that changed their vote because of it? Maybe it matters to those all important "undecided voters." To the extent that undecided voters exist, I doubt such events matter for them either.

Think about it this way: who do you know that watched the debates? I bet they are pretty politically aware people, right? Do any of those politically aware people really still not support a candidate? The same is true of Powell's endorsement. Who do you know that would care - that doesn't already have a horse in the race?

We are always told that these events matter to those undecided voters. I doubt this is true. I doubt that many exist, and if they do, no single event should matter to them. It is always bad to use anecdote as scientific evidence. But my scepticism about the importance of undecided voters comes from this simple fact: I don't know any undecided voters. Maybe I need to get out of the ivory tower, but outside of the realm of anecdote - there is good political science evidence that most people that care a good deal about elections and politics, hold strong opinions about elections and politics. This is the contradiction - if you are paying attention enough to be aware of the events that are supposed to change your mind, you probably are not susceptible to having your mind changed.

The LA Times referred to the Powell endorsement as "potent." If one wants, I am sure that they will be able to find evidence that it was so - for example, I bet Obama's lead will have risen in the next poll: but a look at the numbers shows that his lead has been steadily rising for several weeks. Are more undecided voters becoming decided? Maybe, but I think it is more likely they are now just expressing opinions that they have always held. My guess is that there is a certain celebration of the idea of being "independent" and, therefore, "undecided" in our political discourse. At some point though, being undecided starts to look more like being uninformed. As election day approaches, being undecided starts to look more and more irresponsible and, my guess, is that voters begin to drop this facade.

Now - don't get me wrong - I am sure that some real undecideds exist. But not nearly as many as the inordinate attention paid to them by pundits would lead us to exist. I have a hunch that if the media decided it made sense to pay attention to committed partisans, then we might suddenly have a lot fewer undecideds. Now I just have to convince the media to play along with my experiment.

Permalink

On-topic comments that add to the discussion are welcome. Please respect each other and the forum by using your real name and a civil tone. Spam and comments judged by UCLA to be libelous, offensive or abusive may be deleted without notice

Comments

johny says:

http://computerms.info http://healthabit.org

pri says:

Cai says:

Thanks for sharing. http://www.cheapestcarinsurancehome.com/, http://www.cheaplimoservicesandrentals.com/, http://www.cheapselfstoragefacilities.com/, http://divorceline.org/blog/, http://www.caraccidentsinfo.com/

rug says:

very usefull for us...thank you http://blog.cicurug.com/stop-dreaming-start-action/ http://blog.cicurug.com/rusli-zainal-sang-visioner/ http://pulsa-secure.com/kenali-dan-kunjungi-objek-wisata-di-pandeglang/

Visioner says:

very usefull for us...thank you http://blog.cicurug.com/stop-dreaming-start-action/ href="http://blog.cicurug.com/rusli-zainal-sang-visioner/

free divorce papers says:

I guess it is the other way around, the more uninformed you are, the more undecided you become. http://divorceline.org/blog/

Liz Dayton says:

I'm no political analyst, but I'm not sure I agree. I think there are actually a number of informed undecideds out there. I only know a few personally, but I think that's because I associate mainly with democrats and the undecideds I know have always voted republican... and were planning to again until very recently. (That's my anecdote). I actually think that the undecideds out there are OVERinformed and are overanalyzing every new little piece of information they get their hands on. There are so many new variables in this campaign that voters are not used to taking into account - I think people are subconciously confused. http://itcomputerzone.com

Lisa P says:

If people or I must say voters are truly aware of what’s happening around, they know whom to vote for, but if they aren’t, I guess they need to be informed. How are they going to vote wisely if they aren’t aware about the issues around, about politics, politicians, and as well as about our country? My fellow Americans, did you think about the issues in play before you cast your vote in the November 4 election? It would be nice to think that most of you did, but I know that the reality of how much people think about their political choices is less than studied. Many of you may even have studied more about whether you should take out a payday advance than who to vote for. This brief audio snippet from a recent episode of “The Howard Stern Show,” posted courtesy of BPM Deejays of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Roving Reporter Sal sought the opinions of men and women on the street, to see whether they supported Barack Obama or John McCain for President. Admittedly, they were attempting to gauge whether African-Americans would automatically vote for Obama simply because he’s black. That point is driven home by the location Sal obtains his samples from: Harlem, New York. By reversing the candidates’ positions on issues like the pro-life argument, stem cell research, the war in Iraq and who Sarah Palin is – attributing McCain’s positions to Obama – Sal gets people to admit that they support all kinds of ideas that Obama wants little or nothing to do with. He exposes the ugly truth that many of us are ignorant when it comes to the issues. We parrot popular opinions and flow along with our peer groups. But when it comes to things like presidential elections and your vote, I hope you thought about it considerably. Click to read more on <a title="Personal Loans" href=" http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/a-fast-cash-payday-advance-saved-my-wifes-stupid-cats/ ">Personal Loans</a>

Evan says:

Undecided and want to vote? Try AHP! For example: http://www.123ahp.com/Primjer.aspx?idPrimjer=18

Ryan Enos says:

Liz - good to see you out there - there may be something changing in this election cycle - in that people are actually crossing over or leaving their party - this happens very rarely in large numbers, but it could be that Republicans have dissatisfied enough people that we are witnessing one of those times. So, maybe the people you know are more common in this election. There is well supported research, across many different elections, that the strength of your partisan opinion is strongly correlated with your level of information. In other words, people that tend to really favor one party tend to also pay close attention to politics and be more informed. I am guessing that is still true - so to the extent that we see people like the ones you know - it is because of the unusually high levels of dissatisfaction with Republicans that are driving even loyal Republicans away.

Liz Dayton says:

Ryan Enos says:

Michael - your point could very well be correct - although I think to your first reason, people that have avoided election news thus far are simply not plugged into that information - e.g. they watch plenty of television, but no news. My feeling is that that they can still avoid that news by changing the channel, even in the last two weeks. Personal communication is another matter - but my feeling is that birds of a feather tend to flock together. There might be some truth to what you say if we see the rate of decline of undecideds increase as we approach election day. Of course, that is not necessarily distinguishable from my claim.

Michael Tesler says:

You know I think the dosage-resistance paradox alluded to above is the most important thing in the world, but there are two ways it could possibly break down in the last two weeks of the campaign. 1) the messages sent are at much higher intensity than normal because the election dominates both personal and impersonal communications. 2) Campaign interest reaches its peak, so even low-info undecideds may seek out political communications. Both should make it easier for low-info individuals to receive persuasive messages and thus be influenced by them.

RSS Alerts

Facebook Twitter Youtube

About

Election analysis and personal commentary by UCLA scholars, unfiltered.

News release

Contact UCLA Newsroom

RSS Feed

For the Media

Current Issues

Useful Links

At some point, undecided becomes uninformed

Comments

johny says:

pri says:

Cai says:

rug says:

Visioner says:

free divorce papers says:

Liz Dayton says:

Lisa P says:

Evan says:

Ryan Enos says:

Liz Dayton says:

Ryan Enos says:

Michael Tesler says:

Tool Tip

Tool Tip

About

Our Bloggers

Archive