The Incumbent Rule

Mystery Pollster offers an interesting explanation of why the undecided vote often breaks toward challengers in races featuring an incumbent.

The basic idea is that voters make their decisions differently in races involving an incumbent. When newcomers vie to fill an open office, voters tend to compare and contrast the candidates' qualifications, issues positions and personal characteristics in a relatively straightforward way. Elections featuring an incumbent, on the other hand, are as Molyneux puts it, "fundamentally a referendum on the incumbent." Voters will first grapple with the record of the incumbent. Only if they decide to "fire" the incumbent do they begin to evaluate whether the challenger is an acceptable alternative.

And you definitely want to check the American Prospect article that he links to in his piece.

You may also have heard that Bush is surging ahead in the crucial “battleground states” that will determine the Electoral College outcome. However, polls in these states actually reveal an even more precarious position for the president. Taken together, Bush receives a bit less support in these critical states than in the nation overall. In the latest NBC/WSJ poll, Bush receives 49 percent support nationally but only 47 percent in the battleground states, a typical finding. (Bush and Al Gore split the vote in these states evenly, 48 percent to 48 percent.)

I have been reading that Bush has been going consistently negative vs. Kerry over the past week (as opposed to talking about freedom and democracy, etc.). This would make sense particularly if he is in danger of losing, which the "Incumbent Rule" would seem to imply. This may also explain the move by the Sinclair Broadcast Group to show the anti-Kerry movie.

And finally, if you look back at the chart I posted earlier, and if the Incumbent Rule is a good predictor in this election, then Bush has big problems.