Originally Posted by mynameisjim (Post 19276759)

Are there any examples they give? Like I said, incumbents rarely lose close elections. Even if you go down to other non-presidential races. The close race usually goes to the incumbent because incumbency gives you about a 1% bump on election day as people just go with what they know along with a few other advantages.

Also, while Romney was wasting time in that stupid Republican primary arguing with idiots like Michelle Bachman, the incumbent is able to build up their ground game and get out the vote campaign. Not having to fight through a nomination process gives you an advantage as well to get a better turn out.

I don't have any proof of this and I'm not spinning it for Obama, but just watching elections over the years, that's how it always seems to play out. Being the incumbent gives you a built in 1 or 2 % bump on election day. So the challenger needs at least more than that lead to win

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19277159)

I'm not saying that incumbents don't usually win. They do.

I'm saying that undecided voters normally go to the challenger. They wouldn't be "undecided" after 4 years of a President if they were leaning his way.

Originally Posted by TampaToker (Post 19277173)

Does not sound like it will go to the challenger this time....


The composite for a prototypical undecided voter is:

Female
Single
White
Employed
18-to-29 years old
Didn't graduate from college
Low income
Union household
Identifies as Protestant but doesn't go to church
Skipped the debate.