5 Factors That Will Decide Who Wins the 2010 Elections

October 27, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (8)

Like Christmas, the 2010 election is almost here.

Now everything comes down to how what we who were once in the business referred to as “late deciders” will vote in the races that are still close--like the U.S. Senate races in California, Nevada, and Washington state, the governor’s races in Connecticut and Oregon, and countless U.S. House races in every part of the country.

[See a slide show of 11 hot races.]

These are not the folks who knew how they were going to vote in this election as soon as Obama won the last one. They are typically “soft” partisans, generally affiliated but not politically active. They may even think of themselves as “independents.” They are still undecided about the close races and have not yet decided if they are going to vote at all. They just know there’s an election on and they’re supposed to make a choice.

In their hands rests the balance of power in Washington and more than a few states.

Pollsters Chris Wilson and Bryon Allen of Wilson Research Strategies have put together a list of indices worth studying if you’re a political junkie and want to see if you can best the experts at their own game by trying to guess what the “late deciders” will do.

According to Wilson and Allen:

  1. Partisans break toward their party. “This is particularly true when we’re talking about self-identification--where voters are affirming their alignment--rather than registration, where some voters may be disaffected from their party but not have changed their registration.”
  2. Independents tend to break in the same direction as the trend. “If partisans are relatively stable, Independents are not. Their feelings about the party in power are what drive the overall trend. Late deciding Independents are even more likely than others to make simple decisions based on their feelings about the direction of the country and the party in power.”
  3. Late deciders break for challengers. “Late deciding voters know much more about incumbents than their challengers and make their decision based on whether or not they want to return the incumbent to office.” If they haven’t decided to stay with the incumbent by now, Wilson and Allen say, “they are likely to vote for the challenger.”
  4. Habitual voters vote while those who vote less frequently will turn out in smaller numbers. “Many pollsters include an intensity of interest measure in their polls. These should be used with caution because voters who vote in pretty much every election are going to turn out this year too, regardless of how disinterested or frustrated they are.”
  5. Name Identification--or Name ID--matters. “While this rarely makes a difference in high-profile races where both candidates are well-known, in down-ballot races simply having built name awareness can sometimes push a candidate to victory if voters have nothing else on which to base a decision.”

After months and months of anticipation the big day is finally about to arrive. Which means the spinners will be out in force, whirling like dervishes and feverously explaining who is up, who is down, why, and what it all means for the future of the republic. Now you know as much as they do.

Tags:
2010 Congressional elections,
Congress,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

It's really getting old seeing the same old talking points that have been debunked over and over again with facts, but don't let that stop a right winger from continuing to pound the same lies.

Jose of FL 2:14AM October 29, 2010

According to Mike of OR the financial crisis was started by Bush's administration. WRONG! Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were Clinton's babies. They were forced to loan money to people who would not have qualified through an ordinary bank. It was stupid, letting someone buy a 100,000 dollar home when they couldn't afford a 20,000 dollar home. Bush's administration was guilty of sleeping at the wheel, but they didn't start the mess. How about all of the bonuses that were handed out with the bailout money. I never could understand that, if a company is losing money, how can anyone rate a bonus? It's time for fresh blood in Washington, DC and hopefully get rid of at least part of the RePO team.

DTK of MO 9:04PM October 28, 2010

The Democ-rats---> Stick a fork in them, they're DONE!

David S. Levine of FL 7:17PM October 28, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement