Outlook: I Can't Be An Undecided, Can I?

Amid Election '08 Media Saturation, Pollster Tries to Decide Why So Many -- Including Her -- Can't

"In 2003, I spent eight months in New Hampshire with the John Kerry campaign. New Hampshire cherishes its privileged voting status, so Granite Staters gleefully fill their calendars with kaffeeklatsches and town hall meetings. They watch campaign ads -- on purpose! And yet, well into December of that year, many voters still hadn't picked their man. I couldn't fathom how people could be so saturated with political information and still not know how they were going to vote. But now, even after the Iowa caucuses and with the New Hampshire primary just two days away, I find myself struggling to decide which Democratic candidate to support."

Mellman Group polling analyst Meredith Chaiken, deputy political director in New Hampshire for Sen. John Kerry in 2004, was online Monday, Jan. 7 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss her Outlook article examining why, despite the saturation of election 2008 media coverage, so many people remain undecided so far into the process.

The transcript follows.

Archive: Transcripts of discussions with Outlook article authors

____________________

Meredith Chaiken: Good afternoon everyone, welcome and thanks for joining this chat. With just a few hours before the first polls open in New Hampshire, I'm looking forward to discussing those last few questions that undecided voters have to answer for themselves in order to come around to being "decided," in general and in this race specifically. On the other side of the coin is what the campaigns do to try to persuade voters to come to their side.

I would love to hear everyone's reactions to the debates on Saturday and see if that made a difference in your support for any of the candidates.

Thanks again, and let's get started! What criteria are you using to determine which candidate to support? What do you think would help convince undecided voters to make up our minds?

_______________________

Garrett Park, Md.: I was quite startled when I read Ms. Chaiken's comment that "people like me don't run for president." Perhaps if she had seen the example of a women president she might feel differently. I am also a bit taken aback by the concept that a senior pollster would personally believe that the degree of advocacy for change that a candidate advances is the standard upon which she would base her vote. That might, indeed, be the grounds for the average voter, but I would expect someone who has been around for a while to take experience and and readiness into account as well. What have I missed here?

Meredith Chaiken: Hello Garrett Park. For me personally, change is something we need right now, but I am still figuring out what kind of change makes sense in this particular situation. I do think experience and readiness are important, but the question is, how important are they compared to everything else we can evaluate the candidates on? And does the importance of those factors change from year to year? That is something many of us are trying to figure out still.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Meredith, thanks for your article. I am also a longtime Democrat who's still undecided. Their positions on the issues are pretty similar, at least the important issues. Obama seems like he has great ideas but has no track record and little relevant experience. Hillary has definitely has exposure to the world stage and a real understanding of what the presidency is all about, but the thought of 28 straight years of nobody but Bushes and Clintons is really difficult to support, regardless of how good a job I thought Bill did. I really think that Richardson would be the best candidate, but he doesn't have a chance, and doesn't really seem to be trying. What to do?

Meredith Chaiken: Hi Alexandria -- thanks for your question. I think electability is an important issue to consider, but also very fluid ... this might have an impact on the election in New Hampshire, for example. ... Candidates that did not seem electable just a few days ago may seem more viable now ... while others have dropped out entirely. And your vote adds to their electability for the next round of voting. How does that impact your decision-making?

_______________________

Laconia, N.H.: I don't know how anyone can be apathetic about the state this country is in -- unless the past two strange presidential elections and lots of "Big Money" lobbying have convinced them that there is no point in caring. Some of us were really hopeful that after the 2006 election that we could get out of Iraq. Our opinions don't seem to have made a lot of difference.

Meredith Chaiken: Hi Laconia. Thanks for your post. It seemed to me that the 2004 election had a major impact on our policies toward Iraq, by making the issue front-and-center in 2006. The candidates talked about Iraq quite a bit in the early part of the season, and I think we haven't heard as much discussion lately, but they have moved towards some consensus within the party -- Democrats in particular but Republicans to some extent as well.

The real question is what kind of influence it will have on the general election!

_______________________

Laconia, N.H.: The Washington Post quiz about the candidates didn't seem very good to me. I know whom I support and I know the differences between the Democratic candidates; the quiz did not provide the kind of information that allows voters to differentiate. Furthermore, the press has done a generally bad job of specifically differentiating this whole campaign -- and John Edwards, one candidate who has added immeasurably to the issues of this campaign, largely has been ignored. There are serious qualitative differences between the candidates' platforms, and the press largely has ignored them.

washingtonpost.com: Choose Your Candidate Quiz (washingtonpost.com)

Meredith Chaiken: I thought the quiz was frustrating as well (no offense, Washington Post!). But I largely would lay that at the feet of the candidates themselves ... preferring to say safer answers than take risks, especially in print.

I am curious though -- do you think the campaigns themselves have done a good job of talking about the issues? Is Edwards talking about issues in his campaign ads? Are they providing enough and useful information on their Web sites?

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: What are we supposed to have an opinion about? Whether we should try to elect the first woman, black or Hispanic, or if the Southerner gives us the best chance? The Dems act as if this election is in the bag. But except for Edwards, the top Democratic contenders are probably better candidates for the nomination than the general election. The top Republicans (except Huckabee) are the reverse.

Meredith Chaiken: This is a tough question -- whether we should focus on finding someone electable and palatable to the general election audience, or stick with someone who is closest to your own convictions.

I think this often reflects the dynamics of the incumbent party ... in 2004, Democrats were focused on electability in the face of a strong incumbent. This year, Republicans seem to be a bit more pragmatic while Democrats are doing more soul-searching.

What do you think? How much of a role should electability play in our decision-making?

_______________________

Ferguson, Mo.: here's a question I tried to pose to Mr. Zogby on C-SPAN. Why can't pollsters just butt out!? Why can't people be left to make up their own minds? I believe in France no polls are allowed to be published within a week of the election. I assume that's intended to allow folks to form their own judgments and not be swayed by the tide. Defend yourself! Thanks.

Meredith Chaiken: This is a tough issue -- we certainly have an appetite for information, including polls, especially as we get closer to election day. Some feel these late polls help the frontrunners, because voters won't want to cast a vote for a candidate who is too far behind in the polls to be viable, while others believe it can rally the base for the underdog and keep their supporters motivated.

It's unclear in which direction polls influence voters, if any ... and what the effects would be if they were banned.

I think I can be an example of someone with lots of access to polling data who still is making up their mind!

_______________________

Brookline, Mass.: With all the ads, with all the debates, and with all the candidates who have been visiting the state for the past six months to a year, how could anyone still be undecided at this point? For what are undecideds still looking?

Meredith Chaiken: Hi Brookline. That question is what I asked myself last cycle about New Hampshire voters, and again this year about myself!

I would say that though we receive a ton of information, it is not necessarily relevant to the questions we are trying to answer. ... Some of us, myself included, still are figuring out which are the most important questions to ask. ... Experience or a fresh face? Leadership through consensus-building or leadership by example?

I would appreciate input from the audience on which criteria are most important this year.

_______________________

Washington: Good morning. I am one of those undecided voters. The debates have not been very helpful to date. I want the candidates to answer the tough questions. Obama telling us he is the candidate of change but not how he plans to change things doesn't help. We need answers to questions about immigration, jobs moving out of the country, energy policy, etc.

Meredith Chaiken: Great question -- how do you figure out the differences between candidates on difficult issues, particularly on some they might not want to address?

Also, this touches on something that lots of people wrote to me about after reading my article -- how do you figure out whom to trust? That is a key question for many undecided voters. ... I think this is what most campaigns try to communicate -- that they can be trusted with your vote -- but there is no clear path to earning that trust over the course of a short campaign season.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Who is more apt to be undecided, a Democrat or a Republican? A liberal or a conservative? What are the most common reasons given for the indecision? Does it seem to be a difficulty in telling differences between candidates, or that the candidates are failing to connect with undecideds, or what?

Meredith Chaiken: This is a great question. In general elections, undecided voters tend to be less partisan/more independent and less ideological/more moderate.

In these cases, the differences between the candidates are clearer if you see the election through a partisan/ideological prism (as I confess to doing!). So this leaves those in the middle, or those whose beliefs cross party/ideological lines, choosing between two candidates who each represent a set of compromises ... a hard choice!

In a primary election, those differences don't hold -- most of the candidates are close to each other on the major issues/platforms that help define the identity of a political party. Undecideds might be more likely to hold out for less "hard" issue-related information and make judgments based on leadership style, electability, or other "soft" differences.

_______________________

Philadelphia: Electability could win the election for the wrong person -- then, we'd end up with at least four years of a person who was only electable. I think people should vote based on their own issues and watch the chips fall where they should. The one problem, though, is with a closed-primary where Democrats only vote for Democrats and Republicans only vote for Republicans.

Meredith Chaiken: This raises a great question, and that is, if you restrict yourself to voting based solely on issues, which issues should be used? This is particularly difficult in a primary, because on average the differences between the candidates are narrower than in a general election.

So -- should it be the most important, broad issues of the day -- health care, environment, etc.? Or are the candidates too similar on these issues?

And though some voters are experts in issues they are personally familiar with or have some impact on their lives (water rights in Nevada, or crab farming in Maryland?), many of us (myself included here!) don't have the knowledge to judge the candidates on such narrow issues.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I just wrote in that I am conflicted, and then just read another response that asked how anyone could still be undecided because of all the information. I think it's partly information overload! Also, my views don't align perfectly with any one candidate. I like Candidate A for many things, but there is one thing I don't like. I have to decide if that is more of a deal-breaker than the one thing I dislike about Candidate B. It's very hard. I feel like this is the hardest voting decision I've ever had to make.

Meredith Chaiken: I believe that voters do see some differences between the candidates, but they are working towards figuring out which differences are deal-breakers! and that is a very tough task.

In some ways I think we can use dating as a good analogy -- none of the candidates are perfect, and they are all good at heart. I am sure they are all good to their mothers. So how can you decide which one is a good match? There is some element of taking a risk involved ... the major problem with this analogy is that we have a very firm deadline! And also, while there are other fish in the sea (so to speak) we won't have the chance to vote for them this cycle.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Are you finding it hard for undecided voters to differentiate between the candidates? I read the Washington Post blind issues survey where one reads candidates' statements on positions, and I have to admit, most of the candidates are stating the same position using different words. I know there are differences in the details of their positions, but the general statements of the candidates in each party are often very much equivalent, in my observation. How much of a factor is this in keeping voters undecided?

Meredith Chaiken: Great question. I think The Washington Post quiz is a great exercise, but my guess is that you'll find the candidates remarkably similar.

Do you think the problem that they hold similar stances or that they use the same words to explain their positions? Or maybe this is not a problem in the first place?

_______________________

Charlottesville, Va.: I do not think electability should play a major role in deciding who the nominee should be, because people can't necessarily predict who is electable. John Kerry was considered the most electable by many people in 2004, but he wasn't elected, and it's possible that if the Democrats had taken more risks, another candidate would have been elected. It's frustrating that the media focuses more on who's ahead and supposedly electable, rather than substance. Although I do believe that the major Democratic candidates have made their substantive views known, it's kind of unfair to put the burden on them to talk about substance constantly when all that's ever covered is the fluff.

Meredith Chaiken: Great question. Electability is tough to predict -- hard to say if Kerry was most electable in 2004. If we had a different nominee, could he/she have won? Or done much worse?

I'm curious whether people think the campaigns themselves have done a good job on focusing on substantial issues -- either in their speeches, their advertising, or on their Web sites.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: I don't think it's true that most candidates in a primary aren't that far apart. The Democratic candidates are split over Clinton's prior position on the war and Edwards's emphasis on poverty, just to name two. The Republicans are all over the map on immigration. Huckabee differs on tax policy. The role of religion in the Republican campaigns differs strongly. There are a lot of tradeoffs to have to make even within a primary.

Meredith Chaiken: Excellent point -- the Republican Party definitely is doing a lot of soul-searching right now and is grappling with immigration, religion, and Iraq, just to name a few.

My gut feeling is that the Democratic candidates are more similar than they are different -- I would suggest that the differences here are more on what they choose to emphasize rather than vast differences on policy.

That said, I think what they choose to emphasize can tell us a great deal about what their presidency would be like ... where their legislative priorities would be.

_______________________

Meredith Chaiken: I am very sorry to say that we have to wrap up this conversation. I really enjoyed myself, and thanks to all who submitted a question or comment! If I didn't get a chance to answer your question or if you have something else to add, feel free to e-mail me.

Good luck to everyone still making up their minds, and best wishes to all the candidates! Thanks again!

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.