Is there actually facts and evidence to suggest that a losing candidate doesn't get people to vote?

I’m not talking about the Green or Libertarian parties’ level of losing. So much has been made about the GOP’s complete and utter ineptitude and shock at the polls, how they were completely unprepared because the right wing media like Fox News were telling them lies over and over to make them feel better.

However, is there proof that saying your candidate is in the lead actually increases votes for him? I’ve voted in almost every election I can since turning 18, and I do not remember one time in which I told myself I wasn’t going to vote because my candidate or issue was losing. Wouldn’t common sense dictate that it would make you want to vote more? And conversely, I also don’t remember a time when my candidate or bill was winning and I said I wasn’t going to vote because of that.

If there are studies and facts to support one side or the other, I would love to see that. It just seems pointless to me, and kind of self-defeating, that Fox kept drumming the fact that Romney was either ahead or had momentum. And its not just right wingers who do this, but I’ve never heard anything from left wing media either say “Our guy’s losing badly, we need you to come out to vote!”. Rather its always “We’re winning, come out to vote!”

And finally a hypothetical: What would have happened if all the media had reported the polls accurately from day one? The narrative of the election would be Obama winning for most of it, but Romney getting a surge after the first debate, and then Obama being in trouble for a bit but still holding on to his lead then eventually pulling slightly away again. Would that have changed anything?

I don’t know of any proof, but the way I heard it explained - is it is not to encourage or discourage those in one camp or another. It is targeted to a very small segment that is truly on the fence. People want to be on the winning side. If they truly are on the fence (I have never been on the fence in an election, but som are obviously) and they think side A is ahead - they are more likely to vote for side A to be on the winning team.

Hard to believe, but I think there is some merit to it.