This is something I never understood. Presumably, a politician’s office keeps a record of the most *reliable *polling numbers, whether those are the same ones s/he promotes or not. And then there are the poll results that will distributed to news organizations.
I’ve noticed that politicians across political parties and ideologies routinely point to the polls that show them with a huge lead. Now, it’s certainly obvious why a politician would not want to endorse polls that give him or her a big lag, since that suggests low general support. But wouldn’t it be in the politician’s best interest to promote the polls that show neck-and-neck races, or those that have them behind by just a point? This would stimulate their supporters to donate and volunteer, rather than sit back.
One theory: the target audience for the release of internal polls is not voters, but narrative-shapers.
That is, most voters don’t follow pre-election polling. But most journalists and politicos do. When polls are low, the media begins to craft narratives to explain the poor polling, which may or may not coincide with the actual cause (which, especially a few months out, if often nothing more than poor name recognition or the like). When support seems high, the candidate must be doing something right, and the media will craft a narrative highlighting the candidate’s strong suits.
Since far more people receive the media wisdom on candidates than read the polls, it’s a good strategy.
Because there’s a not insubstantial voting contingent that doesn’t vote on the issues or the candidate’s record or any of that, but just wants to be on the side of the winner. Not out of any kickback scheme or special interest, but because humans are competitive little monkeys who have a deep desire for “their side” to “win”. So some people vote like they’re betting on the outcome, not creating it. By having a larger margin, more monkeys are sure you’re going to be the winner, so they have an overwhelming urge to be part of your “side” and vote for you.
(Am I too cynical tonight?)
Not at all, and I’d add one other cynical note. A lot of people don’t want to vote for a loser. Sure, the ones who are committed to a cause will still turn out, but there’s a substantial portion of the electorate who feel that voting for a sure loser is simply a waste of time.
So a poll that suggests that one candidate is 30% behind will do a good job of turning off that candidate’s less-committed supporters.
A lot of money follows the leader. Many corporations will give money to the party they think will win. If you help out a politician who loses, you have wasted your money. That is why a lot of corporations give money to both parties, just more to the one they think is ahead.
Keep in mind that all of the voters are presumedly seeing these poll numbers. So if Candidate Smith shows that he has just a narrow lead over Candidate Jones, both his supporters and Jones’ supporters will see that claim. Now Smith’s supporters may be somewhat motivated but they’re also going to be thinking that Smith is already winning. Jones’ supporters on the other hand will be more fired up - they’ll want to get out there and regain the lead which seems to be within reach.
And as you point out, no politician wants to post poll results that show his campaign is far behind. The reverse of that is you want to post poll numbers that show your opponent’s campaign is far behind so you can demoralize his supporters.
All of the above are true as far as campaign strategy goes.
There is another reason, many politicians are vain.
This is part of campaign strategy as well. Their campaign staff will judge whether the candidate does better as when perceiving him/herself as a front runner, or having to come from behind. If the candidate is ahead in the polls, the strategy will be to make the candidate appear happy and confident of victory. If the candidate actually feels that way based on the polling, it will be more convincing. Politicians also like to protect their lead, so good polling makes them risk averse. They’ll avoid controversial subjects, and speak with a positive outlook.
Conversely, low polling depresses the trailing candidates. If they believe the polls, or even need to counter what they consider a misleading poll, they will be pushed to engage in riskier tactics. Even politicians can’t hide the pressure they feel when they think they a loss is inevitable. And the ones who do hide it, and act like they are winning despite the polls, may appear delusional.