Close elections tend to break toward the challenger because undecided voters - having held out so long against the incumbent - are by nature looking for change.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I don't think there is anything more bitter in American politics than a close election.
As a longtime political operative, I know firsthand how a vote here or a vote there can make a huge difference in a close election.
I understand personally that it is frustrating to lose presidential elections by narrow margins.
And if you're getting a poll coming out month after month saying something and then all of a sudden does an enormous swing in one direction - you are dealing with a more volatile electorate than most people believe they have.
Anytime you have a reelection campaign against an incumbent president and you're the party out of power - on the one hand it's wide open because there's not an heir apparent - but people are also gauging how strong is that incumbent president and what are my chances.
Every challenger has come forward and said he's going to challenge me and win because I'm out of touch with the constituents. We run a race, the election comes, and the majority of voters disagree with them.
Electoral contests have nothing but polls, which is why people have grown so obsessed with them; we're desperate for an objective rendering of what is happening and what may happen.
Every four years in the presidential election, some new precedent is broken.
Elections are about choosing sides, but inaugurations are about closing ranks.
If it's a close election, then it's better for the Supreme Court to pick the president, whether or not he won the election. It's just insane on its face.
No opposing quotes found.