Polls in General Election

The polls have always been reliable in predicting the potentially favored candidate in specific elections. The significance of polls is that its gives data on how effective the parties are doing in a particular election. In many occasion, the results projected in a specific poll were actually reflected in the final election. Many politicians always ignore the polling results terming it of being corrupted to favor one candidate. However, the results projected by polls are always close to the actual final result.
In the 2012 election, the polling result projected that Romney was leading with 50% while the sitting President Obama was behind at 49%. However, in the final election result, Obama was ahead by 51% while his opponent was behind at 47%. This shows that there was a Gallup deviation of -2% and 3% for both Obama and Romney results respectively (Gallup Inc, 1). In the 2008 election, the poll showcased Obama defeating his opponent with 55% while McCain will be behind at 44%. In the official election result, Obama actually won with 53% will his opponent was behind at 46%.Therefore, this shows that there was a Gallup deviation of 2% and -2% for both Obama and McCain results respectively (Gallup Inc, 1).
Lastly, in the 2004 election, the poll projected an indecisive trend for both candidates. In short, Bush had 49% while Kerry was also having a 49% chance of being elected. In the final results, President Bush won by 50.7% compared to that of Kerry who was at 48.3%. Hence, this shows that there was a Gallup deviation of -1.

7% and 0.7% for both Bush and Kerry results respectively (Gallup Inc, 1). From this statistical data, it can be noted that the polling result may not be accurate, but they nearly predict what is to be expected in the final results.
Consequently, many political analysts have suggested that the data projected on the polls have a significant impact on voter’s perception of the both competing parties (Blais, Gildengil and Nevitte, 3). Therefore the polls significantly impact the final election through contagion effect and strategic voting. In strategic voting, it involves the action of a voter voting for the least preferred candidate so that the single vote can affect the final election. Additionally, the polls impact the strategic consideration of the voters because they will end up boycotting the election because their favorable party is perceived to losing in the forthcoming election. In contagion effect, it is based on the action whereby a particular voter is influenced to evaluate and support a party that is perceived to winning and not because they like their ideology (Blais, Gildengil and Nevitte, 3). This is mostly familiar with larger capital investors, who may not agree with the political ideology of a specific candidate, but they support the contestant because he or she is perceived to be winning and they expect favors from their regime when they win.
In conclusion, the rationality of the voter’s cognitive voting nature is not assessed in this situation. Therefore, the concept of contagion and strategic voting caused by polling effect cannot be the main reason why candidate wins elections. A successful party has a solid manifesto and campaign structures that will guarantee them victory dispute the polling results. Today, Clinton is leading at 45% while her close opponent Mr. Trump is at 43% (Gallup Inc, 1). This shows a narrow gap of 2 points. Therefore, Clinton victory is not certain in the outcome due to factors such voter turnout and undecided swing vote States. Finally, a strategic campaign is what will guarantee victory in the final election.
Work Cited
Blais Andre, Gildengil Elisabeth and Nevitte Neil. Do Polls Influence the Vote?. The University of Michigan Website, 2016. https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472099213-ch11.pdf
Gallup Inc. Election Poll Accuracy Record in Presidential Election. Gallup Website, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx