Every presidential race in which I've paid close attention to (on a critical basis, without undue outside influence or pressure), the most prized, most talked about group of people in America is that group of people labeled as one monolithic entity: "Undecideds." The media prizes them for the ratings they offer, campaigns prize them for the potential votes they offer, and the base support of any candidate derides them for their wishy-washy, spineless refusal to commit. (Note: that was, of course, a generalization; exceptions apply.)
One thing I've noticed a lack of is any really detailed, in depth analysis of what it means to be an "Undecided," and when their decision is important (as contrasted with why their vote is important). As we move into the final days of the election season, Undecideds become an increasing focus of the media. When the media report on Undecideds, it's important to consider that in the context of what makes the media tick, and what it means to be "Undecided."
For all the hand-wringing many of us do, lamenting the apparent inability of these people to think or make decisions, during a certain window there is a legitimately concerned, thoughtful group of undecided voters who require genuine persuasion. This window is not in the final week or two of a presidential campaign. I'd argue that the window bleeds into the two or three weeks prior to this last-minute period, but for the most part the window to convince undecideds to back a candidate is prior to this time period.
Undecided voters tend to be undecided for a variety of reasons, and to understand why the last two weeks--and especially this final week--make them a meaningless block we must understand why undecideds are undecided, and when their status as such becomes less important or even meaningless. There are essentially three primary categories to which Undecideds generally belong.
Informational Deficit
Many undecideds are undecided because they haven't got the information they believe they need to decide. This group is distinguished from the low-information voters who strongly support a candidate because this last group of voters is low-information by choice and, also by choice, voters in that group tend to ignore information that contradicts their reasons for supporting their candidate.
There are a variety of legitimate reasons to have a genuine information deficit. As the economy plunges and misguided wars rage, we see these reasons with stark clarity: people working, struggling to make ends meet, worried about friends, children, and other family sent to war, retirees watching their retirement funds disappear, and so on. What we must realize, however, is that for most of the 80% of the population who earn less than 50% of the total income in America, these issues are always present to some degree or another.
This, of course, is not what most of us would consider a legitimate reason to remain politically ignorant. However, of those who aren't poverty stricken or faced with similar, more pertinent issues, most don't seem capable of or interested in devoting the "extra" energy it takes to remain informed. Hell, most of my very politically interested, news-junky friends are surprised when I tell them things about Obama and McCain that a two minute visit to their respective websites would reveal.
This group of Undecideds is the most critical to a political campaign. This group is the one with people who are capable of making decisions and prioritizing, because that's primarily what they do with their own lives all year long. This group is also the group that dwindles over time (just look at the percentage of Undecideds over time in any given poll--it constantly diminishes).
It dwindles because, over time, campaigns' work to convince them pays off. They become Decided voters. They also form the core of non-base supporters who can push the candidate into the range of support that puts him ahead of the others in the field. That's why this group of Undecideds cannot be dismissed (or scorned) up to a point. At some point, usually about two to six weeks from Election Day, the number of Undecideds in this category isn't significant in comparison to the number of votes that can be had by, e.g., Get Out The Vote efforts.
Indecisive
These Undecideds are genuinely undecided--and always will be. Their vote should always be considered "unattainable" by any campaign, in the sense that anybody in this group can never be counted on to vote one way or the other until the moment they cast their vote. Generally they always remain poorly informed or entirely uninformed, by choice or ability. The worst of this group are those who really, genuinely want to make a decision, but are (again, bluntly) too stupid to discern any real difference between the candidates, even when it's so blatantly obvious as it is in this election.
This group is, in my opinion, the only one that truly deserves any scorn. One of these Undecideds may start as uninformed or as an attention seeker, but ultimately their vote is tantamount to a coin-flip. Most likely a voter from this group will cast his vote based on a purely emotional whim influenced heavily by events or news coverage closest to or even on the day he casts his vote.
It's infuriating to think that this group helps anybody get elected given the importance of the issues being decided. I like to think that this group is so wishy-washy that they just don't bother to even show up to a voting booth. I wish it were true.
Coy and Misleading
Undecideds of this variety are, to put it bluntly, liars. They could be of the (rather curious) variety who think that a vote for anything is a "deeply personal and private" matter and claim to be undecided to avoid a conversation about it. They could be for one candidate or another but fearful of being "outed" to friends, family, or co-workers for a variety of reasons. They could be for one candidate or another but state their status "strategically," believing that being undecided somehow helps their candidate.
Regardless of the reason for their duplicity, this is another group of Undecideds whose vote cannot be counted on. They remain as such for some mysterious reason, and likely will never change their ways.
In conclusion
The media are going to key in on the Undecided vote because it bolsters their "horse race" narrative. If Obama weren't ahead by the number he is, the percentage of undecided voters in any given poll would be enough for them to abandon the "Obama's ahead" narrative that exists in spite of their desires and efforts. Indeed, in my observation so far it seems that almost every reporting of the polls includes some asshat media moron "cautioning" against ignoring the undecided vote. Sometimes they have to also use the margin-of-error to push their horse race narrative.
Campaigns, however, know the truth. Anybody who has helped at this point in a campaign knows that most of the work to convince Undecideds occurs near the beginning and middle of the campaign, through canvassing and campaign stops. Toward the end of a campaign--the last two to six weeks--is spent almost entirely in Get Out The Vote efforts. This is because campaigns recognize that the number of Undecideds who's views will actually be influenced or changed by campaign activity at this juncture is negligible.
In this light at this juncture, it's kind of pointless to focus much energy in despising Undecideds, just as it's somewhat pointless for a campaign to expend too much energy in convincing them or cajoling them into picking.