Why did LibDems underperform ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Since Friday I'm wondering what the hell happened. They were expected to poll over 30% and gain 100 seats and they ended up... with 23% and 57 seats. could someone explain me ?

[minionofmidas]

Since Friday I'm wondering what the hell happened. They were expected to poll over 30% and gain 100 seats and they ended up... with 23% and 57 seats. could someone explain me ?

They were not expected to poll over 30%. They polled at ~26-28 at the end.
And I for one would have estimated them to win about 70-75 seats (which they didn't get either, of course.)

What happened? People took fright of a hung parliament is my guess (so, many who had intended to vote Con, then flirted with the LDs, voted Con in the end; many who had intended to vote Labour if at all, then flirted with the LDs, voted Labour in the end.) Especially seeing as it wasn't clear who the LDs would cooperate with. And many LD voters don't want to be in Government.
Polling probably sucked a little, too - partly an issue with polls automatically framed as national polls.

[k-onmmunist]

Two words: Tactical voting

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This has happened before, of course. In 1974 (Feb) the Liberals surged during the last few weeks of the campaign, but fell quite a bit short of what many polls had predicted (the result was still seen as a triumph for the Liberals, of course - in that respect it's quite different to this election). In 1983, the Labour vote slumped halfway through the campaign to the apparent benefit of the Alliance; a lot of polls done on the last day had they ahead or level with Labour and up in the high 20s. Again, they fell short.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well.. It's a pity anyways.

[Franzl]

Their idiotic pro-EU position can't have helped them especially with the Greece crisis in voters' minds.

[Verily]

This has happened before, of course. In 1974 (Feb) the Liberals surged during the last few weeks of the campaign, but fell quite a bit short of what many polls had predicted (the result was still seen as a triumph for the Liberals, of course - in that respect it's quite different to this election). In 1983, the Labour vote slumped halfway through the campaign to the apparent benefit of the Alliance; a lot of polls done on the last day had they ahead or level with Labour and up in the high 20s. Again, they fell short.

Well, they were basically level with Labour in 1983 on votes, so that comparison is far from apt.

It was mostly poor targeting on the Lib Dems' part. They didn't campaign as hard as they should have in their held seats and immediate targets, and they spent a lot of energy in too many distant targets. It's great that they're now serious challengers in odd places like Hull North and Ashfield, but if even half that effort had been spent in the 12 seats they lost, they'd be in a better position.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

They actually lost seats compared to the 2005 election.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Their idiotic pro-EU position can't have helped them especially with the Greece crisis in voters' minds.

Maybe we europeists are all idiots, but at least you can't deny we are very proud to defend our views in the current ultra-euroskeptic climate.

[Tuck!]

Their idiotic pro-EU position can't have helped them especially with the Greece crisis in voters' minds.

Maybe we europeists are all idiots, but at least you can't deny we are very proud to defend our views in the current ultra-euroskeptic climate.

That isn't a positive and I wouldn't attempt to characterise it as such.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think one to two percentage points of the discrepancy came from pollsters doing their best to ignore the fact that both the BNP and UKIP were standing in a lot more constituencies this time.  A fair amount of the LibDem vote is pure protest vote at the two major parties, and with the BNP and UKIP to choose from as well as Lib Dems, some of that siphoned off to them.  Of course to test that proposition someone should do some regression analysis comparing Lib Dem swing where BNP and/or UKIP were standing for the first time to Lib Dem swing where they weren't.

[Hash]

Their idiotic pro-EU position can't have helped them especially with the Greece crisis in voters' minds.

I'm proud to be an idiotic EU supporter.

[Storebought]

One reason: they are not to be taken seriously. They are a recepticle of 'tactical voting' and nothing more.

[Franzl]

Their idiotic pro-EU position can't have helped them especially with the Greece crisis in voters' minds.

I'm proud to be an idiotic EU supporter.

Well.....sorry to hear that .....but it clearly could have hurt their popularity in Britain, don't you think?

[Verily]

Their idiotic pro-EU position can't have helped them especially with the Greece crisis in voters' minds.

I'm proud to be an idiotic EU supporter.

Well.....sorry to hear that .....but it clearly could have hurt their popularity in Britain, don't you think?

Yes and no. Their position on the EU has always been well known (at least as well known as it was during the campaign, anyway). There was no particular reason why they should have overpolled simply due to the EU. In fact, it is quite absurd to suggest that this had anything to do with it.

It may be an electoral liability, but that's beside the point.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, they were basically level with Labour in 1983 on votes, so that comparison is far from apt.

Well, yeah. Hardly a perfect comparision. But they were consistently overestimated in the polls in the last week of that election, though not by all that much.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Best example is from Sheffield, of course. The new Sheffield Centre was lost by less than 1% and if the LibDems hadn't tried seriously in Penistone & Stocksbridge...