 |
 |
|||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
| Wake-Up Call in Election 2000
by John M. Curtis Copyright November 8, 2000
Unlike boxing, there’s no draw in American politics. Like most competitive sports, there’s a victor and a vanquished. While neither candidate possessed a knockout punch, they engaged in a relentless war of attrition. Hammering away at undecided voters, both candidates failed to make a convincing case. Though Nader scored some points [about 3%], he can’t really be blamed for denying Democrats the White House in election 2000. Let’s face it, Perot was far more lethal to Republicans in 1992 and 1996, handing the election over to Bill Clinton with barely 43% of the vote. Suggesting that Bush lacks a current mandate without winning the popular vote ignores the fact that he still received 48%—5% more than Clinton did in 1992. Back then, Clinton still won the popular vote. Pushing Bush over the top in the Electoral College, Florida symbolizes America’s growing ambivalence and bitter divisiveness. Winning the popular vote may be a moral victory, but it doesn’t change the stubborn electoral reality. Piling up electoral victories is all that counts in the race for the White House. When Florida finally tilts to Bush, America still faces an inescapable dilemma: How to resolve its massive regional and cultural divide. Today’s cultural war rages between powerful forces within the Northeast, upper Midwest and Pacific Southwest against American’s vast interior of Southern, lower Midwestern, and Mountain states. Resenting New York’s frenetic energy or LA’s glitz, middle America lashed out against fast times and urban depravity. Sure, you can examine demographics like gender, age and race, but regional differences tell the real story. America’s most populated and influential urban centers—New York and Los Angeles—were hijacked from picking the president. With 54 and 33 electoral votes, New York and Los Angeles voted overwhelmingly against George W. Bush. Republicans spent 20 million dollars convincing California voters that the Bush-Cheney ticket best represented their interests. GOP’s optimistic estimates had Bush winning California by a sizable margin. Wishful thinking or not, Bush’s 13% drubbing in Calfornia and stinging 25% shellacking in New York, epitomizes the vast East-West divide. Losing the popular vote is bad enough, but decisively losing California, New York and Illinois underscores the nation’s abysmal cultural rift. Looking at GOP-rich Florida, Gore’s showing was especially impressive, when considering it was nearly Bush’s backyard. Racking up 48% of the senior vote hardly represents a failure for Gore given the GOP’s dominance in Florida. On the contrary, Gore made significant inroads into Florida’s right wing, unimpressed with Bush’s plans for Medicare and Social Security. Sure, Gore fell short 1750 votes in electoral-rich Florida—at least according to the first count—but he pushed the vote to the brink. When the networks declared Gore the winner early on, he had completed the needed hat trick en route to the White House, scoring improbable victories in Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. With the recount now in full swing, Democrats can only pray that officials find abundant uncounted ballots or massive voter fraud. Few experts give Gore much chance, but at least for the moment, Gore’s clinging to unanswered prayers. In a tight race, it’s easy to blame the Electoral College. Winning the popular vote saves face, but it doesn’t get the cigar. Gore knows the constitution and the Electoral College. Hoping against hope, his campaign waits for the final tally. Gore’s problems in campaign 2000 weren’t only attributable to voting irregularities in Florida or even his rebellious nemesis Ralph Nader—it was unwanted pitfalls that robbed his campaign of precious momentum. Despite concerns about voter irregularities raised by Rev. Jesse Jackson and Kweisi Mfume, President and CEO of the NAACP, including missing ballots, stuffed ballot boxes, voter intimidation, and, even more bizarre, deceptively designed ballots, charges of voter fraud sound like sour grapes but must be ruled out. Distancing himself from President Clinton, Gore had difficulty convincing undecided voters to follow his lead. Bush was able to adroitly redirect the dialogue to tax cuts and military preparedness. While Gore’s campaign included a number of false starts, Bush called the shots and dictated the pace. Sticking to familiar themes, Bush scored more points and paved his path to victory. Gore constantly shifted gears from Medicare to Social Security, from the environment to campaign finance reform. Opening that can of worms, Gore had difficulty recovering his balance. Looking for excuses, Gore operatives are running out of room. Sure, it’s better to have a scapegoat like a bad campaign manager or evil competitor, but only Gore knows how many missed opportunities slipped through his hands. There’s little doubt that Nader played the human torpedo in Tuesday’s election. But it’s also true that it’s not entirely his fault. As long as third parties are allowed to rock the boat in national elections, major party candidates must do a better job of plotting strategy. Ross Perot played the spoiler in 1992 and 1996, upending George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, and laying the blueprint for insurgents like Nader. Unlike Perot, Nader only captured 3% of disenfranchised voters, just enough to hand the election to George W. Bush—or so it seems. But in a real sense, Nader’s not to blame for Gore’s intermittent hiccups in the 2000 campaign. When Florida’s count is finally certified, either Gore or Bush will eventually have to face the music. Faced with today’s chaos, it’s still a waiting game. About the Author John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com. He’s also the director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. |
||||||
orecasting an agonizingly close election, poll-meisters at CBS News proved beyond any doubt that they really do have astonishing predictive power. Certifying the contest a virtual dead heat—with Gore up by 1%—CBS poll director Kathleen Frankovich showed, if nothing else, that polls should be taken seriously. Vilified as inaccurate and biased, scientific polling in campaign 2000 displayed surgical precision. Blaming pollsters for distorting voters’ perceptions and influencing the outcome flies in the face of common sense. Polls give a hidden X-ray needed to forecast voter behavior. From Gore’s phenomenal bounce after the Democratic National Convention, to his stumble in the debates, the polls told the story with pinpoint accuracy—a mercurial but fiercely contested fight to the finish. While it’s tempting to blame failed campaign strategy or pesky third parties, the tossup says a lot more about the schizophrenic nature of the American electorate. Pitting the East and West coasts against the heartland, bucolic America finally got even.|
Home || Articles || Books || The Teflon Report || Reactions || About Discobolos This site designed, developed and hosted by the experts at ©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc. |
