Semiatin Election Update

• Preface
• Introduction
• The Electoral College
• The Presidential Primaries
  • The Republicans
  • The Democrats
  • Vice Presidential Nominees
• The Fall Campaign
  • The Bush Strategy and Campaign
  • The Gore Strategy
  • The Debates
  • The Final Week of the Campaign
• The Results
  • Senate Races
  • House Races
  • Money and Voter Turnout
• The Florida Crisis and Implications of the Results

The monograph before you was due for publication on November 15, 2000 in order to prepare the manuscript to be delivered to you on time for the new semester. As a result, the analysis below takes into account the events leading up to the Electoral College debate that took place before the date above. Nevertheless, the implications of this debate can be discussed before the final results were reached in the election. Two years ago, the nation went through an impeachment crisis. The crisis regarding the outcome of the election is shorter in duration but also has consequences for the future of American democracy.

(back to top)

The millennial election for the 43rd president of the United States could fairly be described as one out of Alice in Wonderland where up is down, and down is up. The presidential contest between Vice President Al Gore of Tennessee, the Democrat, and Governor George Bush of Texas, the Republican, could fairly be described as one of the closest if not the closest election in our nation's history. For the first time since 1888, there was the possibility that the loser of the popular vote could win in the Electoral College. Vice President Gore received 48.3 percent of the popular vote compared to 48.1 percent for Governor Bush. On the other hand, the Electoral College was in balance with the Texas Governor receiving 246 electoral votes compared to 262 for the Vice President. The Electoral College in the end determines who is elected president. Florida's 25 electoral votes and New Mexico's 5 electoral votes were still too close to call for either candidate a week after the election.

The election results in Senate and House races across the country paralleled the tight presidential race. The Democrats gained three seats in the Senate, and at least one in the House of Representatives. As of November 15, Republicans had a 50-49 majority with one race still to be decided. In the House, Republicans had won 220 seats, Democrats 211, Independents 2, with two others too close to call.

The purpose of this monograph is to explore the 2000 elections through an understanding of the Electoral College, examining the presidential primary campaign, evaluating the fall election campaign and analyzing the results from presidential and congressional races. Such an exploration will enable us to understand the reasons why this election demonstrated a nation deeply divided about its future, while it experienced great economic prosperity.

(back to top)

At the time of the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787, the nascent American republic was teetering on the edge because of a weakened government established under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, essentially, allowed states to act as autonomous nations under the loose umbrella of a federal government with no real power to regulate interstate commerce or rights among the states. The Founders who met in Philadelphia attempted to create a stronger federal government, but one with competing branches of government so that one institution of power would not aggregate too much power.

Under the rubric of the Constitution, the Founders set up a framework of elections where only the House of Representatives would be directly elected by the people. Senators would be elected by state legislatures, a procedure which was later changed to the popular vote winner when the 17th Amendment passed in 1913. The president, however, would be elected through a process known as the Electoral College described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. While the popular vote would be advisory in a state, the electoral vote would be binding. The rationale behind the Electoral College was to protect the rights of the few against the rights of the many. Thus, smaller states would be given greater electoral representation under the Electoral College than the larger states. Each state has electoral votes based on the total number of House members plus Senators. For example, Vermont has one House member and two Senators yielding it three electoral votes. California, on the other hand, has fifty-two House members and two Senators yielding it fifty-four electoral votes. If the electoral vote from each state did not include the number of Senators, then the influence of each small state would be greatly diminished.

Today, in most states--with the exception of Maine and Nebraska--the winner of the state's popular votes normally wins all the electoral votes. (In Maine and Nebraska, rather than winning all the electors automatically through a statewide vote, the electors are apportioned by who wins each congresional district in the state). Thus, the system we have today is devised in much the same way as our Founders intended it to be: a system built upon the framework of protecting the smaller, less urban states against the larger economic powerhouse states of the nation.

There are 538 in the Electoral College and it takes 270 to win. The twelve largest states in the county--California (54), New York (33), Texas (32), Florida (25), Pennsylvania (23), Illinois (22), Ohio (21), Michigan (18), New Jersey (15), North Carolina (14), Georgia (13) and Virginia (13) have over half the electoral votes needed for victory. This year, California, New York and Illinois were solidly in Gore's column (a total of 109 electoral votes), while Texas, North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia (a total of 72 electoral votes) were solidly in Bush's column.

(back to top)

Campaign 2000, the first of the new century, actually began soon after the 1998 midterm presidential election. Today, it takes nearly two full years to raise the money, establish a national campaign organization and make oneself to known to voters across the country. The 2000 election was somewhat different, however, from other recent elections. The impeachment, trial and acquittal of President Bill Clinton in February 1999 had dampened the public's appetite for partisan politics. Therefore, the campaign for the White House began in a somewhat subdued fashion.

(back to top)

The Republicans
(back to top)

Republicans were anxious to capture the White House after spending eight years in the political desert, known as the opposition. Former Labor and Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole was trying to become the first woman to win a major party nomination. Radio talk show host Alan Keyes was making his second bid for the presidency running on a platform of social conservatism. Former Reagan aide and social conservative Gary Bauer was running on a similar platform. Multi-millionaire businessman Steve Forbes was running on an economic libertarian platform and had actually won two primaries in the 1996 campaign cycle. Former Tennessee Governor and Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was touting the education issue and his experience to handle complex public policy issues. Senator John McCain of Arizona was running as an anti-establishment Republican who could attract swing voters and political independents with his platform of campaign finance reform. McCain's status was enhanced by the fact that he was a hero surviving many years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam, which included torture by his captors. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, chairman of the Senate's Judiciary Committee was an articulate conservative also known for his wit and his sartorial splendor, meaning how well he dressed! (Hatch is known to have the best necktie collection in Washington, D.C.). Finally, Governor George W. Bush of Texas was considered the favorite to win his party's nomination running on a platform of what was called "compassionate conservatism."

What made Bush the favorite? Governor Bush had won a decisive reelection contest in Texas in 1998 garnering over 60 percent of the vote. To win by such a large margin, in the nation's second largest state, demonstrated his capacity to be a very popular politician who could win millions of votes. Second, Governor Bush was the son of former President George Bush, Sr. who had served as President just eight years earlier. Furthermore, Governor Bush had showed great skill in working with the Texas legislature controlled by Democrats. Unlike his father, Bush was a much more extroverted politician who enjoyed campaigning. Republicans were attracted to him because he could be personally charming and an effective politician pushing through education reform in the state of Texas. In polls a year before the election, Bush was running 15-20 points ahead of Gore.

Throughout the fall of 1999, famous Republican dignitaries such as former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, George Schultz and James Baker met with Governor Bush in policy briefings. The Bush campaign decided at an early stage not to participate in a system of federal matching funds by limiting the amount of contributions to their campaign. Instead, the Bush campaign would eventually raise nearly $100 million for his bid to win his party's presidential nomination.

By the time the winter rolled around, it became apparant that the field for the Republican nomination was competitive among only three individuals: Governor Bush, Senator McCain and Steve Forbes. Governor Bush was the favorite going into the primary season. He won the Iowa caucuses in late January and was well poised to meet any challenge in the New Hampshire primary the following week. The New Hampshire primary has been the nation's first primary each presidential election year. Candidates spend weeks and months campaigning in this small state, knocking on doors, greeting workers at factories and appearing at small gatherings in people's living rooms. The importance of the New Hampshire primary cannot be underestimated. With the exception of Bill Clinton in 1992, either the Democrat or Republican who has won the New Hampshire primary has won the presidency since 1952. While Governor Bush had campaigned extensively in New Hampshire, Senator John McCain had been living there for almost a month. Some polls were showing that McCain had pulled nearly even with Bush. McCain's strength was exemplified by the fact that he was doing so well with "Independent" voters or those who do not affiliate with either the Democratic or Republican party. How could an Independent vote in a Republican primary? New Hampshire is a primary that allows crossover voting. Not only could Republicans vote in their own primary, but so could Independents. The campaign reached a frenzied pace in the days before New Hampshire. In the last debate before the primary, the tension was palpable. In a January 26 debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, Bush compared McCain's views on education to Al Gore. McCain replied, "If you say I'm like Al Gore, then your spinning like Bill Clinton."

The stunning results of the New Hampshire primary on February 1, 2000 showed that John McCain had defeated George Bush by a 49-31 percent margin. The fact that Bush had been defeated by such a great margin stunned his opponent as well as himself. Steve Forbes who had come in third with 13 percent of the vote was essentially eliminated from the field and would drop out one week later.

The showdown between McCain and Bush would occur in the South Carolina primary to be held on February 19th. South Carolina was the proving ground for McCain's strength as a candidate out of the Northeast and in a state where there were many military veterans, but also a state where no crossover voting was allowed. The Bush campaign did not make an auspicious start in South Carolina. Reeling from its defeat in New Hampshire, the campaign made another error by campaigning at Bob Jones University in South Carolina which did not permit interracial dating among its students and whose website contained information that was derogatory to Catholics. The fact that Bush would give a speech at Bob Jones University enraged many Catholics and moderates in the Republican party. Within several days, Bush unequivocally apologized for speaking at Bob Jones, but the McCain campaign kept hammering Bush relentlessly as someone insensitive on the issue of religious conscience. The strategy seemed to backfire as the primary approached because McCain was off his own message of government and campaign reform. On primary day, Bush won 53 percent of the vote and McCain 42 percent. From that point forward, although McCain won the Michigan primary and the popular vote in the California primary, his campaign lost its momentum and by the middle of March was finished. The primaries demonstrated two things: one that Bush was vulnerable; but also that Bush was a tenacious fighter who had the fortitude to prevail in a very tough campaign. Bush's tenacity was exemplified at the Republican National Convention when he accepted his party's nomination and said about the Clinton administration: "they had their chance, now its ours." Bush's statement accentuated the fact that he intended to reestablish integrity to the White House in wake of the Lewinsky affair and campaign finance scandals that plagued the Clinton administration. He was underscoring what the campaign considered Gore's major weakness as a candidate--a lack of credibility.

(back to top)

The Democrats
(back to top)

The Democratic Party's battle to nominate a candidate for the presidency was somewhat less contentious than the one fought for the Republican nomination; but the reason for that was that the Vice President appeared to be the heir apparant. Nevertheless, Vice President Al Gore's campaign got off to an inauspicious start in the summer of 1999. Mr. Gore's campaign was stumbling, his message was inconsistent to voters, and his failure to address his own ethical dilemmas such as holding a campaign fundraiser at a Buddhist Temple four years earlier demonstrated his vulnerabilities as a candidate.

Former Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, a Rhodes Scholar and a basketball star in his youth, challenged Gore for the nomination for two reasons: first, was to restore integrity to the White House and, second was to appeal to his party's base as a more progressive candidate than Mr. Gore. It should be noted that voters in both parties primaries--Democrats and Republicans tend to be more ideological than the electorate as a whole in the fall election. Democratic candidates have to secure their liberal base, and Republicans their conservative base. The general election is then a race to the center by both party candidates to capture moderate, independent voters.

In the fall of 1999, Gore made some dramatic changes to shake up his campaign. He moved his campaign headquarters to his home in Nashville, Tennessee, creating distance between himself and the White House. Gore, who had been criticized for his stiffness, changed from wearing business suits to wearing earth tone colored shirts and jackets, jeans and cowboy boots. Gore also articulated a more populist theme, focusing on the "have-nots" in society rather than those that "have." Gore attempted to co-opt the same group of liberal, progressive voters whom Senator Bradley was targeting. In fact, a review by this author of both candidates' congressional voting records in the late 1980s showed few substantive differences.

Senator Bradley put most of his efforts into the New Hampshire primary. Although Bradley spent much time in the state, the former New Jersey senator seemed unable to connect with voters in the Granite state. New Hampshire was a state that had always voted for mavericks, particularly those "Independent" voters who could vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary in New Hampshire. The problem was that Bradley was competing with Gore for Democratic votes and with John McCain for the lion's share of "Independent" votes. On election day, Bradley was defeated by Gore 51-47 percent in New Hampshire which, for all intents and purposes, marked the effective end of his campaign. Although Bradley stayed in the race until mid-March, he never was able to come within ten points in any major primary contest against Gore. Bradley eventually endorsed Gore who won his party's nomination. In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in Los Angeles in late August, Gore tried to distance himself from President Clinton by saying in his acceptance speech, "I am my own man," implying that voters would get the same policies with a different personality. Going into the fall campaign, most election observers realized that the election would likely be a dead heat and perhaps the closest race since 1960 when Democrat John Kennedy defeated Republican Richard Nixon by approximately 110,000 votes out of 68 million votes casted in the election.

The 2000 presidential primaries genuinely favored the establishment candidates of both parties. Sixty percent of the delegates were selected by mid-March of the year 2000. Two weeks of primaries in the first part of March included most of the large states such as California, New York, Texas and Florida. The early March primaries sealed the nominations of Governor Bush and Vice-President Gore. The parties had avoided a protracted nomination fight by having most of the important primaries contested in just six weeks. Even though there was contentiousness among the candidates, particularly between Governor Bush and Senator McCain, there was plenty of time before the convention to iron out those differences.

(back to top)

Vice-Presidential Nominees
(back to top)

A week before the Republican convention, which began in late July, Governor Bush selected former Defense Secretary and Congressman from Wyoming, Richard Cheney to be his running mate. Ironically, Cheney had been the person appointed to head the Vice Presidential search team for Governor Bush. Other Republicans who had been seriously in contention included Governors Tom Ridge (Pennsylvania), Frank Keating (Oklahoma), Senators Chuck Hagel (Nebraska), Fred Thompson (Tennessee), John McCain and, of course, former General Colin Powell, who publicly declined the position. By the middle of July, the leading contenders appeared to be Keating and Hagel, but Bush decided on Cheney instead. Rather than relying on balancing his ticket by region (where he might pick Ridge), or appealing to swing voters nationally (McCain, for example) or choosing someone who was personally compatible (Keating, for instance), Bush selected Cheney because of the latter's experience in government as Defense Secretary to Bush's father. Bush was looking for a substantive candidate who would innoculate him against charges that he was not experienced enough nationally and lacked the seriousness to become president. While the selection was unconventional, it did not appear that Cheney's selection created any appreciable advantage or disadvantage to the campaign.

Al Gore's selection of Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, in early August was also surprising. Gore's short list of Vice Presidential candidates included: Senators John Kerry (Massachusetts), Bob Kerrey (Nebraska), John Edwards (North Carolina), Evan Bayh (Indiana) and Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut). Some argued that Gore would need a new face to complement his team (such as Edwards or Bayh) or someone to mend wounds with the party's liberal wing of his party (Kerry of Massachusetts) or an individual who could appeal to swing voters across the country (Kerrey of Nebraska). Instead, he chose a candidate from his geographical base, the Northeast--Senator Joseph Lieberman. In addition, Lieberman was the first Jewish-American to be selected to a national party ticket. There were questions whether certain voters across the country would not vote for Gore on the basis of selecting a non-Christian candidate. Gore's calculation that it would not sway the election was probably correct by viewing the popular vote results. Lieberman did help Gore in Florida, particularly among the large elderly and Jewish populations in that state. However, one can only speculate on how much he helped the Vice President in other states.

(back to top)

Coming out of each convention, both candidates received a bounce in the polls. Bush had a seventeen point lead coming out of the Republican convention at the beginning of August. By Labor Day, several weeks after the Democratic convention, Gore had a four to six point lead over Bush. Gore's lead was consistent until mid-September when the Olympics started. The erosion was natural because a convention bounce usually lasts only a few weeks. By late September, the race would became a "dead heat" with neither candidate ahead in the polls. While Bush would surge ahead by four to five points at different times in October, the race would move back to being a "dead heat" almost as often.

(back to top)

The Bush Strategy and Campaign
(back to top)

The Bush campaign's strategy of emphasizing personal values and morality was developed by Karl Rove who was directing the Governor's effort. While the Bush campaign developed many specific issue positions, the focus of the campaign was to portray Bush as a "uniter not a divider" who could heal the country and the rifts between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Furthermore, his campaign argued that his programs and plans would not threaten the nation's prosperity.

Geographically, the Bush campaign focused on targeting swing states that President Clinton had won in the last two elections while holding onto his Republican base in the South. These initial target states included Missouri, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, and the Vice President's home state of Tennessee. Two issues worked for Bush in several of these key states. First, Gore was a supporter of the Tobacco agreement where the largest tobacco companies in America would pay over $300 billion over the next 25 years to settle class action suits by smokers or those who had suffered from second-hand smoke. Large tobacco producing states such as Tennessee and Kentucky leaned against supporting the Vice President. Second, Gore's support of stronger gun control legislation hurt him in West Virginia where the state has on average far more gun owners and hunters than is found nationally. While these states were not the largest states in the country, Kentucky's 8 electoral votes, Tennessee's 11 electoral votes, and West Virginia's 5 electoral votes did put Gore at a disadvantage in a closely contested election.

The third prong of Bush's strategy was to appeal to voters by moving towards the political center and convincing swing voters that he had the intelligence, personal credibility and a mainstream political agenda to be an effective president. Bush put forward a prescription drug plan that would cost $150 billion over ten years. While not as generous as Vice President Gore's proposal, $250 billion over ten years, the Bush plan would cover about half the prescription costs of medicines to seniors. Bush intended to preserve the national surplus and also to provide a $1.6 trillion across-the-board tax cut over ten years to provide tax relief to voters. Whether that was economically feasible, was another question. While the Bush plan was full of new tax cuts, the Gore plan full of new spending programs. Both plans, it was conjectured by economists would blow a hole in the budget destroying the surplus. Finally, Bush promoted himself as the education governor of Texas. The perception of Bush being a "compassionate conservative" meaning that he was interested in substantively addressing issues, such as health care and education, that traditionally favored Democrats certainly resonated with some swing voters in the key states described above.

(back to top)

The Gore Strategy
(back to top)

The Gore campaign plan was devised by a team of strategists including Bob Shrum, Tad Devine, Carter Eskew and Bill Knapp. Gore had to overcome his stiff personality. While Gore was not the most polished campaigner and was less at ease with himself than Bush, in terms of substance Gore was far more experienced and learned. Thus, the Gore campaign made a deliberate effort to focus on the Vice President's intelligence and command of the issues.

Gore's campaign message focused on a populist theme of being a candidate on the "voter's side" of political issues and resolving to fight "special interests" in Washington, D.C. Specifically, the Gore campaign was going after working class and suburban swing voters in the income brackets up to $75,000 per year. In fact, half the voters in the United States reported on election day that their income was between $30-75,000 per year. Gore's message also was appealing to the "have-nots," or those of lower income by vowing to fight corporate interests in Washington, D.C. Lower income voters are a major source of support for the Democratic Party since the "New Deal" in the 1930s.

The Vice President appealed to voters on popular issues such as a prescription drug benefit program to cover seniors (discussed earlier). Gore's plan would cover at least three-fourths the cost of prescription medicines. Gore also vowed not to change Social Security from a public to a public and partially privatized system that Bush was suggesting. He also suggested major spending increases in education, defense, other health programs and the environment. Together, his new initiatives added up to $900 billion in new spending over the next ten years.

Geographically, the Gore campaign's strength was anchored in the Northeast and Pacific Coast which went solidly for Clinton in both the 1992 and 1996 elections. This translated into 110 electoral votes from the Northeast and 76 from the Pacific Coast and Hawaii. Since all of the swing states had been won by Clinton in the last election, Gore was defending more turf than Bush in this year's election. The election would be fought in won in the heartland of the United States and one state in the South....Florida.

(back to top)

The Debates
(back to top)

Although he displayed an initial reluctance to debate with Mr. Gore, agreeing to debate with the Vice President was probably the best decision the Governor made during the fall election season. The debates would help to ascertain whether Mr. Bush had the knowledge or "smarts" to be President and would demonstrate whether Mr. Gore could communicate a more likable peronality to many swing voters. Swing voters comprised about 25 percent of the electorate in this year's election. Thus, winning a majority of their support was crucial to victory. Swing voters tend to be middle income white suburban males and females, mainly political Independents, in their 40s and 50s who are essential to any presidential candidate's base of support to attain victory. Splitting the vote among swing voters would mean a very close election.

Three presidential and one vice presidential debates were held between October 3rd and October 17th. The expectations for Governor Bush were far lower than they were for Vice President Gore since the latter had established his prowess as an exceptional debater in previous encounters with former presidential candidate Ross Perot over the free trade issue on the "Larry King Show" in 1993 and his debate with Republican Vice Presidential candidate Jack Kemp in 1996.

The first debate which took place on October 3, 2000 in Boston, Massachusetts was a curious affair. Gore was very aggressive and tried to get the last word on many of the issues. Bush was more polite but less specific in details. Bush's responses were often tailored to undermine the character issue which had been Gore's achilles heel thus far in the election. Gore repeatedly stated that 43 percent of Bush's tax cut would benefit the wealthiest of Americans. Bush countered that Gore's numbers were based on "fuzzy math." However, the bigger issue that arose several days after the debate concerned whether Gore had exaggerated certain anecdotes including one concerning a student in Florida who the Vice President said had to stand in school for a number of days because the classroom lacked enough seats for all the students. The school countered that the young woman stood only one day while her father contended otherwise. Although polls showed that voters thought Gore had won the debate, the credibility issue concerning his alleged exaggerations became the issue of the campaign for the next week driving down his support several points in most opinion polls.

While the first presidential debate at times resembled a food fight, the Vice Presidential debate which took place two days later in Danville, Kentucky was a conversation between two calm experienced politicians sitting at a roundtable. This roundtable format had never been used in any presidential or vice presidential debate before. The measured give-and-take between Richard Cheney (Republican) and Joseph Lieberman (Democrat) were cordial and substantive. A Washington Post headline characterized the encounter with the headline, "Cheney and Lieberman Go Positive in Debate."

The second presidential debate which took place on Tuesday, October 11 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina was also more subdued than the first debate. Similar to the vice presidential debate, the second presidential debate was less contentious than the first one. "Gore even apologized for ‘minor errors'" made in the first debate. The first half of the second debate was characterized by an unusual amount of bi-partisanship on foreign policy--perhaps this was a deliberate strategy of statesmanship on the part of Bush in wake of tensions in the Middle East. This shrewd strategy allowed Bush to preempt any attacks that might come from Gore who unable to discredit the Governor's inexperience. Only in the last third of the debate when the two men clashed on domestic priorities, did there seem to be a rekindling of the hostility that marked the first debate.

The final debate took place in St.Louis, Missouri on October 17th, the day after the plane crash that killed Missouri governor Mel Carnahan who was campaigning for a United States Senate seat against the incumbent John Ashcroft. The debate began with a moment of silence. What followed was anything but silence. The questioners in the debate were an audience of undecided voters. In the debate, there were some very tense moments. Gore supported a broader patients bill of rights where families could appeal outside their HMO. Bush stated that his plan was more realistic. "At that point, Gore walked toward Bush until he was at his side. ‘I'm not quite through,' Bush said with a curt nod."

Although, the debates provided no conclusive winner, Bush did gain by the fact that he demonstated that he could hold his own with Gore. Gore, who performed his best in the final debate, was unable to deliver the knockout blow that some had predicted. Heading into the final weeks, Bush had a slim 2-4 percent margin when all the national polls were averaged together. However, that lead would expand and diminish over the next several weeks.

(back to top)

The Final Week of the Campaign
(back to top)

The final week of the campaign seemed to be a victory lap for Governor George W. Bush. In fact, Bush campaigned in the state of New Jersey to help Republican Senate candidate Bob Franks in his campaign against multi-millionaire Democrat Jon Corzine. (Franks eventually lost his bid for office). According to statewide polls across the country, Gore was running close to Bush in many key states but that did not reflect itself in national surveys. By election day, polls showed tight races in Michigan, Pennsylvania (which several weeks earlier seemed firmly in Gore's column), Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington states. Together these states comprised 153 electoral votes, representing the difference in who would win the election. Heading into the weekend it appeared that Bush would beat Gore by about 3-4 percent in the popular vote which would have translated into a comfortable Electoral College victory.

However, on Thursday, November 2nd, five days before the election a story appeared which confirmed that George W. Bush had been arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) in 1976. While polling data immediately after the incident showed almost no effect or direct effect on the presidential race, one set of surveys by John Zogby for MSNBC and Reuters News Service showed the race tightening in a marked way. By Monday, Zogby had Gore ahead by two percentage points in his polls. Furthermore, several of his state polls showed Gore starting to pull ahead in key states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illiniois and Washington. Others polls also showed tightening as well. If one were to average the final set of polls by Zogby, CBS, ABC News-Washington Post, Harris, Pew, Gallup/CNN, the race was almost dead even, with less than a point separating the two candidates, which was well within the margin of error. For all the criticisms polls received this past fall, the last set of daily tracking polls showed definable movement towards Gore that was very close to the actual popular vote results on election day.

While the Electoral College results were still in limbo, the popular vote results demonstrated nearly a dead heat between the two candidates, both receiving slightly over 48 percent of the vote. Gore appeared to have drawn about 200,000 more votes than Bush. However, there were still nearly 1,000,000 votes to be counted from the state of California from absentee ballots that could tip the popular vote lead to Bush (since absentee ballots usually favor Republicans). Green party candidate, Ralph Nader, who had been drawing close to 5 percent of the vote in most public opinion polls before the election, saw his margin cut in half on election day to 2.6 percent of the vote. Nader had been drawing most of his support from environmentalists and strong liberals, taking votes away from Gore's base. In fact, there is no doubt that without Ralph Nader in the race, Gore would have had victories in New Mexico, Oregon, Florida, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, without any need for recounts. However, it must be said that most of Nader's voters had strong convictions that only their candidate could bring real political reform to the system.

The surveys from voters on election day showed a very divided nation. Women, minorities, issue-oriented voters and lower income voters went for Gore. Men, whites, those who favored personal qualities over issues, and those with higher incomes went for Bush. The gender gap is particularly stunning because men favored Bush by 11 points and women favored Gore by 11 points resulting in a 22 point gender gap. Behind the gender gap we find an even more revealing finding. Working women favored Gore by a 58-39 percent margin while non-working women favored Bush by a 52-44 percent margin demonstrating that there was a 26 point disparity among women alone. Furthermore, while Gore led among the top two issues, economy/jobs and education, Bush had an enormous lead among those who wanted taxes reduced. Finally, among those who decided how they would vote in the last week, which was 17 percent of all voters, Gore beat Bush 48-45 percent. Among those who had decided before the +last week, Bush led Gore 50-48 percent. The fact that late deciders broke for Gore may have been due, in part, to the DUI; or that a vote for Gore would continue the same economic policies of the Clinton administration. Interestingly, Nader's percentage among late deciders was higher (5 percent), than it was among those who decided more than a week before the election (2 percent) which may indicate that opinion polls before the election overestimated his strength. It would also seem to contradict the theory that many Nader voters defected and decided to vote for Gore at the last minute. These findings indicate that the election was a virtual tie.

(back to top)

Senate Races
(back to top)

Coming into this year's election, 34 senators were up for re-election. The Republicans had control of the Senate by a 54-46 margin. Democrats were expected to gain Senate seats because most of the 34 seats being contested were held by Republicans. In fact, Democrats did gain at least three senate seats in this year's election. The Senate would be comprised of at least 49 Democrats and 50 Republicans, with one seat still waiting to be decided. Several Senate races were particularly fascinating and had the drama of a Shakespearean play.

The Missouri Senate race was probably the most unusual election of the year. Governor Mel Carnahan was killed in a plane crash during a rainstorm three weeks before the election along with a campaign aide, and his son who was piloting the plane. Since it was too late under Missouri law for a new name to be placed on the ballot, Governor Carnahan's name remained on the ballot. The new governor announced that he would appoint the late Governor's wife, Jean Carnahan, to the Senate position if he were to win the election posthumously. The Carnahan name won on election day and Jean Carnahan was soon to become Missouri's new senator under a dreadful circumstance that no one could have predicted.

About two years ago, the Clintons decided to settle in New York state after the President completed his last term in office. When Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan decided to retire, Mrs. Clinton announced that she would expedite her move to New York and be a candidate for the Senate. (It should be noted that the Clintons had been looking for a house in New York state months before Moynihan's decision). Her initial opponent, New York City's Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, dropped out of the Senate race in May of 2000 after learning he had prostate cancer. Guiliani was well-known and was running even in the polls with Mrs. Clinton. Long Island congressman Rick Lazio entered the race as Clinton's opponent succeeding Giuliani as the Republican candidate. What began as a civil race between two highly respected individuals ended up as a contest where charges and countercharges were hurled at each other. The race seemed to turn in late October when Mrs. Clinton immediately returned a donation to an Islamic group when learning that several of its contributors supported violence against Israel. However, the state Republican Party began running ads linking Mrs. Clinton to the terrorists who had sunk the USS Cole in the Persian Gulf by virtue of the campaign contribution. When Lazio failed to strongly disavow the advertisement, his support dropped substantially in the weekend before the election allowing Mrs. Clinton to triumph easily.

(back to top)

House Races
(back to top)

The House of Representatives remained virtually unchanged from the last election. Going into the election there were 223 Republicans, 210 Democrats and 2 Independents. After the election, there were at least 220 Republicans, 211 Democrats and 2 Independents. While the margin was a bit narrower, Republicans still maintained their slim majority.

(back to top)

Money and Voter Turnout
(back to top)

The 2000 presidential, senate and house elections were expected to be the most expensive in United States history. Some estimates were as high as $3 billion. The Clinton-Lazio race generated $30 million in spending by the candidates plus an estimated $70 million more by outside groups seeking to influence the election. Former Goldman Sacks president Jon Corzine, a Democrat, spent $60 million of his own money to win the election over his opponent, Republican Congressman Bob Franks, who spent one-tenth that amount. The presidential race alone was estimated to have cost $1 billion. The question was whether Congress would reform the campaign finance system after the election. Proponents have argued that too much money corrupts politics, while opponents have argued that money facilitates free speech which is protected under the Constitution. This perennial debate would certainly be addressed by the next Congress but it is likely that proponents still do not have enough votes to succeed.

The millennial election also marked an increase in voter turnout from an estimated 49 percent of all adults of voting age in 1996, to 51 percent this year. While the increase was marginal, it probably did reflect the closeness of the presidential race and other competitive races across the country.

(back to top)

The results from the Florida election demonstrated on election night that democracies are messy and unpredictable. The fact that Bush had won a victory of less than 1,800 votes out of nearly 6 million cast meant that there would be an automatic recount under state law. The lead dwindled to less than one thousand votes. Suddenly, every vote counted and the nation was riveted as the margin swung back-and-forth. A Newsweek poll released on November 11, 2000 stated that 15 percent thought the result had plunged the nation into a crisis and another 55 percent called the results serious.

The 2000 elections provided a great civics lesson for American citizens--that every vote mattered even in a contest where 102 million were cast. The uncertainty created by an evenly divided electorate, with neither party dominating the congress, with narrower majorities for the Republicans in the House and Senate, indicated that governing might be even more contentious than it had been the last two years. Furthermore, the results indicated that it might take the next midterm election to give a firm majority to one of the two political parties to govern Congress, and the next presidential election to give an individual a mandate to govern. The test was to see whether a divided nation could overcome its fears to work together or to use the ballot in the next election to make a definitive choice. The first election of the new millennium will be remembered as one that reflected deep differences in the country at a time of great prosperity.

(back to top)