America's Choice 2000: Entering a New Millenium

Citation preview

America's Choice 2000

This page intentionally left blank

America's Choice 2000

EDITED BY

WILLIAM CROTTY

^J$fcst3view ir

T

^ v ^

K

t s s

A Member of the Perseus Book's Group

Dilemmas in American Politics All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Copyright © 2001 by Westview Press, A Member of the Perseus Books Group. Published in 2001 in the United States of America by Westview Press, 5500 Central Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80301-2877, and in the United Kingdom by Westview Press, 12 Hid's Copse Road, Cumnor Hill, Oxford OX2 9JJ Visit us on the World Wide Web at www.westviewpress.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publieation Data A CD? catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN 0-8133-6798-0 (pbk.) T h e paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z3 9.48-1984. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS

Preface

vii

ONE The Election of 2000: Close, Chaotic, and Unforgettable William Crotty TWO

1

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Elections by Judicial Fiat: The Courts Decide William Crotty

36

T HREF.

Political Participation in American Elections: Who Decides What? M. Margaret Conway

79

FOUR

The Presidential Primaries: Triumph of the Frontrunners William Crotty

95

F IVE

The Curious and Close Presidential Campaign of 2000 James E. Campbell

115

S±X

The Congressional Races: Continuing Battleground for the Parties John S. Jackson, III

138

v

vi

Contents

SEVEN

The State and Local Elections: Politics Beyond the Beltway Malcolm E. Jewell

163

EIGHT

The Election in Perspective: Two Nations, Four Parties John Kenneth White

180

Biographical Sketches of Contributors

207

Index

209

PREFACE

This book attempts to make sense of the longest running, most fiercely contested and, ultimately, closest race in the history of presidential elections. What had been an earnest if predictable general election campaign morphed into a post-election day series of controversies that tested the nation's electoral processes, its courts, and its democratic culture. Eventually, of course, a winner was declared and the nation went about its business, however not before fundamental questions were raised as to the nature of the vote and voter intent and both the standards and processes used to decide elections. These issues will be with us for years to come. By any standard, it was a historic election whose mil consequences are yet to be appreciated. The following sifts through the competing claims and strategies, reviews what occurred and offers some assessments as to the quality of the campaign, the nature of the final decision and the meaning this has to the nation. I would like to thank a number of people who contributed to this effort: Leo A.W. Wiegman, Executive Editor, Westview Press; David Pervin, also of Westview Press; Robert Curtin and James Rossi my research assistants; and Janet-Louise Joseph and Barbara McintoshChin of the Department of Political Science at Northeastern University. A particular debt of gratitude is owed my wife xMary Hauch Crotty. William Crotty Thomas P. O'Neill Chair in Public Life and Director of the Center for the Study of Democracy at Northeastern University

vii

This page intentionally left blank

ONE

The Election of 2000: Close, Chaotic, and Unforgettable William Crotty

INTRODUCTION It began as a referendum on the Clinton Administration. It featured Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, running against George W. Bush, the son of the former president Bill Clinton had defeated in 1992. The early favorite was Vice President Al Gore. It was his election to lose. The Clinton years had been a period of prolonged economic expansion, the most sustained in modern American history. The federal debt had been reduced substantially, unemployment was the lowest in decades, consumer spending and confidence was high, and the stock market reached record levels. The economic worries that had paved the way for Clinton's victoiy eight years earlier no longer were of concern. There was peace on the international front. Gore was an able, experienced candidate, well-funded and seemingly well-prepared for the presidency. In political terms, early projections (which proved to be accurate) were that the Democrats would carry the two most populous states, California and New York, usually considered the keys to winning. He faced in George W. Bush a candidate inexperienced in national politics, personally unfamiliar to the American public, and one who had been in public office a total of five years when the race began. It wras to turn out to be one of the closest, hardest fought, and most contentious elections in modern history. The results were not to be 1

2 America's Choice 2000 known until well after the last votes were counted. In the process, a relatively dull contest would end in deadlock, with the winner to be determined through contested recounts and court actions that stretched well past election day. The defining event of election 2000 was to be its aftermath. The following reviews the events of the campaign, the issue positions of the candidates, analyzes the vote and reviews the election's often bitter aftermath. It serves as both an overview of the campaign and an introduction to the chapters that follow.

THE CLINTON FACTOR AJ Gore had served under Bill Clinton for eight years and had come as close as a vice president does to being co-president. Yet Bill Clinton was to prove a problem for the Gore campaign. The architect of the most sustained economic expansion in the post-World War II period (and some would say since the nation's founding) and the most accomplished and talented politician of the contemporary era, it would seem natural that the Democrats would call on his skills for the campaign. There was no question that Clinton was eager to campaign (a point he made repeatedly). He wanted to see his protege elected, his record vindicated, and the prosperity and policies he fought for continued. Clinton was not to fulfill the role in the campaign he had hoped for. He had personal and political baggage that Gore wanted to disassociate himself from (hence the statement in his acceptance speech at the national convention, repeated in the debates and on the campaign trail, "I am my own man"). The Clinton years had been marked by continued investigations, special prosecutors, and congressional hearings looking into alleged misdeeds by the president and his wife, both before taking office and once in the presidency. It had been a strident, highly partisan, tense, and unpleasant time, culminating in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal and the impeachment of the President by the House of Representatives and his acquittal by the Senate. It was a period Gore did not want recalled. Politically, the Gore campaign calculated that Clinton was least popular among the swing voters and in the swing states Gore hoped to focus on. In choosing Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Comiecticut as

William Crotty 3 his running mate, Gore had selected the first Democrat senator to condemn Clinton's behavior on the Senate floor, speaking and chastising the President for his conduct in the Lewinsky affair and lying about it to a grand jury (it was Clinton's claim that technically and under the law he had not lied; it was this incident that led to the impeachment effort). Lieberman was to later vote against the President's impeachment, but it is this speech that brought him his first sustained national attention in twelve years in the Senate. Gore also had to contend with Hillary Rodham Clinton running for the Senate in New York, although this turned out not to be a problem. The vice president made minimal use of the President in the campaign and avoided being seen with him to the extent a vice president could. Clinton did sum up and defend his administration's record in a well-received speech to the Democratic National Convention, but after that made few campaign speeches. When he did, he presented the case for continuing his administration's successes ("the next best thing to electing me to a third term would be to elect Al Gore president") more effectively and more forcefully than Gore was ever able to do ("if you want to keep the prosperity going elect Al Gore president"). Still, his role was restricted. He ended the campaign by going to New York to campaign briefly for his wrife (who also had made limited use of his skills in her race), and returning to Arkansas to stump for local candidates before flying back to New York, his new home state, to vote. It was a curiously deflated ending to the Clinton years. Arguably, the muzzling of Clinton in the campaign was a strategic mistake that could have cost Gore a decisive edge in the election. In many respects, Gore had not come to terms with the previous years or with his relationship to the president and the Clinton legacy. THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES Al Gore first ran for the Democratic party's presidential nomination in 1988. In 1992, he was chosen to be Bill Clinton's running mate. Both Clinton and Gore were considered to be moderates within the Democratic party, sponsors and members of the Democratic Leadership Council (as was Lieberman, who was destined to join Gore on the presidential ticket). The DLC was created after the 1984 election and Walter Mondale's overwhelming loss to Ronald Reagan. Its purpose was to

4

America's Choice 2000

return the Democratic party to the center, removing it from the control of its liberal and New Deal wings; strategically to focus on the middle class, mainstream voters who turned out in elections; and to position Democrats to compete more effectively with Republicans for the middle ground in elections. Through its candidates and its policy positions specifically designed to appeal to the middle class, the DLC proved to be unusually successful. Gore was the son of a distinguished liberal senator from Tennessee who had received attention (and in the process lost his Senate seat) opposing Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic party's policies in Vietnam. Al Gore Jr. graduated from Harvard University and served in Vietnam. He returned home, spent a period of time in divinity school before becoming a reporter. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Tennessee and later to the Senate. He was a working vice president, given significant areas of policy discretion, consulted by the president, and actively involved in all phases of the Clinton administration—the most influential and active vice president of the contemporary era. It was often said during the campaign that his father had bred him for the presidency since his youth. If so, one result was a formal, even distant and pedantic personal style, a fascination with the subtleties of policy issues which he attempted to convey to voters, and, it was argued, an inability to connect convincingly with the average American, the "working people" he said his campaign was directed at. His response to all of this was that the presidency was not a popularity contest and that he would be an active and hard-working president. Few could doubt that. George W. Bush was as close to an opposite in temperament and interests as one was likely to hnd. He was a graduate of Yale University, where his principal accomplishment appeared to be in serving as the president of a fraternity house. He had served in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. Later, he turned to different tilings, traveling the country and living the life of a single male. He admitted to being a recovered alcoholic and was accused of using drugs, although this was not proven. He worked in various positions in the oil industry without great success. In 1978, he ran for Congress, but again was unsuccessful. His biggest achievement was heading a group of associates of his father who bought the Texas Rangers baseball team. He served as its executive director and made a substantial profit for himself and the team's investors when it was sold. His personal wealth was based on this transaction.

William Crotty 5 In 1994, he ran against a popular incumbent, Governor Ann Richards, an old foe of his father's, and beat her in an upset. A fewyears later he was running for the presidency. His political assets included name identification (his father had been a largely popular president); a pleasant and relaxed personal style; and strong financial backing. Bush entered the 2000 campaign year with an estimated $100 million war chest, contributed in large part by the oil and pharmaceutical industries and supporters of his father's campaigns (eventually his campaign was to spend $160 million). He appeared likeable, related easily to people, communicated with them seemingly effortlessly and, in many respects, was more of a "natural" campaigner than Gore. On the other hand, he appeared to have little interest in or knowledge of policy, preferred to give vague and general answers to questions (most apparent in the television debates), and was not one of the most hardworking candidates reporters had covered. In fact, his decision to take a day off during the final days of the campaign, as well as his seeming assumption that he had the race won (resulting in trips to California and New York to help congressional candidates) was later criticized by Republican strategists as possibly costing him a clear and decisive victoiy on election day. In many respects, second only to the tense and prolonged controversy that followed the vote, the most surprising element of the 2000 campaign, given his limited time in office and his lack of any national experience, was the emergence of George W. Bush as the overwhelming choice of Republicans from Day One of the campaign. It is indicative of how fast it all developed, and to a degree how unprepared he was initially, that when his staff told him after the 1996 election that he was the first choice of the Republicans for their party's presidential nomination, he reacted with disbelief. He had never even heard of the poll. The chances are that it was his father that most of those surveyed thought they were supporting. Nonetheless, he went on to put together a campaign organization, building on the small nucleus of advisors he had as Texas governor. He attracted the largest amount of funding for a presidential candidate in American history; positioned himself as the front-runner and inevitable choice of his party prior to the primaries; survived some rough early outings in his prenonunation contests with $enatorJohn McCain; won the nomination handily; and went on to run Gore a dead even race. In all, the voters had two distinctly different candidates to choose from in style and personality and two candidates that while both courting the

6

America's Choice 2000

middle class voter offered significantly different policy alternatives to the American people.

THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES The choice of Senator Joseph I, Lieberman, as Gore's running mate, the first person of Jewish descent to run on a national ticket, created a media stir. The choice of Dick Cheney—Texas oil executive, former congressman, secretary of defense under Bush's father, and chief of staff under President Gerald Ford—created puzzlement. Cheney was basically unknown outside of Washington. His wife had been a controversial, conservative force during the Reagan years as head of the National Endowment for the Humanities. He had no public following and appeared to come from the same state as Bush (he lived and worked in Houston but claimed Wyoming as home, where he grew up and which was the state he represented in Congress for 10 years). Although an administrator of proven talents, he was a weak campaigner. And, as it was to turnout, he had a history of health problems. His job in the Bush campaign had been to vet potential candidates such as Colin Powell, former Missouri senator John Danforth, Senator John McCain and others as to their interest in and qualifications to serve as Bush's running mate. The choice of Cheney was not well received. He had failed to vote in recent elections and his severance package from the oil company was unusually lucrative, creating a potential conflict of interest (he later opted out of it). As it turned out, none of this had staying power as issues of consequence in the campaign and after an initial flurry of press attention were forgotten. The two candidates engaged in a mild and friendly vice presidential debate. Sitting side by side it turned out to be more of a conversation than a debate. Throughout the exchange, Lieberman directed attention to his more conservative social and family values and his shared cultural ties to well-known Republicans of similar views such as Wrilliam Bennett. Their major differences appeared to be on bread and butter issues, stressed by Lieberman, and national defense concerns, stressed by the former secretary of defense. All in all, the image presented was of two reasonable, concerned candidates enjoying a friendly and uncontentious discussion of their differences. Overall, the benefits

William Crotty 7 seemed to accrue to Cheney, given his often negative publicity prior to the debate. It was to be Cheney's best showing of the campaign. After this, he was confined to appearances in safe venues stich as schools, military and conservative areas and talk shows (where he did his best) and photo opportunities with the head of the ticket. The Lieberman campaign was also restrained and uneventful. The Democratic vice presidential nominee had a reputation as a strong campaigner and an effective speaker, but received little notice of consequence during the campaign. He did emerge as a proponent of Gore's position in the days following the election, as did Cheney on the Republican side. Overall however neither distinguished himself during the general election and neither appeared to be much of a factor in the race.

THE PRIMARIES Both Gore and Bush began the prenomination season the strongfavorites to represent their parties in the general election; both faced surprising competition from unexpected sources, former Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey for Gore and Senator John McCain of Arizona for Bush; and both emerged, as was predicted, as the overwhelming choices of their parties. Bradley ran to Gore's left, as a liberal courting what is a predominantly liberal constituency in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Bradley made good use of his days as an Ail-American basketball player at Princeton University and a star with the New York Knicks, achievements that gave him instant recognition among males. Bradley lost in New Hampshire and his campaign quickly faded. A succession of defeats preceded his pulling out of the race and virtually disappearing from the political scene (he did address the national convention and appeared briefly in campaign rallies dtiring the general election). Bradley was not an especially effective speaker, l b many he appeared stiff and aloof, and not particularly comfortable with the give-and-take of the campaign trail. The McCain campaign was another matter. A conservative Republican, he campaigned as a populist. McCain came from a distinguished military family, had suffered severely as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam,

8

America's Choice 2000

and was a legitimate military hero. Campaign finance reform he had cosponsored, the major legislation considered by the Congress and an issue not popular within his own party, was his primary policy emphasis. However, it was more the tone and openness of the campaign (McCain toured in a bus called the "Straight Talk Express") and the accessibility of the candidate to the media (Bush was isolated and aloof in his dealings with the press) that attracted the most attention. AieCain spoke anywhere and everywhere. He connected well with his audiences, and through his personal and direct manner became a television celebrity, assuring his campaign of a considerable amount of free media exposure. McCain won the New Hampshire primary and appeared poised to give Bush a serious run for the nomination. He lost in South Carolina, in a bruising battle. Dispite a victory in Michigan, a disasterous "Super Tuesday" pretty much sealed his fate and ended his candidacy. Nonetheless, McCain was clearly the most dynamic and charismatic candidate to emerge in the election year. Bush was plagued with several minor candidates including economic conservative and flat tax advocate Steve Forbes, who had run unexpectedly well in the 1996 primaries and several others—in particular Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes—espoused conservative family and religious values virtually throughout the nominating season, approaches that clashed with his moderate emphasis ("compassionate conservatism" were the words he used most often). But with McCain out of the race, die remaining candidates were little more than distractions and he moved on to an uncontested nomination at the national convention. CAMPAIGN STRATEGY The contest between Bush and Gore was for the American center. It was for the middle class and aimed at the moderates who voted in the general election. Both candidates had much the same general election strategy. Gore was to emphasize affordable prescription drugs, the environment, keeping the economy strong, a blend of appeals to "working Americans" and "working families" and the middle class, with a mix of occasional (as in the national convention and intermittently throughout the campaign) populist rhetoric attacking HMO's, oil corporations and pharmaceuticals. The appeal was to be moderate, roughly modeled on Clinton's success in 1992 and 1996 (while seldom

William Crotty 9 mentioning Clinton), while lacking the clarity and single-minded focus of the two earlier national campaigns. He chose not to emphasize his role in the Clinton administration (some media had referred to him as close to a "co-president" as a vice president gets, the context Clinton presented him in when given the opportunity), the economic achievements of the Clinton years, and the need to continue these trends through an extension of the Clinton policies. Bush was better at staying "on message." His emphasis was on trusting the people, not government, to make their own decisions, cutting taxes, improving education (his major policy theme) and military preparedness. Gore's message changed almost daily, the substance decided by the events of the day or where he happened to be campaigning, the groups he was most concerned with targeting at that point in the campaign (senior citizens, Cuban-Americans, pro-choice women, African-Americans, those concerned with Supreme Court appointees, the protection of the environment, fiscal responsibility, education, family values, and so on). The list seemed endless, as his preference for reviewing policy options and their consequences brought home repeatedly. The single message of the campaign or any vision of the nation's future was difficult to discern. One consistent thread was the emphasis on his independence from Clinton (a point driven home in his acceptance address to the Democratic national convention and repeated throughout the campaign). For the casual voter, it must have seemed an unusual concern and, taken as a whole, a somewhat bewildering campaign. In contrast, the Bush message was simple, clear and, as he himself was to say, by the end boringly repetitious. But it is the on-message consistency that gets across to voters and wins elections (again Clinton is the model with his "It's the economy, stupid!" approach in 1992). Politically, it would seem Gore had learned little from Clinton, and in fact avoided (to the extent a sitting vice president could) being seen with the President during the campaign or using him for campaign purposes. The latter went to extremes. The President indicated throughout the campaign his willingness to hit the campaign trail and subtly and not so subtly give bis protege advice. He indicated publicly his preferred choice for the vice presidential nomination (George J. Mitchell, former Senate majority leader and peace negotiator in Northern Ireland); emphasized the economic expansion that had take place under

10 America's Choice 2000 his administration and the need for it to be continued; and reviewed the historic budget deficits and economic recessions of the Reagan-Bush years (another theme (^>re did not develop). At a point late in the campaign, Clinton said the next best thing to a third term for himself would be the election of Gore. Throughout all of this Gore was going in a different direction, choosing to emphasize that he was his own man and turning away from Clinton to run his own high-octane if diffused campaign. The relegation of Clinton, the most effective politician in America during the 1990s, to the background was no more evident than in the last days of the election. While Gore stumped maniacally through key states, and ones once considered safe (including his home state of Tennessee), but again failed to call on the president for help. The refusal of the Gore campaign to use Clinton more effectively, again as many then argued, may well have been the most fundamental mistake of his campaign and the one that cost him the election. Meanwhile, in the last days of the campaign, a more confident Bush took what some in the media referred to as an "in your face" tack, choosing not to spend time in key states he felt he had already won, but traveling to Tennessee and Arkansas for appearances interpreted as efforts to embarrass his opponent and the president by taking one or both states in the election (which he did). He then returned home to await the returns. Ironically, given the criticism at the time, the loss of one or both denied Gore his electoral college majority.

THE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN There are a number of ways to analyze the general election campaign. One is to compare significant indicators from Labor Day to election day, employing polling data in relation to what they tell us about the candidates and the campaign. In a most basic way, these can be interpreted as measures of the effectiveness of the candidates' efforts. The hallmark of the campaign, confirmed on election day and reemphasized in its aftermath and the recounts and court cases that followed, was its closeness. From beginning to end, neither candidate could maintain an appreciable lead nor could they separate themselves from their opponent. (Table 1.1) This is the election's most distinguishing feature and the one that gives it a drama and historic importance few others have enjoyed.

William Crotty 11 Table 1.1 Closeness of Presidential Race: Polls of Likely Voters During Last Nine Weeks of Campaign Date September 4-10 September 11-17 September 18-24 September 2 5-Oetober 1 October 2-8 October 9-15 October 16-22 October 23-29 October 30-November 6

# of Respondents

Bush

Gore

1,717 1,665 1,502 1,578 1,687 1,680 1,690 3,268 6,043

43% 43 44 46 4