fwiw: I found much post-11/7 e-list punditry to be as silly as that emanating from media. Some commentaries/speculations about Florida were kinda funny (likely without intention).
Beyond that, I learned long time ago that making generalizations about US politics is fraught with "danger" because folks' attitudes/beliefs/ expectations about what government should do/who should particpate/what rules should govern political game vary greatly. For example, Florida's southern past created political environment discouraging participation. Politics was domain of "appropriate" elites. One result: very short post-election period to wrap things up. In contrast, so-called "good government" states such as Wisconsin & Oregon with stronger sense of public interest allow for longer period of time before final vote tallies are official. I think, for example, both W&O have until end of month. Meanwhile, Florida's election-day ballots were supposed to have been certified one week after they were cast and all ballots certified by end of today. Michael Hoover
Gridlock, and regrouping: Whatever the outcome in Florida, minorities and
seniors pushed it through
As the clock neared 7pm Eastern time on Nov. 7, anchors Bernard Shaw and
Judy Woodruff could hardly contain themselves. Voting in Florida,
the most important of several "battle-ground" states, were about to end.
According to pre-election conventional wisdom, the 2000 presidential
election would be determined by the outcome in Florida, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania. The Sunshine State's twenty-five Electoral College votes
were thought to be the crown jewels in this contest.
About fifty minutes later, the television networks "called" the state for
Al Gore. By 9:30pm, however, they were withdrawing Florida from the
Democratic candidate's tally. Was the exit poll data faulty? Or was the
problem those Panhandle Floridians living in the Central Time Zone still
voting when the networks gave the state to Gore?
Competitive, profit-driven "pack journalism" that reared its head again
some five hours later. Just before 2:30 a.m., the networks began
declaring George Bush the next president of the United States based on
the basis of his reported lead of 50,000 votes in Florida. An hour later,
the vice-president received a phone call to the effect that he had
closed the deficit to 6,000 votes, and so he phoned the Texas governor to
retract an earlier admission of defeat.
Those 25 Florida electoral votes became picenter of the post-election
controversy leaving both candidates short of the 270 electoral votes
needed to win the presidency.
Florida's electorate has gotten sucked into the analytical swamp of
recounts, discarded ballots, apparent miscast votes, faulty registration
lists, and alleged voter intimidation. A year ago, few, if any observers,
thought the state would even be in play. After all, the Republican
candidate would likely be the sibling of Florida's generally popular
Republican governor in a state that had voted GOP in nine of the twelve
previous presidential elections.
Once Gore's brief Florida "win" was rescinded, Democrats, alternately
angry and whiny, accused Ralph Nader of ruining the election and called
Green Party voters "Nader's Traitors." In one fell swoop, the greatly
admired long-time consumer advocate had become "Darth Nader."
But the blame isn't so limited. Gore revealed himself to be Tennessee's
not-so-favorite son. His plight in his home state was made difficult by
the growth of a solid Republican South, and his failure to carry
Tennessee denied him 11 Electoral College votes that would have put him
over the top with a total of 271 - without Florida. Gore's embarrassing
Tennessee defeat suggests that he might have campaigned a bit more in
this state that he and Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996.
Gore's team kept Clinton on the sidelines throughout the campaign,
allowing him only a last-minute foray into Hollywood and Arkansas.
Clinton's negatives in Arkansas existed long before his presidential
troubles, yet he had won five of six statewide races as well as its six
Electoral College votes in each of his presidential campaigns.
Which brings us back to Florida where the original statewide count left Al
Gore trailing George Bush by fewer than 2,000 out of almost 6 million
votes. Given the problems in Palm Beach - 19,000 ballots tossed out, a
few thousand votes mistakenly cast for Reform Party candidate Pat
Buchanan in a county where Gore received 62% of the vote - the real
spoiler for the Democrats was not Ralph Nader, but the punch-hole
"butterfly ballot."
Still, Gore's hopes in the state rested upon minorities and seniors. Last
spring, opponents of One Florida, Governor Jeb Bush's plan to end
affirmative action in public university admissions and state contracting,
vowed to get out the November vote. And they did. Of the approximately
650,000 additional Florida votes this year compared to 1996, more than 55%
were cast by African-Americans. Black voters last Tuesday comprised 15% of
Florida's turnout compared to 10% in 1996 (the Hispanic vote, however,
declined from 12% last time to 11% this year).
Gore received 93% of black votes compared to 86% for Bill Clinton in
the previous election. Had Gore duplicated Clinton's numbers, the
vice-president would have received 330,000 fewer votes across the state
and he would have had no need to telephone his opponent a second time to
say, in effect, "about our earlier conversation, I take it back."
The substantial African-American increase reduced white voters to 73% of
statewide turnout, down three percentage points from 1996. Gore's
portion of the white vote fell similarly, from the 43% that Clinton
received to the 40% Gore won this year.
Turnout by gender indicates that women were 54% of the Florida electorate
in 2000, up two percentage points from 1996. Gore won 53% of women's
votes, while President Clinton earlier received 54%. 41% of men voted for
Clinton in 1996, 42% of them voted Gore in 2000.
The white "gender gap" in the state, however, tells a different story.
Gore and Clinton ran fairly even among white males. These voters
comprised 47% of the white vote in 2000 and 48% in 1996, giving 35% to
Gore and 36% to Clinton. And while neither Democratic candidate carried
the white female vote, Gore did less well, receiving 44% of this group
compared to 49% for Clinton in 1996.
If African-American voters kept Al Gore in the ball game, so to speak,
seniors were supposed to secure his win. Voters age 65 and older were
21% and 20%, respectively, of Florida's 1996 and 2000 electorate. Bill
Clinton won this vote by eleven points receiving 55% to Bob Dole and Ross
Perot's combined 44%. Gore didn't only fare less well among these voters;
he lost them to George Bush 46% to 52%.
Had the Democrat won this group by 6 points, not unreasonable given
voting history, he would have received about 72,400 more votes. Had he
just broken even with Bush, he would have won 36,200 more votes.
Either way, Gore carried Florida by a slim but greater margin than either
candidate will now see regardless of the outcome.
Gore banked on a traditional appeal: Republicans threaten Social
Security. Hence the ads raising questions about George Bush's proposal
allowing for investment of a portion of individual contributions while
retaining benefits for current recipients. The strategy did not shore up
Democratic support among seniors as it has in the past (Conversely,
Bush's plan did not resonate as expected among the 15% of Florida's
voters 18-29, more than half of whom went to Gore).
Why did Al Gore lose a majority of Florida's elderly voters? Part of the
answer lies, perhaps, in changing demographics. According to Berry
College marketing professor, Carolyn Folkman Curasi, the 65-and-over age
segment of the population has the second highest income per capita of any
age group. It possesses a significant portion of both the country's
discretionary income and its financial assets. Social class and gender
notwithstanding, a smaller percentage of retirees today depend solely (even
predominantly) upon Social Security payments. More people have earnings
from job-related retirement programs and various investment plans.
all them Eisenhower-era seniors. They may have been born just before or
during the Great Depression and they certainly grew up during World War
II, but they did not generally come to political age with Franklin
Roosevelt and the New Deal. FDR-ear seniors likely pride themselves om
"never having voted for a Republican in my life" because "FDR saved the
working man." With each election cycle, there are smaller numbers of
FDR-era seniors.
Current seniors are, however, concerned about the costs of prescription drugs
and for good reason. A 1999 report issued by Florida Congresswoman Karen
Thurman of Gainesville indicates that 75% of Medicare beneficiaries lack
dependable private-sector prescription drug coverage. This finding comes
on the heels of a 1998 Congressional Budget Office study showing that
those without insurance coverage pay the highest price for brand name
drugs. Moreover, a 1999 Federal Trade Commission report disclosed drug
manufacturers using a "two tiered pricing structure" under which they
"charge higher prices to the uninsured."
Prescription drug benefits were an issue in the 2000 campaign.
Unfortunately, there was little in the way of reasoned discussion about
either candidate's plan following Gore's comment about his dog's
arthritis medicine costing less than a similar drug prescribed for his
mother-in-law.
After examining both the Gore proposal to include such benefits under
Medicare and Bush's to offer incentives for the private-sector to provide
them, retired pressman Bob Hall said, "I prefer Gore's approach because
it's comprehensive and safer. But the Democrats haven't done anything
about this before. Why should we think they will now?"
Democrats may well have to rethink their relationship to seniors if the
Florida election offers a glimpse of future trends. Florida Democrats,
meanwhile, might reconsider their views on "felon disenfranchisement" if
they are at all attentive to the important role that African-American
voters played in giving Al Gore a chance to carry the state. Some 400,000
Florida residents are presently prohibited from voting despite having
completed their sentences. Given what is known about voting patterns, one
could argue that the class and race-based effects of this practice (by no
means universal throughout the fifty states) cost Gore the presidency.
Greens, meanwhile, may have have an opening to seek out minority,
women, and labor support in forming a presence to the left of the
Democratic Party. Of course, minor parties face numerous obstacles -
restrictive ballot access, single member legislative districts, "winner-
take-all" elective offices, media inattention, limited finances. The
faithful have to shift their focus from presidential campaigning that
consumes time, people, and money to organization building, running
candidates in smaller races, and social movement mobilizing. Green
Party success will be measured by its ability to be both in the streets
and in the suites.
A switch of several thousand votes in a couple of states in 1976 would
have given Gerald Ford the Electoral College even though he would have
stil lost the direct vote. As Ford said to ABC's Sam Donaldson asking if
confused statements he made during the 1976 debates were responsible for
his defeat: "We'll never know that now, will we Sam?"