DLC president/candidate

DLC | Poll | January 21, 2001

Turning A Win Into a Draw
By Mark J. Penn

In a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity, the 2000 presidential election was Al Gore's to lose. As the sitting vice president, Gore should have won by 55 percent to 45 percent in the view of many political observers. Yet the election was decided by fewer than 1,000 votes in Florida. Nationally, each candidate won 48 percent of the vote. How did this happen? That's the question we set out to answer in a poll conducted by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates on November 11-12, 2000. We interviewed 1,200 Americans who voted in the presidential election.

The highlights of the survey include:

While Al Gore won on the individual issues of the campaign, he lost on the broader meta-themes of the election. George W. Bush's central messages of smaller government and of changing the tone in Washington were able to overcome his deficiency on the issues and position him closer to the center, at least rhetorically. The vice president failed to build on President Clinton's winning formula of fiscal responsibility and support for a smaller, activist government. Consequently, Gore was vulnerable to attacks as an old-style, big-government liberal like Michael Dukakis -- the very image that brought down Dukakis in his 1988 race against Bush's father.

Instead of running as a New Economy Democrat, Al Gore used an old-style populism that reduced his appeal rather than expanded it. The message prevented him from reaching the swing voters who could have pushed him over the top. Gore narrowly won the popular vote with this message by piling up large wins in states like California, where extra votes fail to count. But the message sent him tumbling backward in key border states, in his home state and, finally, in the electoral college. Liberal positions on social issues along with populism and big government positions took what could have been a substantial win and turned it into a draw. Had Gore combined his positions of conscience on social issues with a new vision of the role of government, he would have carried a larger percentage of upwardly mobile, socially tolerant suburban men that would have helped him win.

While the vice president realized he had to reach the 1996 targets of soccer moms, he missed the new target of the 21st century -- the wired workers. The last group of voters Al Gore could have reached were the those who finally chose Bush in the campaign's final month -- primarily middle class, white suburban males, many of whom had voted for Clinton in the past. While Gore did well with better-educated, higher-income, pro-choice white women, he performed poorly among upscale white men -- 20 percent of the electorate. In our poll, they voted against him by 29 percent to 57 percent. They were attracted to Bush's message of smaller government and greater economic freedom; they were turned off by populism. In the next election, Democrats need to own the New Economy and the new bargain for success that these workers seek. This new bargain includes proposals like pension portability and health care portability.

Only sporadically did Al Gore talk about progress, prosperity, and the Clinton administration's achievements on the economy. This message could have been GoreUs greatest asset, but he resisted it. Though he stood atop one of the greatest Democratic achievements since Franklin Roosevelt -- an economic boom, a balanced budget, government surpluses -- he failed to use it effectively. Fully 34 percent of those voting for Gore said progress and prosperity was the top reason they voted for him; but 41 percent of Bush supporters named a smaller, better government as their top reason for choosing their candidate. If Gore had used progress and prosperity consistently rather than sporadically, he would have achieved far greater clarity with voters and would have won more of those voters who said things were moving "on the right track." Gore won about 60 percent of "right track" voters. In 1996, Clinton won 69 percent of "right track" voters -- a 9 percent difference that would easily have given Gore the election.

Both candidates failed to occupy the decisive center of the American electorate. This is not surprising given the failure of either candidate to break 50 percent. Voters see Gore as substantially left of center and Bush as right of center. By running as a social and big government liberal, Gore was perceived as being to the left of the Democratic Party. In contrast, Bush was viewed as being more to the center than the Republican Party; that was perhaps the single most important element of his success.

Now the tables are turned, and it is Bush who must reach out to Gore's voters to build a new coalition of support or he will fail in governing. Bush must now put together a coalition greater than the 48 percent he received. The voters Bush needs to reach are the DLC Democrats -- concerned about the size of government, but firmly committed to progress on major issues like health care, education, family, and crime. They want government that will give people the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century. They are looking for a president and Congress that will continue the job started by President Clinton.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=269&contentid=2922