'This election is as weird as it gets'
Archived article from Oct 12, 2001
By Steve Manas
"Been there. Done that. Seen that."
If ever this saying seemed to apply to someone, it would be presidential scholar Gerald Pomper, Board of Governors Professor of Political Science emeritus at the Eagleton Institute of Politics.
After all, Pomper, a fixture in Rolodexes and Palm Pilots of observers of the Washington scene from coast to coast, had contributed to and edited six volumes in "The Election of ... " series since 1976. He intended his seventh, "The Election of 2000" (Chatham House Publishers), to be his last before officially retiring from Rutgers last spring.
But Gore vs. Bush left him and countless other political pundits shaking their heads. There was just so much to be seen -- TV network projection do-overs, butterfly ballots, chads, dimpled chads and pregnant chads.
Perhaps nothing was more startling than the "final" election tally. With more than 104 million total ballots cast, the final score -- Bush 5, Gore 4 -- appeared to belong in the sports section, rather than on page 1. Of course, that "score" was the vote in the U.S. Supreme Court, which finally ended the longest presidential election in more than a century and confirmed George W. Bush's victory.
Just how did Al Gore, a seemingly savvy political scion and sitting vice president during a time of peace and unparalleled prosperity, manage to lose the election (despite winning the popular vote)? And lose to a candidate, who, although himself the son/namesake of a former president, and governor of one of the largest states, nevertheless was often reduced to a middle initial?
Pomper analyzes the strange circumstances in his chapter, "The Presidential Election." It is one of eight constituting the capstone of the series, whose cover depicts a morning-after "Extra" edition of the Indianapolis Star that wonders "WHO?" in a foot-tall, front-page banner headline.
"Election 2000" examines the prolonged campaign season, from Bill Clinton's legacy, the presidential nominations, and the roles of the media and public opinion through record campaign financing, the congressional elections and the meaning of the George W. Bush-Al Gore race.
Pomper's longtime friend at Rutgers, political scientist W. Carey McWilliams, and Kathleen A. Frankovic, Pomper's former doctoral student and now director of surveys at CBS News, are among the edition's distinguished contributors. They are joined by nationally syndicated Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr., Professors William G. Mayer (Northeastern University), Marjorie Randon Hershey (Indiana University), Anthony Corrado (Colby College) and Paul S. Herrnson (University of Maryland), and new Rutgers colleague Monika L. McDermott.
"This election is as weird as it gets," Pomper marvels. "I was teaching an undergraduate seminar on the elections, and I was wondering what to do the last month," a reference to the usual postelection lull prior to January's inauguration. He needn't have worried. There was lots of material. "As it happened, the last class was Dec. 13 -- the day after the Supreme Court's decision."
Pomper, who notwithstanding his emeritus status will continue to teach in the spring, believes an important error in strategy by the vice president's camp kept Gore from the Oval Office. "Gore made a major strategic mistake," he says. "He had an excellent economic record to run on and should have taken some credit for it. He could have done this during his (nomination) acceptance speech. Elections are rewards for past performance.
"When things are so much in your favor, take advantage of them. He threw it away," Pomper continues. "Gore said, 'Let's talk about the future.' How did he know that Bush's vision of the future would not be brighter than his?"
Like many experts, Pomper says that Bill Clinton's giant shadow loomed mightily over the Gore campaign. "The Gore people's excuse to distance the vice president from Clinton was that many voters didn't like Clinton in various respects, not the least of which was that he wasn't a moral person," the political scientist says. "But the American people showed during the impeachment episode a sensible ability to separate Clinton's character from his performance as president.
continued...
Page 1 of 2
Next >
|
