• Log In
• Register

With less than three months until Election Day, the statistical difference in the polls between President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry has yet to exceed most polls’ margins of error. The American news media is expecting the same down-to-the-wire election we saw in 2000. However, recent election history, particularly the 2000 presidential contest and 2002 Congressional elections, suggests a decisive victory for the incumbent Republican president.

Not convinced? Let’s look at the most recent presidential election, that of the dimpled chads, dueling supreme courts, and endless recounts. On paper, the 2000 election was Al Gore’s to lose. Thanks to the Internet boom, the American economy had enjoyed unprecedented economic growth. The budget was balanced. With the Cold War over and America as the only hegemon left standing, the world was more peaceful than ever before. Although Bill Clinton was a polarizing figure mired in scandal, Gore’s boss was extremely popular and had won two elections. Facing the vice-president was a Texas governor whose strongest points were his last name and the high number of criminals he had executed.

But was Al Gore that much of a shoo-in? After all, Clinton had won both elections with Ross Perot’s help, particularly in 1992 when he carried just 43% of the electorate (compared to his 49% in 1996).1 Clinton’s impeachment, other scandals, and the fact that a majority of voters had not elected a Democrat since Jimmy Carter (who was no liberal and still just barely scored a majority with 50.08% of the vote) left the vice president unsure of how to run his campaign. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader made things even more complicated. In the end, Gore distanced himself from Clinton, running as an environmentalist and man of the people in a contest many voters considered as important as the choice between Pepsi and Coke (remember, this was the pre- Sept. 11 era, when the biggest problem Americans had was deciding which tech stock would make their 401(k)s the fattest).

One might say Ralph Nader cost Gore the election by shaving off 3% of the far-left vote. One could also blame Bill Clinton, Al Gore himself, or even George W. Bush. Michael Moore blames the U.S. Supreme Court. Whatever the cause, Gore lost despite winning a plurality—not a majority, make a note—of the popular vote with 48%.

The key points to remember from the 2000 election are these:

1. It was the sixth straight presidential election, eighth election of the past nine, and 11th out of the past 13, in which the Democratic candidate failed to get a majority of votes. By contrast, Republicans had gotten a majority in three of the past six, four of the last nine, and six of the past 13 elections.
2. Al Gore lost despite the fact that he was vice president during the most peaceful and economically successful eight years in modern American history.

The two points above, particularly the numbers, bode ill for John Kerry and the Democrats. The numbers suggest that a majority of American voters lean Republican when choosing their president. In the past 13 elections, only three third-party candidacies have earned more than 5% of the vote: George Wallace in 1968 and Ross Perot in ‘92 and ‘96. Twice these conservative third-party candidates prevented Republicans (Richard Nixon in ’68 and George H.W. Bush in ‘92) from winning a majority of votes. There is no doubt Perot caused the elder Bush to lose in 1992. Riddle me this: had Perot not run, and Bush been re-elected, who would have run for either party in 1996? With the dot-com boom well underway, could another Republican have easily succeeded a two-term Bush Sr. as president?

We will leave the “What if Perot hadn’t run in 1992?” speculation to alternate historians- my personal favorite outcome has Pat Buchanan winning election in 1996 on the wings of the 1994 Gingrich revolution. Before going on with the argument, however, we will note that in light of the fact that Perot handed Clinton the election in 1992, the Clinton presidency—along with the two pluralities he won—looks more and more like a statistical anomaly.

There is a second factor which also solidifies the case for a 2004 Bush victory: the 2002 mid-term elections. Historically, a sitting president’s first mid-term elections have always seen a loss for his party. In many ways, Bill Clinton’s first mid-term Congressional election, in 1994, is the great legacy of his presidency. Newt Gingrich & co. broke a 30-year Democratic hold on the House (really, with a few short interludes, a 60-year hold on all of Congress).2 Even Bush’s idol, Ronald Reagan, lost seats during his first mid-term election and never had a Republican majority in either house of Congress.

Bucking history, Bush’s first mid-terms were a whopping success. The GOP held the House and regained the Senate after Vermont senator Jim Jeffords’ 2001 party switch. The Republican Party now had the Triple Crown of American government: The Presidency, House, and Senate.3 If the 2002 mid-terms were a referendum on George W. Bush, the voters spoke their approval of this president.

Was 2002 just a continuation of the post-September 11th goodwill that saw unprecedented support for the president, before the Iraq war that has so divided public opinion? The evidence suggests no: this year, Democrats have an outside chance of winning the Senate in 2004 but will be lucky to gain any seats in the House.

What about this year’s opinion polls, the ones that show Bush and Kerry in a statistical dead heat? There is often a difference between the polls in the newspapers and on TV and the polls on Election Day. Columnist Jim Boren has this to say about the usefulness of polls in determining presidential elections:

In other words, if the election had occurred in the summer of 1988, Michael Dukakis would have won handily thanks to a large post-1988 Democratic National Convention “bounce.” This fact further darkens John Kerry’s prospects: the 2004 Democratic National Convention has come and gone, with little or no bounce in Kerry’s numbers.

With the GOP’s convention in September, the well-organized Republican machine has not even switched to full campaign mode. When it does, it has the benefit of hindsight and will doubtless apply the lessons it learns from the Democratic convention. This, too, bodes ill for Kerry, who has been campaigning for five full months as the presumed nominee.

In 2004, this George Bush will not have as significant a victory over a Massachusetts Democrat as his father did in 1988. Too many big states (chiefly California and New York) are solidly Democratic. However, no matter what happens in Iraq or with the economy, three things will give George W. Bush a popular majority and more than enough electoral votes to win re-election. First is the American public’s historical tendency to vote Republican in presidential elections. The next factor is Bush’s success in the 2002 mid-terms. Third, and most significantly, is the fact that while Bush is still in the starting blocks, John Kerry has only been able to pull even in polls after five months.

Even Michael Dukakis managed to do better, at least for a while.

Discuss this Article

Have an opinion, a question, or correction? Leave comments for this article in the discussion area.