Tracking A Presidential Election

By Bruce R. Andrews

It's early October and you're wondering who will win the presidential election on Nov. 7. Since this is being written in early August just before the opening of the Democratic convention on Aug. 14, accurately forecasting whether the electorate will choose Bush or Gore is an obvious impossibility. However, perhaps I can help you estimate the weighting of crucial factors that will determine the reasons why one of these two candidates will emerge victorious.

Let us begin with the sociological foundations of voting: class status, religion, race and ethnicity, gender, age and size of community. This model was introduced by political sociologists in the 1940s. "A person thinks politically as he is socially," it was said. Class status and religion were seen as especially important in predicting voting, even without issues based on these concerns being consciously introduced by candidates. And when such issues became an integral focus of the campaign, voting along these lines escalated dramatically.That religion was still a major force in American politics was vividly demonstrated by political analysts as a result of John Kennedy's narrow popular vote victory in 1960 over Richard Nixon (49.9 to 49.6), one of the closest races in American history. Although Roman Catholics were a predominantly Democratic group at the time, Kennedy's nomination and Protestant paranoia about the dangers of his church affiliation solidified Catholic support behind the Democratic ticket by a margin of around 80 percent. Jewish backing for Kennedy was even heavier, while Protestants were more evenly divided but with a majority favoring Nixon. The results in predominantly Protestant Cumberland County (Dickinson's location) reflected this trend. Kennedy received only 30.8 percent of the two-party vote, less than Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson received in 1956 against the popular Republican Dwight Eisenhower. By contrast, in most Catholic areas, the 1960 Democratic vote rose substantially over 1956.

Still, religious tensions in 1960 were quite subdued compared to the violent outbursts of Protestant opposition in 1928 to Al Smith, the first Roman Catholic to be nominated by a major party. In that year, the religious concerns of the electorate were even more sharply etched in the contrasting voting results from Catholic and Protestant areas than in 1960. Now, in the year 2000, Al Gore's selection of Joe Lieberman as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee will test another religious barrier. But more on that later.

Turning to other sociological criteria, class status still has a bearing on voting-upper-status people tend to vote more Republican; lower-status people more Democratic-but because post-industrial society has profoundly altered class lines this factor has had far less significance in recent years compared to the 1930s and 1940s, when 80 percent voting majorities for Republicans by the most affluent voters and a similar percent for Democrats by the least affluent were not uncommon. While it is not likely that class tensions will be the most decisive factor in the 2000 results, a Democratic focus on the interests of "working people," combined with a promotion of the idea that Republican tax policies help primarily the rich might well raise the impact of class politics on voting this November. Somewhat ironically, the message of Ralph Nader's campaign against corporate domination of both major parties might stimulate class voting but also take votes away from the Gore ticket.

Race remains an important voting determinant, with African Americans almost certain to give overwhelming support to Gore. Among other sociological factors, only gender is likely to show much of an association with voting. In recent years, women have tended to vote rather decisively for Democratic presidential candidates, while men have edged somewhat less strongly toward Republicans. Early polls show that Bush has a potential for overcoming this female handicap, running almost even with Gore. But in advance of all that is to happen at the Democratic convention and at future debates, it is impossible to say whether gender will retain its tilt to the Democratic side or not.

Supplementing but not supplanting the social factors was another model of voting behavior developed by political scientists at the Survey Research Center (SRC) of the University of Michigan in the 1940s and 1950s. Here, the focus is on the individual voter's attitudes toward parties, candidates and issues. Each of these dimensions affects voting in interactive ways, varying in weight from election to election. For example, during its study of the two 1950s presidential elections, the SRC showed that party identification appeared to contribute the most to voting behavior, followed by candidate orientation, and last by issues, especially policy issues. The idea that most people deliberate carefully over whom to vote for was a myth, the data showed. Party identification operated as a screen through which people evaluated candidates and issues; in fact for a significant minority, party was the only thing that counted.

Over the last half-century, party identification's role as a basis for voting has certainly shrunk, but by how much is a matter of debate among political scientists. Modernization and the coming of the information age, along with increasing social mobility and the loosening of family and other institutional ties have all contributed to a weakening of the psychological attachments to the major parties and a consequent rise in numbers of those who call themselves independents. However, many independents retain a residual attachment to one of the major parties and often vote for its candidates; true independents are a small minority.

Still, party identification retains its important role in shaping the voting decisions of many and will probably contribute the lion's share of votes for both Bush and Gore. The large number of independents, however, does mean that neither party can hope to win the election by appealing to its supporters alone. Not only are independents a decisive swing vote, but the number of people whose party attachments are not very strong means that these voters cannot be counted upon to stick with party nominees through thick and thin.

As a result, appeals to independents and weak partisans hold the key to the final result. Appeals can be based on candidate qualities and issues; both have become more important as independent factors with the decline of party identification.

The weakening of the traditional foundations of politics have permitted the mass media to play an ever more important role in the new information age. Political scientists were slow to accept this fact, but today most agree that media effects on politics are substantial, not as limited as previously thought. Basically, media influence is maximized to the extent that voters need direction from the media in deriving a credible basis for supporting a particular candidate. Media influence is minimized to the extent that voters have clear perceptions and images about the candidates and their records.

Thus, media impact was substantial in the election of 1976 between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. Both had images that were not very sharply defined in the eyes of many voters. They were also not far apart ideologically. This increased the importance of the media in its coverage of events like Carter's Playboy interview (lust in his heart) and Ford's TV debate comments about Poles not being dominated by the Soviet Union. Carter started with a 30-point lead in August, but campaigning ambiguities allowing for sensational media interpretations produced a near tie at the end.

In 1980, media influences were minimal because most people believed that the directions taken by Reagan as president were sound in general, even though on some issues the majority disagreed with his positions. Images of both candidates were clear and sharply defined and Reagan maintained a steady lead in the polls from August to November. To put the matter another way, could a different set of political ads or a more biased press against Reagan, or even a poor Reagan debate performance have elected Walter Mondale? Not very likely.

Now, let us look at examples from the election this November.

1. The images that the public has of Bill Clinton are generally positive in the area of job performance (over 60 percent favorable) but negative concerning character (read Lewinsky). These images from media reporting over the last eight or nine years are clear, stable, firmly established. As a result, Gore will try to shape his campaign so that it benefits from "good economic times," the positive side of the bifurcated Clinton image.

On the other hand, Bush and Cheney will try to reinforce attention to the negative side of the Clinton image by stressing "honor" and "integrity" in the Oval Office and, by implication, the direct link of Gore to Clinton.

Which of these images is most compelling for voters? At this point in the campaign, it is too early to say, although Gore's effort to distinguish his persona from Clinton's shows the importance he attributes to this factor.

2. Until this year, no major party had given either a presidential or a vice-presidential nomination to a Jew, even though survey data in recent years show acceptability of such a move. For example, according to a Gallup poll in 1937, only 45 percent of the sample said they would vote for a Jew as a presidential nominee of their party even though he were highly qualified. By 1996, a Gallup sample with the same question indicated that 92 percent would give their approval. Of course, these levels of support reflected thinking about presidential, not vice-presidential nominees. Further, the 1996 data probably exaggerates the actual tolerance level since some respondents might have falsified their responses in order not to appear prejudiced. Finally, campaign dynamics might raise the Jewish issue in subtle ways, opponents implying, for example, that Lieberman would put the interests of Israel above those of the U.S. since he has the availability of dual citizenship. While it is not at all certain that bigoted attacks will be launched, or even what constitutes a "bigoted" attack, it should not be forgotten that there is a significant far-right, even pro-Nazi presence in the U.S. which almost never reaches the mainstream press but does appear on a number of Internet sites. Since Lieberman's image is largely unformed (even though his early press was favorable), it is open to continuing reinterpretation as opponents seek to place the most negative interpretations on his words and deeds.

3. For that matter, neither Bush, Cheney, nor Lieberman have sufficiently evolved as public personalities to develop stable images, leaving them open to rapid fluctuations in public esteem or condemnation as opponents manipulate the meaning of past and present events. Even Gore's image, despite eight years of service as vice president and enormous media exposure, has been caught in the crossfire of GOP and public hostility towards Clinton on the character issue. Early mistakes in his campaign, including contentions that he was "reinventing" himself, have further destabilized his once-positive image, leading many to question his genuine leadership abilities. Thus, he too will be judged by a skeptical media carefully scrutinizing his convention and debate performances. Indeed, his chances for election are closely tied to such media evaluations, and the tones they convey.

4. The image of parties is also important. The Bush extravaganza in Philadelphia did its best to "humanize" the Grand Old Party. Gone were wild-eyed speeches about "culture wars" a la Buchanan or wholesale condemnations of government. Instead, reform was the dominant message, especially of education and social security. Few GOP congressional leaders appeared on the platform to spoil the party. Colin Powell and John McCain were showered with plaudits. Racial and ethnic minorities were often before the eye of the camera. The convention became a visual verification of "compassionate conservative."

Were these convention displays largely a façade concealing the underlying hard-nose corporate dominance of the party? Was this an example of Republicans changing the marketing but not the product? Or did the Bush approach signal an innovative transformation of the party that his own appointments and policies would bring into existence? Perhaps both images contain elements of truth? But for campaign strategists, these are subordinate if not irrelevant questions. The only real concern is what perceptions the electorate absorbs about Bush and the GOP If the soulless, corporate-dominated image of the GOP is made to seem most relevant to the public through Democratic speeches and political advertising, Bush's hopes for election are reduced. By contrast, public acceptance of the "compassionate conservative" image heightens his chances for victory.

In sum, whichever campaign, through its speeches, debates, political advertising, and media events, succeeds in establishing in the minds of the public the "truth" about its basic message will have taken a giant step toward victory.

Conclusion

The traditional determinants of voting-class status, religion, race and ethnicity, gender, and deeply felt party attachments-are not as critical as they once were, although by moving into zones of relevance determined by the candidates and issues of particular elections, may retain their potency from time to time. However, the existing social fabric has fostered a growing importance on the part of media images intervening between these older foundations and final voting decisions.

This year, the images associated with the presidential and vice presidential candidates of both parties are still in a state of flux, not really stabilized. Therefore, either Gore or Bush might win the election, depending upon debate performances, political advertising and media evaluations of these events. It seems to me, however, that Bush has the edge, primarily because among independents and weak partisans of both parties, there is a predisposition to vote for a plausible newcomer-Bush-and against the unfairly tarnished incumbent-Gore. Unless the plausibility of the Bush candidacy can be successfully undermined by persuasive evidence, he will likely prevail.

 

Bruce R. Andrews is the Robert Blaine Weaver professor emeritus of political science. He taught at Dickinson from 1960 to 1992. In 1991-92 he was the recipient of the Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching. This is a longer version of the article that appeared in the fall issue of Dickinson Magazine.