Interactives Who cares? What matters? Who are these people? Student Bureau The student vote Web resources allpolitics coverage
	What matters? The candidates Backgrounders Lesson plans Unit plan National Mock Election CNN NEWSROOM Web resources allpolitics coverage
	Latest News Archives Back to mainpage

Understanding Issues in Presidental Elections

October 16, 2000
Web posted at: 5:55 PM EDT (2155 GMT)

Introduction

Historically, there have been three basic factors influencing a citizen's voting decisions: party identification/loyalty, candidates' image and/or appeal, and campaign issues. Most Americans still prefer, both psychologically and politically, either the Republican or Democratic political party. Party loyalty simplifies the voting choice. Hence, "strong" party voters are those individuals who are most swayed by their party allegiance. They will tend to vote a "straight party ticket" in November, i.e., all the candidates they choose on the ballot will be either Republicans or Democrats. But in recent decades, more voters have chosen "split tickets," voting for both Republicans and Democrats. These voters, who are either "weak party" individuals (they are not as loyal to a party as the "strong" variety) or independents (not tied to any party), are increasingly swayed by candidate appeal and issues. However, independents can be further broken down into the partisan and pure categories. Partisan independents are still mildly linked to one party over another. Pure independents, with absolutely no party preference whatsoever, comprise a smaller number of voters in the electorate, perhaps no more than 10-11%. However, the total number of independent voters has increased during the past three decades, perhaps as a response to the role of television news that stresses candidate image and the issues that presidential hopefuls propound. In the final analysis, party identification remains the most important, long-term, causal factor explaining how and why people vote. But each election is unique, and, in some presidential years, short-term forces, such as the particular candidates running and key, dramatic, or even emotional issues, can compel voters to switch their party allegiances.

In this regard, the appeal or image of a presidential candidate is an important factor in the voting process. While party remains the most important determinant of the voting decision, a candidate's appeal has grown in significance. Does the candidate appear on TV to be a family man, honest, sincere, of high character, and one who possesses true integrity? Increasingly, the era of negative advertising has focused on each candidate disparaging the personal qualities of his opponent. For example, in 1992, George Bush questioned Bill Clinton's patriotism for avoiding military service in Vietnam. In 1996, Bob Dole was given high marks by the voters for his perceived honesty, morality, and sincerity. Dole openly questioned,on the televised debates and in political ads, whether Bill Clinton possessed any of these qualities. But the good condition of the economy was more important to voters than the "character" issue. Obviously, there is a close link between candidate appeal and the issues with which each candidate is identified. In 2000, George W. Bush's image of a "compassionate conservative" was intended to convey that, while Bush adhered to core Republican values of less big government, he was not averse to finding ways of helping people who were truly in need of governmental assistance. Al Gore campaigned on a "progress and prosperity" program, reminding voters of the national economic growth that Americans had enjoyed under Bill Clinton. Furthermore, as president, Gore asserted that he would defend and improve traditional Democratic policy concerns: a safe social security system, effective healthcare, superior public schools, and a clean environment. Finally, scandals can also affect candidate appeal. In the summer of 2000, Justice Department allegations of illegal fundraising activities by Gore four years earlier (i.e. the infamous Buddhist Temple incident) raised concerns among many with regard to the vice-president's image. So, in Election 2000, issue positions may be more important than ever before. Issues have also influenced the final electoral outcome in earlier elections, as described below.

The Role of Issues in Previous Presidential Elections

One major issue in virtually every presidential election has been the condition of the American economy. For example, in 1932, the country was in the throes of the Great Depression. The stock market had crashed in 1929, banks had closed, and, in the aftermath, roughly one in four Americans did not have a job. People stood on street corners selling apples or pencils, bereft of their life savings after numerous banks had closed their doors forever. Americans blamed the Republicans and President Herbert Hoover for this economic catastrophe. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt's promise to restore the economy convinced millions of American voters, even Republicans, to vote for the New York Governor. In 1980, incumbent President Jimmy Carter confronted a sagging national economy (both high inflation and unemployment). He was vulnerable to Republican opponent Ronald Reagan's question, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago"? In 1992, Democratic presidential challenger Bill Clinton repeatedly attacked incumbent Republican President George Bush on his handling of the economy, resulting in an electoral victory for the Arkansas governor (two-thirds of voters described the economy in highly negative terms). Clinton also reminded voters that Bush had promised at the Republican convention, and during his 1988 campaign, that taxes would not be raised while he was president ("read my lips-no new taxes"). In fact, new taxes were introduced. In short, it is certainly true that voters are influenced by their "pocketbooks": economic issues that relate to jobs, individual incomes, mortgage/interest rates, the role of inflation, the status of the stock market, the costs of goods and services, and so forth. A voter satisfied with his or her personal and family's economic status will usually vote for the party and/or candidate viewed as responsible for those good times (this is known as retrospective voting). Similarly, economic misfortune is usually linked to the incumbent president and his or her party; hence there is a strong opportunity or incentive for a challenger to attack the incumbent's fiscal policies. Finally, even a single, highly publicized economic issue can affect public opinion. By the summer of 2000, very high gasoline prices throughout the nation, especially in the Midwest, had a clear impact upon Vice-President Gore's election hopes. Voters were apt to blame the Democrats and the Clinton Administration for those prices. But whether steep fuel prices will have a lasting impact upon Gore's campaign until November remained an open question.

A second major issue has involved "America at war." While foreign policy issues are not as important to most voters as domestic issues, wars can influence elections. It was difficult for voters during World War II to reject Franklin D. Roosevelt's stewardship in 1944 (Wendell Willkie was the Republican opponent). However, the Korean War, which broke out on June 25, 1950, during President Harry S. Truman's Administration, would prove troublesome for the Democrats by the 1952 election. The war stalemated and Truman was compelled to fire the popular General, Douglas MacArthur, for insubordination. Truman's popularity dropped to an all-time low. Truman decided not to run again for re-election (he had been vice-president under FDR and had taken over the presidency upon FDR's death in 1945, then been re-elected in a hard-fought 1948 election). Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic challenger, had little chance against General Dwight D. Eisenhower, a war hero who promised during the campaign to end that unpopular war in Korea.

The Vietnam War clearly was the issue in 1968. Lyndon Johnson had presided over the U.S. build-up of troops and equipment in Southeast Asia. In fact, his successful campaign in 1964 against Republican Senator Barry Goldwater had been based in part on the promise that he would not "send American boys to do the fighting for Asian boys." Yet, he decided to send the first combat troops to South Vietnam in March of 1965. By 1968, there was no military victory in sight, despite Johnson's assertion that there was "light at the end of the tunnel." Johnson withdrew from the presidential race in March of 1968 after the Tet Offensive (communist forces had attacked most of the major cities in South Vietnam, surprising American forces and strengthening the belief among the American people and Congress that the war could not be won). His vice-president, Hubert Humphrey, tried valiantly to defuse the Vietnam War issue against challenger Richard Nixon, but Nixon, who had been Eisenhower's vice-president, appealed more to the voters when he promised that he would end the war with "honor" through a "secret plan," emulating the Eisenhower's Korean promises of 16 years before. The Vietnam War touched voters in other ways: It divided American society, raised taxes, generated an unpopular draft, and tore families and friends apart. Nixon's promise to end all of this resonated well with the American electorate.

A third category covers issues that are important to selective groups in the population, or which generate strong emotional responses. Social security is one example, because millions of senior citizens depend upon the system for financial support during their retirement years. When Barry Goldwater suggested in 1964 that Social Security should be made voluntary, the remark clearly offended older voters. Few politicians today will s's plan to privatize a part of the Social Security system below). A second "personal issue" in today's political arena is abortion. Few Americans are neutral about abortion, dividing themselves into either the pro-life (anti-abortion) or pro-choice (pro-abortion) categories. Thus, in Election 2000, conservative Republicans would not look kindly upon a presidential candidate who did not oppose abortion. Similarly, liberal Democrats are more than likely to be pro-choice. Gun control is another, potentially divisive, issue, especially after numerous school shootings and well-publicized homicides by those who obtained guns illegally. Where Gore supports new and stricter gun control laws, Bush prefers that existing gun control laws be more rigorously enforced. Finally, there are environmental issues. Since the 1970s, presidential candidates have continued to assert that they care about air and water pollution, toxic wastes, recycling, preserving wildlife, the ozone layer, and global warming. Many political experts feel that American voters would reject any candidate who appeared totally indifferent to ecological concerns.

Issues and the 2000 Campaign

As the national nominating conventions draws closer, the campaigns of Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice-President Gore became more clear regarding issue positions (see the Bush and Gore campaign web sites for continuing updates). Both men display their political differences, chiefly along contemporary liberal-conservative lines, but there are a few points of agreement. Bush proposes citizens allocating part of their social security into private retirement accounts, strongly defends the use of the death penalty, recommends greater state and local control over education, argues for the elimination of the estate tax, calls for strengthening of Medicare through private sector alternatives, advocates an expanded national ballistic-missile defense system, reiterates his pro-life position on abortion, and reaffirms his support for land and water conservation. Gore proposes his own version of retirement accounts through a supplemental savings program, advocates the creation of an Education Reform and Children's Trust Fund to assist all schools, teachers, and students to reach higher standards of learning, recommends new programs to expand worker training for dislocated workers, delineates a multibillion-dollar plan to promote energy conservation and alternative power sources, again confirms his pro-choice position on abortion, argues for a slower, more cautious approach to ballistic-missile defense, and agrees with Bush on the utility of the death penalty and the need for campaign finance reform. In short, both candidates are clearly in the campaign stage of promising something for nearly every important voting bloc in America. How any one, or even all, of these issues will affect the outcome of Election 2000 remains an uncertainty at this point in the campaign. But the subtle and complex interaction of party identification, candidate appeal, and perception of the issues will again work its will, determining the next president of the United States on November 7, 2000.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. What three fundamental factors influence the outcome of presidential elections?

2. Why have the number of independent voters, both partisan and pure, increased in recent decades?

3. What types of issues have fundamentally affected previous presidential elections?

4. Why do voters switch party loyalties in some national elections?

5. What is the difference between a split and straight-party ticket?

6. On which issues do Gore and Bush have some common ground? On which issues do they appear to be at opposite ends of the liberal-conservative spectrum?

7. What types of issues are likely to be most important to voters in Election 2000 and why?

Lesson plan: The Issues