What Happened After the 2000 Presidential Election
The 2000 presidential election has turned out like none other. It has been labeled the closest election ever, and that certainly seems to be the case. At first glance, one wonders how the outcome of this election (which is still uncertain) has anything in common at all with research findings. However, by using the research in the book Everything you think you know about politics and why you’re wrong by Kathleen Hall Jamieson (2000), this is not the case. In fact, it seems that this election has turned out much the way it could be projected to have turned out based on previous research.
Throughout the 2000 presidential campaign, the two main party candidates have been neck and neck in the polls. Ralph Nader was behind those two, but with support. Pat Buchanan had even less support than Nader, and Harry Browne, of the Libertarian Party, had almost no visible support in the polls. According to Jamieson (2000) “…candidates who perform poorly in the polls are less likely to garner coverage and have a tougher time increasing their visibility and with it their standing in the polls” (p. 208). This certainly seems to have affected the media coverage of all the candidates. Bush and Gore, who were for all practical purposes tied for the lead, received the same amount of coverage, and more than anyone else.
The other candidates received coverage in proportion to their percentages in the polls. Nader, third in the polls, received some coverage and gained a little more support. His numbers went up, and he very nearly made it to the 5% of the popular vote required to obtain federal funds. Buchanan, however, received almost no coverage, as his standing in the polls was very low. Browne was mentioned hardly at all. He was behind all the others in the polls and received no coverage at all. As a result, it was hard for him to improve his standing, as there were very few people who even knew such a person as Harry Browne existed as a presidential candidate.
Research also suggests that when an election is “boring” coverage of the event falls. An exciting campaign is one where the candidates are in closer competition and there is an element of uncertainty as to how the election will turn out. The 1996 election was seen as “boring,” as President Clinton was well ahead of Bob Dole in the polls. According to Jamieson (2000) news coverage fell during the last two months of campaigning (p. 37). What a contrast that is to the 2000 election. Campaign coverage by the news media grew steadily as the race became more and more uncertain. Even now the outcome is still uncertain. On the local news there is a story about the progression of the ballot counting each night and the news networks seem to have all day coverage of the way the election is turning out. This election has had enough twists and turns to make it seem almost soap-opera-ish. With such an exciting race, coverage can’t help but rise.
A close race also affects voter turnout. There was an increase of voter turnout this year as opposed to the last election when voter turnout was rather low. Voter turnout is also higher when there is contrast advertising and coverage of contrasting issues by the news media. “Contrast advertising…increases both voter share and increase turnout” (Jamieson, 2000, p. 113). When voters see a difference in the issues, they are more likely to get out and vote for someone who is more closely aligned with their views. During this campaign, each of the candidates made an effort to show how they were different from the others. While Bush and Gore highlighted their different tax plans, and the differences in their approaches to social security, Nader was pointing out how he was different from both of them. As a result, voter turnout for Ralph Nader was somewhat high, considering. Even though he didn’t 5% of the popular vote nationally, he did get it in some of the states, including Utah. Voter turnout among Republicans was higher as well. The race was close, and Bush’s efforts to paint himself as different from Gore seemed to encourage them to go out and save the country. Voter turnout was high among Democrats as well. The closeness of the race, and the speed which Bush caught up to Gore prior to the first presidential debate served as a goad to get them out to save the country.
Research suggests also that attacks tend to turn off voters to the sponsoring candidate, while showing contrast tends to favor the sponsoring candidate. All-in-all, this was not a negative campaign. While the primary opponents attacked the other’s proposed policies, personal attacks were rather minimal. Each candidate attacked by showing differences, for the most part. This prevented voters from becoming apathetic about the election because of “negative campaigning.”
So, while this election is different than any other, the outcome was largely predictable. With newscasters touting that this election could very well pose a Constitutional crisis, and announcing that it would be a close race, this election is par for the course. The polls showed neither of the main party candidates with a definitive lead, and predictions were of no clear winner. As shown in Jamieson (2000) the polls are usually reflective of how much coverage is given and in turn how much one advances in the polls. It is obvious that throughout this election that the polls and media coverage has been about even, and now the outcome of this election is still in question. There has been more media coverage of this election, supporting the research that a close and “exciting” election garners more coverage. It is still receiving unheard-of amounts of coverage. Voter turnout for this election was fairly high, due to those turning out to vote for Nader (who emphasized his difference from both candidates) and those coming to vote for either Bush or Gore, depending on whose view of taxes and social security was preferred. The outcome of this election largely supports research done on presidential campaigns.
Bibliography
Jamieson, K. (2000). Everything you think you know about politics and why you’re wrong. New York, NY: Basic Books.
