With just days to go before the presidential election, the GSJ's Kristen Cole asked Darrell M. West for his perspective on campaign 2000. West, who is a professor of political science and director of Brown's Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions, appeared last week on several national network news shows to address the same topic.
Typically, when the economy is prosperous and the country is at peace, the in-party nominee cruises to an easy victory. The surprising thing about this election is how well George Bush has done despite the widespread prosperity. With the economy as strong as it is, the presidential campaign should not be close. Al Gore should be winning by 5 to 10 points. The fact that Bush has kept the election close and sometimes has been ahead reflects that after eight years of any administration, many Americans want a change. It is one of the reasons why with the exception of George Bush in 1988, the last sitting vice president to be elected president in his own right was Martin Van Buren in 1836. It is very difficult to accomplish what Gore is setting out to do.
What effect is Ralph Nader having on the campaigns?
Nader has struck a significant chord among young people and in a handful of states such as Oregon and Washington. By running stronger than many would have thought a few months ago, he has siphoned off votes from Gore and put Bush in contention in some places where otherwise he would lose. Part of Nader's appeal is to liberals upset with the Democratic party's drift to the center and young people who are not very enthusiastic about Gore. Nader has raised issues which the two major parties have ignored, such as the ill effects globalization has had on some American workers. This is the traditional effect of third-party candidates, to expand the issue agenda beyond what mainstream politicians are talking about. Nader's goal is to reach at least 5 percent of the vote nationally so he can institutionalize the Green Party and assure future ballot access for that party's candidates.
Are people influenced by what they read in the public opinion polls leading up to an election?
There are two well-established polling effects in American history, the bandwagon effect by which voters want to go with the winner, and the underdog effect in which Americans love the candidate who is behind. I doubt the polls will sway many voters this year because nationally, public opinion surveys have been all over the place, even when undertaken at about the same point in time. Americans are way too smart to let pollsters tell them how to vote.
What does influence voters, particularly in the final days before an election?
The first 80 percent of the electorate makes up its mind reasonably early based on long-term factors such as party identification, ideology, important issues such as education, health care, taxes and the state of the economy. The swing voters (up to 20 percent this year) decide late and are more swayed by factors such as debates, ads, news coverage, and (sometimes) superficial impressions of the candidates. The $64,000 question in this election is whether those swing voters actually will vote or whether they will end up disillusioned with the choices and stay home, thereby producing a record low turnout. It would be very sad for American democracy if the latter occurred, especially given the high substantive stakes of this election.