- Email: [email protected]
The US elections of 1984
Electoral Studies (1985), 4:2, 101-I 13
The US Elections of 1984 Nrcor C. RAE
NQield College, Oxford OX1 INF, England
The election campaign of 1984 in the United States was one of the least exciting of recent times. From the outset the Reagan-Bush ticket held a significant lead which remained more or less constant from June to November (see Table 1 below). it appeared that American voters were remarkably determined to reelect Ronald Reagan in 1984. In contrast to 1976 and 1980 when voters had apparently made up their minds late in the campaign, the pattern of support for the Republican and Democratic contenders remained remarkably stable throughout the year. With the Presidential race virtually over before it had begun, the real interest of the campaign lay in whether Reagan could translate his likely landslide into the long-awaited Republican realignment. The campaign strategy adopted by the incumbent sought to avoid an emphasis on specific issues, and to capitalize on the new optimism and patriotism which swept the land in the wake of the economic recovery and the Olympic Games. Mondale’s attacks would be deflected. by making him appear pessimistic, captious, shrill, and even unpatriotic. According to Newsweek: Issues had little to do with the strategic design and were in fact, seen as a danger if Mondale was allowed to frame them, as he had successfully against Hart; neither would it be enough for Reagan to stand on what one high level strategy memo called his ‘substantive record of aging victories’. It was instead the conscious intent of his managers to run him as a kind of national icon, seeking reelection less on the particularities of his record than on the atmospherics of that second Era Of Good Feehngs he had hefped bring to life. 1
The Reagan advertising and television commercials, stressed strength, leadership, patriotism and optimism rather than a detailed defence of the Republican record. The President was also presented at a series of rallies on college campuses before young and enthusiastic audiences. in electoral terms the Reagan strategy constructed by his managers Edward Rollins, Stuart Spencer, and pollster Richard Wi~hlin, was to go on the offensive by taking the South and West for granted and forcing Mondale to defend his north-eastern base, rather than break out into Reagan territory. The Mondale-Ferraro strategy seemed to be a consolidation of their ‘rustbelt’ heartland, and the hope that they might pick up sufficient states in the South (with the help of black voter registration) and in the West to win the race. U~o~unately for Mondale and Ferraro, Originally this article was to have been written with Philip Williams of Nuffield College, Oxford. His death in November 1984 deprived the study of politics in Britain of an exceptional scholar, whose many contributions on American government and other fields have served as an inspiration to countless students, inchniing the present author. This article is the poorer for having been written without Phifip’s invariably excelIent advice and encouragement, and suffers by comparison with his own meticulous work. 0261-3794/S5/02/0101-13/003.00
0 1985 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd
102
The US Elections of 19&$ T.ABLE 1. Gallup Poll June to November
25 June
9 Jufy
1984
16 July
54 38
Reagan-Bush IMondale-Ferraro
13 Aug.
9 Sept.
52 41
55 40
_I~ 23 Sept. Reagan-Bush Mondale-Ferraro
30 Sept.
17 Oct.
28 Oct.
3 Nov.
57 40
59 41
SOURX: National Journal. 29 September 1984 and 3 November 1984. Congressional Quarter.$ Weekly Report, 10 November 1984.
this dream of success never seriously looked like becoming a reality. The impact of the Ferraro selection was almost immediately nullified by weeks of press investigation of her husband’s personal finances, and a conflict with the Roman Catholic hierarchy over her prochoice position on abortion. Mondale flailed away at the tax issue, religious bigotry, and Reagan’s bellicosity in foreign affairs, but his attacks got nowhere. Poor campaign organization created a series of embarrassing incidents; pa~icularly an appearance by the two Democratic candidates at a Labour Day march in New York City, walking along and waving to deserted streets. Teams of young Republicans also pursued the candidate at his major rallies, interrupting his speeches with incessant heckling. The two Presidential debates which the Reagan camp had conceded to Mondale, provided his only real opportunity of making an impression against Reagan during the entire campaign. The Democrats had placed high hopes on increased voter registration, which it was hoped would raise turnout among Democrat supporting groups such as Blacks, poor-Whites, and Hispanics. However, the effort by the Democrats and various ‘non-partisan’ groups to increase registration were met by an equally extensive, and far more technologically sophisticated Republican effort. In the large southern state of Florida, Republican new registrants exceeded the Democrats 450,000 to 225,000, and in Texas where the Democrats had made a concentrated effort to register Hispanics, their 500,000 new registrants was almost emulated by 400,000 new Republicans, who were far more likely to vote on election day.2 Jesse Jackson’s efforts in the South claimed an increase of 21.5 per cent in black voter registration, but in many places these increases were cancelled out by white increases which were as high or higher.3 Ultimately, the impact of increased registration was to be the great non-event of the 1984 eIection . Mondale did well in the two Presidential debates however, and here for once, his ‘insider knowledge’ on particular issues, overcame his untelegenic personality. In the first debate in Louisville on 7 October, Reagan appeared hesitant, incoherent and ignorant of the effects of his policies. Mondale on the other hand appeared precise, clear and knowledgeable. The Vice-Presidential debate between Bush and Ferraro on 11 October was interpreted as a draw with neither candidate making a pa~icularly good impression. The effect of these two debates was to raise Democratic morale, and to close the gap between Reagan and Mondale in some polls. Democratic candidates for other offices who had been avoiding the former Vice-President, as an electoral liability became a little less wary of appearing on the same platform with him. In the final Presidential debate in Kansas City on 27 October however, Reagan made up his Iost ground. By the time of the foreign policy debate expectations of the
NICOL C. RAE
103
President’s performance were so low that his improvement from poor to mediocre, was interpreted as a victory, and the gap in the polls widened once more. By election day, a Reagan victory looked certain, after a rather dull and intellectually unstimulating campaign. Only the ~mensio~ of the President’s triumph were in doubt. With talk of realignment in the air, attention was concentrated on the Congressional results. The Republicans now appeared certain to hold the Senate, although they were likely to lose one or two seats. In the House they required some 30 net gains from the Democrats to reestablish their ideological hegemony in that Chamber. For the Democrats the latter stages of the campaign had become a damag~limitation exercise, but they took comfort in the indications that the President’s triumph appeared unlikely to be equalled by his party at the lower levels of electoral competition.
The Results The Presidential result contained few dramatic surprises. Reagan won by 59 per cent to 41 per cent, or by 52.6 million to 36.4 million votes in an electorate of 89.3 million. In electora college votes, Reagan won by 525 votes to 13, with Mondale carrying only his home state of Minnesota. In the Senate elections the Republicans lost two seats overall, but retained control by 53 seats to 47. In the House they made 14 net gains over the Democrats. The Republicans also made a gain of one state Governorship, and some 300 state legislative seats. Reagan’s landslide was the greatest in terms of electoral votes in American history, though not in terms of popular votes as Table 2 illustrates. In fact the overall res.ult strongly resembles that of previous Republican second term landslides in 1956 and 1972. The overall turnout in 1984 was around 53 per cent of the eligible population; barely an advance on the 1972 figure of 52.6 per cent. Black turnout rose from approximately 8 to 9 per cent, and Hispanic turnout from 2 to 3 per cent. The number of registered voters who actually voted declined from a 1980 level of 75.2 per cent to 72.4 per cent.4 The rise in the overall turnout figure was the first increase since 1960, and there is little doubt that the one-sided nature of the Presidential race depressed the proportion of the electorate which cast ballots in November.
TABLE 2. Reagan’s 1984 victory and past Iandslides
Candidate
Year
Popular vote
Lyndon B. Johnson l Franklin D. Roosevelt * Richard M. Nixon * Warren G. Harding Ronald W. Reagan’ Herkrt Hoover Franklin D. Roosevelt Dwight D. Eisenhower l
1964 1936 1972 1920 1984 1928 1932 1956
61.1% 60.8% 60.7% 60.3% 58.9% 58.2% 57.4% 57.4%
* Incumbent President.
Electoral vote
States carried
486 523 520 404 525 444 472 457
44 :; 37 49 40 42 41
Senate gains House gains for candifor candidate’s party’ date’s party’ 1 (D) 6 fD1 - 2 (R) 11 (R) - 2 (R) 8 (RI 120 - I@)
37 (D) 11 (D) 12 (R) 63 (R) 16 (R) 30 (R) 97 (D) -2(R)
’ Difference between the number ofseatswon by party in the election year and the number won at the preceding Congressional Election. Source: Norman J. Ornstein, Thomas E. Mann, Michael J. Malbin, John F. Bibby, VilalS~utir~ics On Congress, 1982 (Washington, DC: AEI, 1982).
104
The US Elections of 1984
In terms of geography, Reagan swept all regions of the country. Table 3 shows that his strongest bastions lay in the mountain states, plus the New England tax haven of New Hampshire, the lower plains states and bible-belt Oklahoma. The President also ran particularly well in Florida, Texas and most of the South. It was evident that the Democrats had paid dearly for their neglect of that region. Aside from DC and 1Minnesota which he carried, Mondale’s best showings were in the traditional blue-collar, Democratic strongholds of the North-east. He also did relatively well in traditionally Republican states such as Iowa, Oregon and Washington, which were still suffering from recession in 1984, and in Maryland with its high proportion of Federal Government employees. In electoral college terms the election held some ominous signs for the Democrats. Table 4 demonstrates that in the five Presidential elections since 1964, when Lyndon Johnson won a landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, the Democrats have never once carried some 25 states with 202 electoral college votes. The table also shows that only in 1976, were the Democrats able to carry most of the southern states, which even as late as the 1950s had constituted the party’s electoral college base. Even such supposed Democratic strongholds as New York
and Pennsylvania dential elections.
have only twice
heen in the Democratic
TABLE
in the last five Presi-
3. Reagan’s vote by state and region 50-54%
up to 49%
West Virginia
Maryland
(DC)
Vermont
Rhode Island Massachusetts
65-69%
60-64%
55-59%
South:
Florida
S. Carolina Texas Virginia Mississippi N. Carolina Arkansas Louisiana Alabama Georgia
Tennessee
Border:
Oklahoma
Missouri Kentucky
New
New Hampshire
Connecticut Maine
Over 70%
England: MiddleAtlantic:
Delaware New Jersey
Midwest:
Indiana
Plains:
Nebraska
Kansas N. Dakota
S. Dakota
Mountain:
Utah Idaho Wyoming
Arizona Nevada
Colorado Montana New Mexico
Paci/ic Coast :
column
The states which the party has been able to carry three or more times since
Alaska
New York Pennsylvania Michigan Ohio Illinois Wisconsin Iowa
California Washington Hawaii Oregon
hlinnesota
Total electoral vote= 184 (34%)
Total electoral vote= 102 (19%) Total electoral vote= 37 (7%)
DC (3) Total electoral vote=3 (0.5%)
Total electoral vote= 10 (2%)
Minnesota
Maryland (IO) West Virginia (6) Massachusetts (13) Rhode Island (4) Hawaii (4)
Georgia (12) Texas (29) New York (36) Pennsylvania (25)
Afabama (9) Arkansas (6) Florida (2 1) Louisiana (10) Mississippi (7) N. Carolina (13) S. Carolina (8) Tennessee (11) Kentucky (9) Missouri (11) Connecticut (8) Maine (4) Delaware (3) Michigan (20) Ohio (23) Wisconsin (11) W~hington (10)
(10)
5
4
3
2
1
4. States carried by Democratic presidential candidates 1968-84
Figures in brackets show state’s etectorat college vote.
Total efectoraf vote= 202 (38%)
Virginia (12) Oklahoma (8) New Hampshire (4) Vermont (3) New Jersey (16) Illinois (24) Indiana (12) Iowa (8) Kansas (7) Nebraska (5) N. Dakota (3) S. Dakota (3) Arizona (7) Colorado (8) Idaho (4) Nevada (4) New Mexico (5) Utah (5) Wyoming (3) Alaska (3) California (47) Oregon (7)
Number of times carried: 0
TABLE
106
The
us Elections of I9884
1964, have been an odd assortment of liberal bastions, accounting for only 9.5 per cent of the electoral college vote. Reagan’s dominance is further liustrated when the result is looked at in terms of various social and economic categories. Table 5 shows some results from the New York Times1 CBS exit poll for 1980 and 1984, and sheds some interesting light on the returns. The celebrated ‘gender gap’ still existed in 1984, although it was far narrower than in 1980, and Reagan actually gained by 10 percentage points among women voters, thus the presence of Ferraro on the Democratic ticket seems to have had minimal impact. Among Blacks the Democrats had an overwhelming triumph as had been expected, but whites voted overwhelmingly for Reagan, and among southern whites the President won by 7 2 per cent to 28 per cent, a catastrophic result for Mondale. Among Hispanics the Democrats gained 6 per cent over 1980, although the Republicans held on to about a third of the Hispanic vote. Another impressive Democratic performance was among Jewish voters, who voted over 20 per cent more Democratic in 1984, despite the enmity aroused by Jackson’s candidacy for the nomination. This was probably due to Reagan’s close association with the Christian fundamentalist Right, during the 1984 campaign. In terms of other religious groups, Reagan won 55 per cent of Roman Catholic votes, and among white ‘born-again’ Christians he defeated Mondale 80 per cent to 20 per cent. In terms of so&o-economic categories, ABC’s polls had Mondale winning by only 52-48 among voters from union households despite AFL-CIO’s $17 million campaign on his behalf.5 Reagan won by a 7point margin among blue-collar workers as a whole. The President also carried every income bracket but the lowest; those earning under $12,500 per annum. Among those who said that their economic situation was better than in 1980 he again won overwhelmingly, while Mondale carried the smaller number who said that their financial situation was worse, thus demonstrating the importance of the 1983/4 recovery to Reagan’s re-election. In terms of age, Reagan again won in all categories, with his most spectacular improvement over 1980 occurring in the youngest age category, 18-29 year oid voters, who in 1980 had chosen him over Carter by 44-43, but in 1984 gave him 58 per cent of their votes. According to NBC’s polls Reagan won the votes of self-described ‘young professionals’ by 67 per cent to 32 per cent, and despite Reagan’s being the oldest incumbent President in US history, only 10 per cent of the electorate thought that his own age was a significant issue.6 Reagan also won 63 per cent among the over60s, despite Democratic efforts to arouse fears of a cutback in social security payments. Democratic hopes of reaping benefits from increased voter registration were utterly confounded, as the incumbent won 60 per cent of first time voters, and other polls found that those who registered in 1984 went 3:2 for Reagan.’ In terms of party, Reagan won 92 per cent of Republican votes and attracted 26 per cent of Democrats away from Mondale. He also won convincingly among Independents, and while those who had voted in the Democratic primaries for Mondale and Jackson stayed overwhelmingly Democratic in the autumn, 34 per cent of Hart’s supporters defected to Reagan. The extent of Reagan’s coat-tails were spectacular in some states and nonexistent in others. The overall effect was certainly far from dramatic enough to be characteristic of a realigning election. In North Carolina Reagan’s heavy vote undoubtedly assisted the victories of Jesse Helms, Republican gubernatorial candidate James Martin, and three Republican House challengers. In that state the GOP also doubled its representation in the state legislature. In Texas Reagan’s landslide helped Phil Gramm to hold the Senate seat for the Republicans and to bring four Republican House gains. In other states which Reagan won by large margins however, such as Oklahoma, Louisiana and New Jersey. the coat-tail effect was negligible, as can be seen by looking at Table 6 which compares Reagan’s
107
i’kOL C. ftAE TABLE 5. The Presidential result by various economic and social categories
%
of
%change
1984 Total Category
1980 Reagan Carter
1984 Reagan Mondale
1980-84 GOP DEM
47 53 86 10 3 25 4
Men Women Whites Blacks Hispanics Southern Whites Southern Blacks
55 47
36 45
61 57
55
36 85
66
43
:: 23 19
18-29 years old 30-44 years old 45-59 years old Over 60 years old
:; 89 44
:; 54
:: 41
46 51 55 52
51 43
63 ;; 63 44 55
31 42 45 33 47 35
42 44
51 46
:; 63
:; 26
47 51 :: 86 26 55 25 48 72
42 40 44 34 9 67 30 60 42 23
;;?
:: 70 46 18
;; 47 NA’ 39
32 41 46 NA 51
62 59 53 51 31
37 40 46 48 68
+5 +9 +6 -8
+5 -1 0 +17
-
-
96 3: 6
-
-
8 :: 29 51 26 3 15
Education: Less than high school High school graduate Some college College graduate White Protestant Roman Catholic Jewish White ‘Born-Again’
‘30 l70
Union househoid Non-union household
15 27 21 18 13
Income: Under %12,500 p.a. 0 12,500~$24,999 $25,000-$34,999 $35,000-$50,000 Over S 50,000
24 28 29 18 :: 26 17 44 35 30 13 14 :
15 11 3
Region East Midwest South west Republican Democrat Independent Liberal Moderate Conservative ProfessionaVManager White Collar Blue Collar Student Unemployed Democratic Primary Supporter: Mondale Hart
;; 61 9
::
+6 +10 +11 -2 0 +11 0 +15 +4 +5 +9
+I -3 -3 +5 +6 -7 0 -3 +6 0 -5
50 60 60 59
+4 +9 +5 +7
-2 -4 -3 +5
73 :: 80
+10 +6 -7 t17
-5 +2 +21 -13
48 64
+4 +9
+5 +1
+4 +13 +7 +8 +5
+2 -4 +1 0 +5
3: 72 9 58 58 60 63
37 42 ;“D 65 28 89 41 42 39 36
46 57 59 67 68
53 42 40
52 61 63 59
47
92 t; 29
::
:: 40 7
+5 -5 +10 -2 +11 -8 +6 +6 +6 -2 0 +6 +8 +5 +4 +10 +6 +4 +9 -5
The US Eiectionrof 1984
108 TABLE 5 (conbnued)
% of 1984
% change
Total Category
‘41 l40 19 8
l
Financial Situation: Better Same Worse First Time Voter
1980 Reagan Carter
1984 Reagan Xlondale
37 46 64
53 46 25
81 51 27
19 49 73
-
-
60
39
1980-84 GOP DEM
+44 +5 -37
-
-34 +3 +48
-
In 1984 * ABC/Washington Post and Los Angeles Times Exit Polls in, Nutional Journd, 10 November ’ Not available. Source: New York Times/CBS News Exit Poll, New York Times. 8 November 1984.
1984.
performances with those for Republicans lower down the ticket in states which had Senatorial elections in 1984. The results show some astonishing instances of ticket-splitting and although Ronald Reagan had won an outstanding personal victory over Walter Mondale in almost every state, region and social category, there was little evidence to suggest that his reelection had brought about any realignment of electoral forces beneath the Presidential level. In the Senate elections the Democrats made three gains. Albert Gore won Howard Baker’s Tennessee seat by a comfortable margin, Tom Harkin defeated Republican incumbent Roger Jepsen in Iowa (Jepsen was hindered by the farm-belt recession, and by revelations that despite his Moral Majority connections he had once been a member of a health spa, subsequently closed down for prostitution), and in Illinois, Charles Percy joined William Fuibright and Frank Church as Foreign Relations Committee Chairmen who lost their Senate seats. This had been a very tightly contested race, in which the Democratic winner Congressman Paul Simon, had united the warring factions of the state’s Democratic party behind his campaign, and had even attracted endorsements from New Right groups which were infuriated by Percy’s moderate Republicanism. The only other seat to change hands was in Kentucky, where Republican Mitch McConnell won a surprise victory over the incumbent Democrat Walter D. Huddleston, primarily due to the Reagan landslide. Most of the other Republican incumbents were re-elected fairly easily, including those who had earlier been thought to be vulnerable. Rudy Boschwitz won with 58 per cent in Minnesota, Gordon Humphery with 59 per cent in New Hampshire, and ‘Thad’ Cochran with 61 per cent in Mississippi. In Texas Phil Gramm (a former Boll Weevil Democrat who had switched to the Republican party) held John Tower’s seat for the Republicans with 59 per cent of the vote, against liberal Democratic State Senator Lloyd Doggett. The Democrats were also to be disappointed in North Carolina, where Jesse Helms-with more than a little help from Reagan and the conservative political network-won by 5 2 per cent to 48 per cent over Governor James Hunt. Most Democratic incumbents were reelected with overwhelming margins, even in stares such as Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Arkansas, which were solidly for Reagan in the Presidential race. The Democrats also held on to their two open seats in Massachusetts and West Virginia: the former being won by Lieutenant-Governor John Kerry, and the latter by incumbent Governor ‘Jay’ Rockefeller, a scion of the famous family. Some other aspects of the Senate races are worthy of note. Firstly: six of the 17 Democratic challengers and three of the 14 Republican challengers were female, although-only one woman candidate, Republican incumbent Nancy Landon
Nrcor
109
C. RAE
TABLE6. Ticket-splitting in 1984. Table shows Presidential, Senatorial, Gubernatorial, and House Results in states which had a US Senate election in 1984.
State Alabama Alaska Arkansas Colorado Delaware Georgia Idaho Illinois Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Massachusetts Minnesota Mississippi Montana Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico N. Carolina Oklahoma Oregon Rhode Island S. Carolina S. Dakota Tennessee Texas Virginia West Virginia Wyoming
Reagan’s % 60 67 :; 60 ;: 57 54 67 60 61 61 51 49 62 60 71 69 60 60 62 68 55 52 64 63 59 64 63 55 71
Republican Republican Net Republican % for Senate % for Governor House gain 37 71 42 64 40 20 ::I 44’ 77 502 03 74 45 58 61 41 47 ;; 72 :: 66 27 67 ::I 59 70 48 78
37 55 21 67 54 60 -
0 0 -1 +1 0 +1 -1 -1 +l 0 0 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 0 +3 0 0 0 0 0 0 +4 0 0 0
’ DemocraticGain. * RepublicanGain. 3 In Louisiana if a candidate wins over 50% in the open September primary election, the November election is uncontested.
Kassebaum of Kansas was elected. In terms of spending: the Helms-Hunt battle in North Carolina became the most expensive race in Senate history, with Hunt spending $7.7 million, and Helms %14 million. Jay Rockefeller in West Virginia spent $9.3 million of his personal fortune, and other big spenders included Gramm and Doggett in Texas, who spent $7.7 million and $4.4 million respectively. Of the top ten Senate spenders, seven won reelection and three were defeated.* Of the 29 incumbent Senators, 26 or 89.6 per cent were re-elected. This compares with a 93.3 per cent success rate in 1982, and indicates that the value of incumbency in Senate elections has increased once more after the higher than average turn-over in 1978-80.9 Although the Republicans were satisfied to hold the Senate in 1984, they will have an even tougher task in 1986 when 22 of the 34 Senate seats up for reelection are held by Republicans, many of them elected for the first time with Reagan in 1980.
110
The US Elections of 1984
The House results were something of a disappointment for the GOP and the Reagan administration. Despite a heavy commitment of resources and Reagan’s own popularity, his party could achieve only 14 gains in the House; far short of the number required for ‘ ideological control I, although the Democratic majority was reduced from 267-168 to 253-182. The pattern of Republican gains was patchy as Table 7 illustrates. Their best region was the South, although their gains here were concentrated in two states, North Carolina and Texas. Elsewhere the GOP picked up the odd seat here and there but there does not appear to be any clear pattern to the results. Many defeated Democratic incumbents such as Jack Hightower in Texas, IMark McNulty in Arizona, Donald Albosta in IMichigan, and Jerry Patterson in California, were defending districts which Reagan carried by vast margins. Four of the 13 defeated Democratic incumbents had first been elected in 1982, but none of these occurred outside the southern and mountain regions. The most prominent Democratic loser was probably 75 year old Maryland Congressman Clarence Long, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, and a powerful voice in US policy toward Central America. Republican George Hansen of Utah who had been convicted on charges of falsifying financial disclosure statements, lost by a handful of votes in his Idaho District, and a similar fate befell his Republican colleague Dan Crance of Illinois who had been censured for having sexual relations with a teenage page. Democratic Congressman Gerry Studds who was also censured in the pages affair, nevertheless managed to hold his 1Massachusetts district with 56 per cent of the vote. Estimates of the total national vote for Congressional Candidates gave Republicans and Democrats around 50 per cent. lo The Republicans won only 42 per cent of the seats due to the drawing of Congressional district boundaries by Democratic state legislatures in 1980-4, and the effects of incumbency in modern Congressional elections. In 1984 of 411 incumbents seeking re-election, 392 or 95.4 per cent were returned, but in the 27 ‘open
TABLE 7.
Republican
House
gains
by region
1984 Party Region’ South Border New England Middle-Atlantic Midwest Plains Mountain Pacific National
alignment D R
73 25
43 9
1984 D
45 11 7 37
35 17 24
1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0
253
182
4
14 41
:I?
13
gains R 8 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 18
Net Republican gain +7 +l +2 +2 -1 +1 i-1 +1 + 14
’ Regions: South-Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia. Border-Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, W. Virginia. New England-Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont. Middle-Atlantic-Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania. Midwest-Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin. Plains-Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, N. Dakota, S. Dakota. Mountain-Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming. Pacific-Alaska, California. Hawaii, Oregon, Washington.
Nrcor
C. RAE
111
seats’ vacated by retirements, deaths or primary defeats, the Republicans won 18 to the Democrats nine, making a net gain of four. Of the $50.7 million contributed by Political Action Committees (PACs) in 1984, 80 per cent went to incumbents, and 60 per cent to Democratic candidates. Even among corporate PACs, 45 per cent of their total contributions of $18.7 million went to Democratic candidates, mostly incumbentstt Thus the power of incumbency is not to be underestimated in contemporary American Congressional elections. In the 13 elections for state Governors, the Republicans made a net gain of one, leaving the Democrats with an overall total of 34 statehouses to the Republicans’ 15. Of the seven Governorships which they held prior to the elections, the GOP retained four. Incumbent Governors John Sununu of New Hampshire, and Robert Orr of Indiana were elected to a second term, and the Republicans held on to the Governorships vacated by the retirement of Kit Bond in Missouri and Pete DuPont in Delaware. They gained the Governorship of North Carolina, where Congressman James Martin was swept to a surprise victory on the basis of the Republican landslide in that state. In Rhode Island Ed DiPrete became the state’s first Republican Governor since 1968, and in West Virginia former Republican Governor Arch Moore was returned to the statehouse after an eight year absence. The Republicans also managed to break the Democratic grip on the Governorships of the mountain states, when Norman Bangerter won the Utah statehouse from the Democrats. Democratic incumbents in Arkansas and Montana withstood the Reagan landslide to win comfortably, and the party made gains in North Dakota and Washington where unpopular Republican incumbents were defeated. In Vermont they also took the statehouse, with Madeleine Kunin becoming the nation’s second woman Governor. (The other is also a DemocratMartha Layne Collins of Kentucky.) In the elections for state legislatures, the number of states in which the Democrats control both Chambers fell from 33 to 28. The Republicans won both Houses in Connecticut, and picked up one Chamber in Delaware, hlinnesota, Nevada and Ohio. Once again the GOP did well in North Carolina doubling their representation in the Senate from six seats to 12, and in the House from 18 to 37. In most other southern states however, Reagan’s landslide only brought in a handful of new Republican state legislators, and the Democrats remained the dominant party at the state level throughout the region. The results of the various state and local initiatives and referendums provide something of a barometer of national opinion on various issues. In 1984 one surprising result was the failure of various tax-cutting propositions in California, Michigan, and Louisiana, in a year when one of the champions of the ‘tax revolt’ was sweeping to victory for the Presidency. In California a Republican proposition to strip the Democratcontrolled state legislature of its redistricting powers was also defeated. The nuclear freeze appeared only on the South Dakota ballot where it was narrowly defeated, although 16 local communities voted to declare themselves ‘nuclear free zones’. In Maine the ERA was rejected, a ban on state financing for abortions was approved in Washington and defeated in Colorado. Thirty-six states now have such bans except in cases of danger to the mother’s life. There was, as usual, no clear ideological pattern in these results, and it would be difficult to maintain that a realignment in public opinion toward Republican doctrines had taken place, on this basis. Conclusion From the results it would be wrong to describe the 1984 US election as a realigning election. At the Presidential level, the inability of the Democratic party in recent times, to produce candidates with broad appeal who can also keep their fractious coalition together, has created
112
TI!e US Elections
o[ 1984
a distinct Republican advantage. Republican candidates have been better attuned to the national mood since 1968, and having established the West and South-at least when the Democratic candidate is not a southerner-as a base, they have an advantage in the electoral college which is very difficult for Democratic candidates to overcome. To the extent that the Democrats in recent Presidential elections have been confined to successes in a handful of declining north-eastern ‘rustbelt’ states and liberal enclaves, there has been a realignment at the Presidential level which began in the mid-1960s and of which 1984 was merely the most recent confirmation. This, however, has been a realignment in terms of style and ideology, rather than one in terms of party, as is shown in Table 8. While there has been a gradual increase in Republican identification since their nadir in the mid-1970s most Americans continued to identify with the Democratic party, and the number of Independents remained high after reaching a plateau in 1974-8. The New York Times/CBS exit poll in 1984 found that the gap between the two parties in terms of identification had closed to only three points among those voting in the Presidential election. Another ominous sign for the Democrats was that 40 per cent of voters in the 18-24 age group called themselves Republicans, to only 34 per cent for the Democrats.t2 However, the Republicans had made dramatic identification gains in some polls after the 1980 election, and these had been quickly eroded by the 1982 recession. Moreover, the lack of ideological rapport between the GOP and younger voters on ‘moral’ and foreign policy matters, makes one rather dubious as to whether they will establish a long-term commitment to that party. Beneath the Presidential level Democratic strength is still impressive. They stand an excellent chance of regaining control of the Senate in 1986, and in House elections, redistricting and incumbency have given them an even greater advantage than the Republicans enjoy in Presidential elections. In the state legislatures-which are primarily responsible for drawing electoral boundaries in most instances-they suffered only modest losses in 1984, and have established a dominance which appears to persist no matter how severely they are repudiated at the national level. Should Reagan have to adopt unpopular measures to deal with the deficit or crises overseas, and were the economy to relapse into
TABLE 8.
Party
Year 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1372 1976 1980 1982’ 1984?
’ Chicago National
identification
Democrat % 48 46 47 52 45 41 40 41 48 38
patterns Independent % 23 23 23 :: 35 37 28 24 26
1952-84 Republican % 28 31 30 25 25 23 23 32 ::
Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey 1983, in Na&nol JOUTMI, 29 October 1983. 2 CBS/New York Times Exit Poll, New York Times, 8 November 1984. So urce: University of Michigan Survey Research Center’s American National Election Studies (1952-80). in Nacionul Journal, 29 October 1983.
NICOL
c. ftAE
I13
recession during the second Reagan term, Democratic prospects at the Congressional and even Presidential levels, would probably be as good as they were in late 1982 and early 1983. Their main problem remains the complete inability of their Presidential nominating process to produce nominees with the ability to unite the party behind them. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Newsweek Special election issue, November/December 1984, p. 70. National Journal, 29 September 1984. The Economist, 3 November 1984. The Economist, 17 November 1984. National Joumai, 29 September 1984. Time, 19 November 1984. William Schneider, ‘Half A Realignment’, New Republic, 3 December 1984. Spending figures in US News G World Report, 19 November 1984. Norman J. Ornstein, Thomas E. Mann, Michaet J. Malbin, and John F. Bibby, Vi&z/ Statistic On Congress 1982 ~~hin~on, DC: AEI, 1982). p. 48. 10. The &onomist, 22 December 1984. 11. National Jourml, 10 November 1984. 12. International Herald Tribune, 12 November 1984.
The US Elections of 1984 Nrcor C. RAE
NQield College, Oxford OX1 INF, England
The election campaign of 1984 in the United States was one of the least exciting of recent times. From the outset the Reagan-Bush ticket held a significant lead which remained more or less constant from June to November (see Table 1 below). it appeared that American voters were remarkably determined to reelect Ronald Reagan in 1984. In contrast to 1976 and 1980 when voters had apparently made up their minds late in the campaign, the pattern of support for the Republican and Democratic contenders remained remarkably stable throughout the year. With the Presidential race virtually over before it had begun, the real interest of the campaign lay in whether Reagan could translate his likely landslide into the long-awaited Republican realignment. The campaign strategy adopted by the incumbent sought to avoid an emphasis on specific issues, and to capitalize on the new optimism and patriotism which swept the land in the wake of the economic recovery and the Olympic Games. Mondale’s attacks would be deflected. by making him appear pessimistic, captious, shrill, and even unpatriotic. According to Newsweek: Issues had little to do with the strategic design and were in fact, seen as a danger if Mondale was allowed to frame them, as he had successfully against Hart; neither would it be enough for Reagan to stand on what one high level strategy memo called his ‘substantive record of aging victories’. It was instead the conscious intent of his managers to run him as a kind of national icon, seeking reelection less on the particularities of his record than on the atmospherics of that second Era Of Good Feehngs he had hefped bring to life. 1
The Reagan advertising and television commercials, stressed strength, leadership, patriotism and optimism rather than a detailed defence of the Republican record. The President was also presented at a series of rallies on college campuses before young and enthusiastic audiences. in electoral terms the Reagan strategy constructed by his managers Edward Rollins, Stuart Spencer, and pollster Richard Wi~hlin, was to go on the offensive by taking the South and West for granted and forcing Mondale to defend his north-eastern base, rather than break out into Reagan territory. The Mondale-Ferraro strategy seemed to be a consolidation of their ‘rustbelt’ heartland, and the hope that they might pick up sufficient states in the South (with the help of black voter registration) and in the West to win the race. U~o~unately for Mondale and Ferraro, Originally this article was to have been written with Philip Williams of Nuffield College, Oxford. His death in November 1984 deprived the study of politics in Britain of an exceptional scholar, whose many contributions on American government and other fields have served as an inspiration to countless students, inchniing the present author. This article is the poorer for having been written without Phifip’s invariably excelIent advice and encouragement, and suffers by comparison with his own meticulous work. 0261-3794/S5/02/0101-13/003.00
0 1985 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd
102
The US Elections of 19&$ T.ABLE 1. Gallup Poll June to November
25 June
9 Jufy
1984
16 July
54 38
Reagan-Bush IMondale-Ferraro
13 Aug.
9 Sept.
52 41
55 40
_I~ 23 Sept. Reagan-Bush Mondale-Ferraro
30 Sept.
17 Oct.
28 Oct.
3 Nov.
57 40
59 41
SOURX: National Journal. 29 September 1984 and 3 November 1984. Congressional Quarter.$ Weekly Report, 10 November 1984.
this dream of success never seriously looked like becoming a reality. The impact of the Ferraro selection was almost immediately nullified by weeks of press investigation of her husband’s personal finances, and a conflict with the Roman Catholic hierarchy over her prochoice position on abortion. Mondale flailed away at the tax issue, religious bigotry, and Reagan’s bellicosity in foreign affairs, but his attacks got nowhere. Poor campaign organization created a series of embarrassing incidents; pa~icularly an appearance by the two Democratic candidates at a Labour Day march in New York City, walking along and waving to deserted streets. Teams of young Republicans also pursued the candidate at his major rallies, interrupting his speeches with incessant heckling. The two Presidential debates which the Reagan camp had conceded to Mondale, provided his only real opportunity of making an impression against Reagan during the entire campaign. The Democrats had placed high hopes on increased voter registration, which it was hoped would raise turnout among Democrat supporting groups such as Blacks, poor-Whites, and Hispanics. However, the effort by the Democrats and various ‘non-partisan’ groups to increase registration were met by an equally extensive, and far more technologically sophisticated Republican effort. In the large southern state of Florida, Republican new registrants exceeded the Democrats 450,000 to 225,000, and in Texas where the Democrats had made a concentrated effort to register Hispanics, their 500,000 new registrants was almost emulated by 400,000 new Republicans, who were far more likely to vote on election day.2 Jesse Jackson’s efforts in the South claimed an increase of 21.5 per cent in black voter registration, but in many places these increases were cancelled out by white increases which were as high or higher.3 Ultimately, the impact of increased registration was to be the great non-event of the 1984 eIection . Mondale did well in the two Presidential debates however, and here for once, his ‘insider knowledge’ on particular issues, overcame his untelegenic personality. In the first debate in Louisville on 7 October, Reagan appeared hesitant, incoherent and ignorant of the effects of his policies. Mondale on the other hand appeared precise, clear and knowledgeable. The Vice-Presidential debate between Bush and Ferraro on 11 October was interpreted as a draw with neither candidate making a pa~icularly good impression. The effect of these two debates was to raise Democratic morale, and to close the gap between Reagan and Mondale in some polls. Democratic candidates for other offices who had been avoiding the former Vice-President, as an electoral liability became a little less wary of appearing on the same platform with him. In the final Presidential debate in Kansas City on 27 October however, Reagan made up his Iost ground. By the time of the foreign policy debate expectations of the
NICOL C. RAE
103
President’s performance were so low that his improvement from poor to mediocre, was interpreted as a victory, and the gap in the polls widened once more. By election day, a Reagan victory looked certain, after a rather dull and intellectually unstimulating campaign. Only the ~mensio~ of the President’s triumph were in doubt. With talk of realignment in the air, attention was concentrated on the Congressional results. The Republicans now appeared certain to hold the Senate, although they were likely to lose one or two seats. In the House they required some 30 net gains from the Democrats to reestablish their ideological hegemony in that Chamber. For the Democrats the latter stages of the campaign had become a damag~limitation exercise, but they took comfort in the indications that the President’s triumph appeared unlikely to be equalled by his party at the lower levels of electoral competition.
The Results The Presidential result contained few dramatic surprises. Reagan won by 59 per cent to 41 per cent, or by 52.6 million to 36.4 million votes in an electorate of 89.3 million. In electora college votes, Reagan won by 525 votes to 13, with Mondale carrying only his home state of Minnesota. In the Senate elections the Republicans lost two seats overall, but retained control by 53 seats to 47. In the House they made 14 net gains over the Democrats. The Republicans also made a gain of one state Governorship, and some 300 state legislative seats. Reagan’s landslide was the greatest in terms of electoral votes in American history, though not in terms of popular votes as Table 2 illustrates. In fact the overall res.ult strongly resembles that of previous Republican second term landslides in 1956 and 1972. The overall turnout in 1984 was around 53 per cent of the eligible population; barely an advance on the 1972 figure of 52.6 per cent. Black turnout rose from approximately 8 to 9 per cent, and Hispanic turnout from 2 to 3 per cent. The number of registered voters who actually voted declined from a 1980 level of 75.2 per cent to 72.4 per cent.4 The rise in the overall turnout figure was the first increase since 1960, and there is little doubt that the one-sided nature of the Presidential race depressed the proportion of the electorate which cast ballots in November.
TABLE 2. Reagan’s 1984 victory and past Iandslides
Candidate
Year
Popular vote
Lyndon B. Johnson l Franklin D. Roosevelt * Richard M. Nixon * Warren G. Harding Ronald W. Reagan’ Herkrt Hoover Franklin D. Roosevelt Dwight D. Eisenhower l
1964 1936 1972 1920 1984 1928 1932 1956
61.1% 60.8% 60.7% 60.3% 58.9% 58.2% 57.4% 57.4%
* Incumbent President.
Electoral vote
States carried
486 523 520 404 525 444 472 457
44 :; 37 49 40 42 41
Senate gains House gains for candifor candidate’s party’ date’s party’ 1 (D) 6 fD1 - 2 (R) 11 (R) - 2 (R) 8 (RI 120 - I@)
37 (D) 11 (D) 12 (R) 63 (R) 16 (R) 30 (R) 97 (D) -2(R)
’ Difference between the number ofseatswon by party in the election year and the number won at the preceding Congressional Election. Source: Norman J. Ornstein, Thomas E. Mann, Michael J. Malbin, John F. Bibby, VilalS~utir~ics On Congress, 1982 (Washington, DC: AEI, 1982).
104
The US Elections of 1984
In terms of geography, Reagan swept all regions of the country. Table 3 shows that his strongest bastions lay in the mountain states, plus the New England tax haven of New Hampshire, the lower plains states and bible-belt Oklahoma. The President also ran particularly well in Florida, Texas and most of the South. It was evident that the Democrats had paid dearly for their neglect of that region. Aside from DC and 1Minnesota which he carried, Mondale’s best showings were in the traditional blue-collar, Democratic strongholds of the North-east. He also did relatively well in traditionally Republican states such as Iowa, Oregon and Washington, which were still suffering from recession in 1984, and in Maryland with its high proportion of Federal Government employees. In electoral college terms the election held some ominous signs for the Democrats. Table 4 demonstrates that in the five Presidential elections since 1964, when Lyndon Johnson won a landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, the Democrats have never once carried some 25 states with 202 electoral college votes. The table also shows that only in 1976, were the Democrats able to carry most of the southern states, which even as late as the 1950s had constituted the party’s electoral college base. Even such supposed Democratic strongholds as New York
and Pennsylvania dential elections.
have only twice
heen in the Democratic
TABLE
in the last five Presi-
3. Reagan’s vote by state and region 50-54%
up to 49%
West Virginia
Maryland
(DC)
Vermont
Rhode Island Massachusetts
65-69%
60-64%
55-59%
South:
Florida
S. Carolina Texas Virginia Mississippi N. Carolina Arkansas Louisiana Alabama Georgia
Tennessee
Border:
Oklahoma
Missouri Kentucky
New
New Hampshire
Connecticut Maine
Over 70%
England: MiddleAtlantic:
Delaware New Jersey
Midwest:
Indiana
Plains:
Nebraska
Kansas N. Dakota
S. Dakota
Mountain:
Utah Idaho Wyoming
Arizona Nevada
Colorado Montana New Mexico
Paci/ic Coast :
column
The states which the party has been able to carry three or more times since
Alaska
New York Pennsylvania Michigan Ohio Illinois Wisconsin Iowa
California Washington Hawaii Oregon
hlinnesota
Total electoral vote= 184 (34%)
Total electoral vote= 102 (19%) Total electoral vote= 37 (7%)
DC (3) Total electoral vote=3 (0.5%)
Total electoral vote= 10 (2%)
Minnesota
Maryland (IO) West Virginia (6) Massachusetts (13) Rhode Island (4) Hawaii (4)
Georgia (12) Texas (29) New York (36) Pennsylvania (25)
Afabama (9) Arkansas (6) Florida (2 1) Louisiana (10) Mississippi (7) N. Carolina (13) S. Carolina (8) Tennessee (11) Kentucky (9) Missouri (11) Connecticut (8) Maine (4) Delaware (3) Michigan (20) Ohio (23) Wisconsin (11) W~hington (10)
(10)
5
4
3
2
1
4. States carried by Democratic presidential candidates 1968-84
Figures in brackets show state’s etectorat college vote.
Total efectoraf vote= 202 (38%)
Virginia (12) Oklahoma (8) New Hampshire (4) Vermont (3) New Jersey (16) Illinois (24) Indiana (12) Iowa (8) Kansas (7) Nebraska (5) N. Dakota (3) S. Dakota (3) Arizona (7) Colorado (8) Idaho (4) Nevada (4) New Mexico (5) Utah (5) Wyoming (3) Alaska (3) California (47) Oregon (7)
Number of times carried: 0
TABLE
106
The
us Elections of I9884
1964, have been an odd assortment of liberal bastions, accounting for only 9.5 per cent of the electoral college vote. Reagan’s dominance is further liustrated when the result is looked at in terms of various social and economic categories. Table 5 shows some results from the New York Times1 CBS exit poll for 1980 and 1984, and sheds some interesting light on the returns. The celebrated ‘gender gap’ still existed in 1984, although it was far narrower than in 1980, and Reagan actually gained by 10 percentage points among women voters, thus the presence of Ferraro on the Democratic ticket seems to have had minimal impact. Among Blacks the Democrats had an overwhelming triumph as had been expected, but whites voted overwhelmingly for Reagan, and among southern whites the President won by 7 2 per cent to 28 per cent, a catastrophic result for Mondale. Among Hispanics the Democrats gained 6 per cent over 1980, although the Republicans held on to about a third of the Hispanic vote. Another impressive Democratic performance was among Jewish voters, who voted over 20 per cent more Democratic in 1984, despite the enmity aroused by Jackson’s candidacy for the nomination. This was probably due to Reagan’s close association with the Christian fundamentalist Right, during the 1984 campaign. In terms of other religious groups, Reagan won 55 per cent of Roman Catholic votes, and among white ‘born-again’ Christians he defeated Mondale 80 per cent to 20 per cent. In terms of so&o-economic categories, ABC’s polls had Mondale winning by only 52-48 among voters from union households despite AFL-CIO’s $17 million campaign on his behalf.5 Reagan won by a 7point margin among blue-collar workers as a whole. The President also carried every income bracket but the lowest; those earning under $12,500 per annum. Among those who said that their economic situation was better than in 1980 he again won overwhelmingly, while Mondale carried the smaller number who said that their financial situation was worse, thus demonstrating the importance of the 1983/4 recovery to Reagan’s re-election. In terms of age, Reagan again won in all categories, with his most spectacular improvement over 1980 occurring in the youngest age category, 18-29 year oid voters, who in 1980 had chosen him over Carter by 44-43, but in 1984 gave him 58 per cent of their votes. According to NBC’s polls Reagan won the votes of self-described ‘young professionals’ by 67 per cent to 32 per cent, and despite Reagan’s being the oldest incumbent President in US history, only 10 per cent of the electorate thought that his own age was a significant issue.6 Reagan also won 63 per cent among the over60s, despite Democratic efforts to arouse fears of a cutback in social security payments. Democratic hopes of reaping benefits from increased voter registration were utterly confounded, as the incumbent won 60 per cent of first time voters, and other polls found that those who registered in 1984 went 3:2 for Reagan.’ In terms of party, Reagan won 92 per cent of Republican votes and attracted 26 per cent of Democrats away from Mondale. He also won convincingly among Independents, and while those who had voted in the Democratic primaries for Mondale and Jackson stayed overwhelmingly Democratic in the autumn, 34 per cent of Hart’s supporters defected to Reagan. The extent of Reagan’s coat-tails were spectacular in some states and nonexistent in others. The overall effect was certainly far from dramatic enough to be characteristic of a realigning election. In North Carolina Reagan’s heavy vote undoubtedly assisted the victories of Jesse Helms, Republican gubernatorial candidate James Martin, and three Republican House challengers. In that state the GOP also doubled its representation in the state legislature. In Texas Reagan’s landslide helped Phil Gramm to hold the Senate seat for the Republicans and to bring four Republican House gains. In other states which Reagan won by large margins however, such as Oklahoma, Louisiana and New Jersey. the coat-tail effect was negligible, as can be seen by looking at Table 6 which compares Reagan’s
107
i’kOL C. ftAE TABLE 5. The Presidential result by various economic and social categories
%
of
%change
1984 Total Category
1980 Reagan Carter
1984 Reagan Mondale
1980-84 GOP DEM
47 53 86 10 3 25 4
Men Women Whites Blacks Hispanics Southern Whites Southern Blacks
55 47
36 45
61 57
55
36 85
66
43
:: 23 19
18-29 years old 30-44 years old 45-59 years old Over 60 years old
:; 89 44
:; 54
:: 41
46 51 55 52
51 43
63 ;; 63 44 55
31 42 45 33 47 35
42 44
51 46
:; 63
:; 26
47 51 :: 86 26 55 25 48 72
42 40 44 34 9 67 30 60 42 23
;;?
:: 70 46 18
;; 47 NA’ 39
32 41 46 NA 51
62 59 53 51 31
37 40 46 48 68
+5 +9 +6 -8
+5 -1 0 +17
-
-
96 3: 6
-
-
8 :: 29 51 26 3 15
Education: Less than high school High school graduate Some college College graduate White Protestant Roman Catholic Jewish White ‘Born-Again’
‘30 l70
Union househoid Non-union household
15 27 21 18 13
Income: Under %12,500 p.a. 0 12,500~$24,999 $25,000-$34,999 $35,000-$50,000 Over S 50,000
24 28 29 18 :: 26 17 44 35 30 13 14 :
15 11 3
Region East Midwest South west Republican Democrat Independent Liberal Moderate Conservative ProfessionaVManager White Collar Blue Collar Student Unemployed Democratic Primary Supporter: Mondale Hart
;; 61 9
::
+6 +10 +11 -2 0 +11 0 +15 +4 +5 +9
+I -3 -3 +5 +6 -7 0 -3 +6 0 -5
50 60 60 59
+4 +9 +5 +7
-2 -4 -3 +5
73 :: 80
+10 +6 -7 t17
-5 +2 +21 -13
48 64
+4 +9
+5 +1
+4 +13 +7 +8 +5
+2 -4 +1 0 +5
3: 72 9 58 58 60 63
37 42 ;“D 65 28 89 41 42 39 36
46 57 59 67 68
53 42 40
52 61 63 59
47
92 t; 29
::
:: 40 7
+5 -5 +10 -2 +11 -8 +6 +6 +6 -2 0 +6 +8 +5 +4 +10 +6 +4 +9 -5
The US Eiectionrof 1984
108 TABLE 5 (conbnued)
% of 1984
% change
Total Category
‘41 l40 19 8
l
Financial Situation: Better Same Worse First Time Voter
1980 Reagan Carter
1984 Reagan Xlondale
37 46 64
53 46 25
81 51 27
19 49 73
-
-
60
39
1980-84 GOP DEM
+44 +5 -37
-
-34 +3 +48
-
In 1984 * ABC/Washington Post and Los Angeles Times Exit Polls in, Nutional Journd, 10 November ’ Not available. Source: New York Times/CBS News Exit Poll, New York Times. 8 November 1984.
1984.
performances with those for Republicans lower down the ticket in states which had Senatorial elections in 1984. The results show some astonishing instances of ticket-splitting and although Ronald Reagan had won an outstanding personal victory over Walter Mondale in almost every state, region and social category, there was little evidence to suggest that his reelection had brought about any realignment of electoral forces beneath the Presidential level. In the Senate elections the Democrats made three gains. Albert Gore won Howard Baker’s Tennessee seat by a comfortable margin, Tom Harkin defeated Republican incumbent Roger Jepsen in Iowa (Jepsen was hindered by the farm-belt recession, and by revelations that despite his Moral Majority connections he had once been a member of a health spa, subsequently closed down for prostitution), and in Illinois, Charles Percy joined William Fuibright and Frank Church as Foreign Relations Committee Chairmen who lost their Senate seats. This had been a very tightly contested race, in which the Democratic winner Congressman Paul Simon, had united the warring factions of the state’s Democratic party behind his campaign, and had even attracted endorsements from New Right groups which were infuriated by Percy’s moderate Republicanism. The only other seat to change hands was in Kentucky, where Republican Mitch McConnell won a surprise victory over the incumbent Democrat Walter D. Huddleston, primarily due to the Reagan landslide. Most of the other Republican incumbents were re-elected fairly easily, including those who had earlier been thought to be vulnerable. Rudy Boschwitz won with 58 per cent in Minnesota, Gordon Humphery with 59 per cent in New Hampshire, and ‘Thad’ Cochran with 61 per cent in Mississippi. In Texas Phil Gramm (a former Boll Weevil Democrat who had switched to the Republican party) held John Tower’s seat for the Republicans with 59 per cent of the vote, against liberal Democratic State Senator Lloyd Doggett. The Democrats were also to be disappointed in North Carolina, where Jesse Helms-with more than a little help from Reagan and the conservative political network-won by 5 2 per cent to 48 per cent over Governor James Hunt. Most Democratic incumbents were reelected with overwhelming margins, even in stares such as Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Arkansas, which were solidly for Reagan in the Presidential race. The Democrats also held on to their two open seats in Massachusetts and West Virginia: the former being won by Lieutenant-Governor John Kerry, and the latter by incumbent Governor ‘Jay’ Rockefeller, a scion of the famous family. Some other aspects of the Senate races are worthy of note. Firstly: six of the 17 Democratic challengers and three of the 14 Republican challengers were female, although-only one woman candidate, Republican incumbent Nancy Landon
Nrcor
109
C. RAE
TABLE6. Ticket-splitting in 1984. Table shows Presidential, Senatorial, Gubernatorial, and House Results in states which had a US Senate election in 1984.
State Alabama Alaska Arkansas Colorado Delaware Georgia Idaho Illinois Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Massachusetts Minnesota Mississippi Montana Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico N. Carolina Oklahoma Oregon Rhode Island S. Carolina S. Dakota Tennessee Texas Virginia West Virginia Wyoming
Reagan’s % 60 67 :; 60 ;: 57 54 67 60 61 61 51 49 62 60 71 69 60 60 62 68 55 52 64 63 59 64 63 55 71
Republican Republican Net Republican % for Senate % for Governor House gain 37 71 42 64 40 20 ::I 44’ 77 502 03 74 45 58 61 41 47 ;; 72 :: 66 27 67 ::I 59 70 48 78
37 55 21 67 54 60 -
0 0 -1 +1 0 +1 -1 -1 +l 0 0 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 0 +3 0 0 0 0 0 0 +4 0 0 0
’ DemocraticGain. * RepublicanGain. 3 In Louisiana if a candidate wins over 50% in the open September primary election, the November election is uncontested.
Kassebaum of Kansas was elected. In terms of spending: the Helms-Hunt battle in North Carolina became the most expensive race in Senate history, with Hunt spending $7.7 million, and Helms %14 million. Jay Rockefeller in West Virginia spent $9.3 million of his personal fortune, and other big spenders included Gramm and Doggett in Texas, who spent $7.7 million and $4.4 million respectively. Of the top ten Senate spenders, seven won reelection and three were defeated.* Of the 29 incumbent Senators, 26 or 89.6 per cent were re-elected. This compares with a 93.3 per cent success rate in 1982, and indicates that the value of incumbency in Senate elections has increased once more after the higher than average turn-over in 1978-80.9 Although the Republicans were satisfied to hold the Senate in 1984, they will have an even tougher task in 1986 when 22 of the 34 Senate seats up for reelection are held by Republicans, many of them elected for the first time with Reagan in 1980.
110
The US Elections of 1984
The House results were something of a disappointment for the GOP and the Reagan administration. Despite a heavy commitment of resources and Reagan’s own popularity, his party could achieve only 14 gains in the House; far short of the number required for ‘ ideological control I, although the Democratic majority was reduced from 267-168 to 253-182. The pattern of Republican gains was patchy as Table 7 illustrates. Their best region was the South, although their gains here were concentrated in two states, North Carolina and Texas. Elsewhere the GOP picked up the odd seat here and there but there does not appear to be any clear pattern to the results. Many defeated Democratic incumbents such as Jack Hightower in Texas, IMark McNulty in Arizona, Donald Albosta in IMichigan, and Jerry Patterson in California, were defending districts which Reagan carried by vast margins. Four of the 13 defeated Democratic incumbents had first been elected in 1982, but none of these occurred outside the southern and mountain regions. The most prominent Democratic loser was probably 75 year old Maryland Congressman Clarence Long, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, and a powerful voice in US policy toward Central America. Republican George Hansen of Utah who had been convicted on charges of falsifying financial disclosure statements, lost by a handful of votes in his Idaho District, and a similar fate befell his Republican colleague Dan Crance of Illinois who had been censured for having sexual relations with a teenage page. Democratic Congressman Gerry Studds who was also censured in the pages affair, nevertheless managed to hold his 1Massachusetts district with 56 per cent of the vote. Estimates of the total national vote for Congressional Candidates gave Republicans and Democrats around 50 per cent. lo The Republicans won only 42 per cent of the seats due to the drawing of Congressional district boundaries by Democratic state legislatures in 1980-4, and the effects of incumbency in modern Congressional elections. In 1984 of 411 incumbents seeking re-election, 392 or 95.4 per cent were returned, but in the 27 ‘open
TABLE 7.
Republican
House
gains
by region
1984 Party Region’ South Border New England Middle-Atlantic Midwest Plains Mountain Pacific National
alignment D R
73 25
43 9
1984 D
45 11 7 37
35 17 24
1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0
253
182
4
14 41
:I?
13
gains R 8 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 18
Net Republican gain +7 +l +2 +2 -1 +1 i-1 +1 + 14
’ Regions: South-Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia. Border-Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, W. Virginia. New England-Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont. Middle-Atlantic-Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania. Midwest-Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin. Plains-Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, N. Dakota, S. Dakota. Mountain-Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming. Pacific-Alaska, California. Hawaii, Oregon, Washington.
Nrcor
C. RAE
111
seats’ vacated by retirements, deaths or primary defeats, the Republicans won 18 to the Democrats nine, making a net gain of four. Of the $50.7 million contributed by Political Action Committees (PACs) in 1984, 80 per cent went to incumbents, and 60 per cent to Democratic candidates. Even among corporate PACs, 45 per cent of their total contributions of $18.7 million went to Democratic candidates, mostly incumbentstt Thus the power of incumbency is not to be underestimated in contemporary American Congressional elections. In the 13 elections for state Governors, the Republicans made a net gain of one, leaving the Democrats with an overall total of 34 statehouses to the Republicans’ 15. Of the seven Governorships which they held prior to the elections, the GOP retained four. Incumbent Governors John Sununu of New Hampshire, and Robert Orr of Indiana were elected to a second term, and the Republicans held on to the Governorships vacated by the retirement of Kit Bond in Missouri and Pete DuPont in Delaware. They gained the Governorship of North Carolina, where Congressman James Martin was swept to a surprise victory on the basis of the Republican landslide in that state. In Rhode Island Ed DiPrete became the state’s first Republican Governor since 1968, and in West Virginia former Republican Governor Arch Moore was returned to the statehouse after an eight year absence. The Republicans also managed to break the Democratic grip on the Governorships of the mountain states, when Norman Bangerter won the Utah statehouse from the Democrats. Democratic incumbents in Arkansas and Montana withstood the Reagan landslide to win comfortably, and the party made gains in North Dakota and Washington where unpopular Republican incumbents were defeated. In Vermont they also took the statehouse, with Madeleine Kunin becoming the nation’s second woman Governor. (The other is also a DemocratMartha Layne Collins of Kentucky.) In the elections for state legislatures, the number of states in which the Democrats control both Chambers fell from 33 to 28. The Republicans won both Houses in Connecticut, and picked up one Chamber in Delaware, hlinnesota, Nevada and Ohio. Once again the GOP did well in North Carolina doubling their representation in the Senate from six seats to 12, and in the House from 18 to 37. In most other southern states however, Reagan’s landslide only brought in a handful of new Republican state legislators, and the Democrats remained the dominant party at the state level throughout the region. The results of the various state and local initiatives and referendums provide something of a barometer of national opinion on various issues. In 1984 one surprising result was the failure of various tax-cutting propositions in California, Michigan, and Louisiana, in a year when one of the champions of the ‘tax revolt’ was sweeping to victory for the Presidency. In California a Republican proposition to strip the Democratcontrolled state legislature of its redistricting powers was also defeated. The nuclear freeze appeared only on the South Dakota ballot where it was narrowly defeated, although 16 local communities voted to declare themselves ‘nuclear free zones’. In Maine the ERA was rejected, a ban on state financing for abortions was approved in Washington and defeated in Colorado. Thirty-six states now have such bans except in cases of danger to the mother’s life. There was, as usual, no clear ideological pattern in these results, and it would be difficult to maintain that a realignment in public opinion toward Republican doctrines had taken place, on this basis. Conclusion From the results it would be wrong to describe the 1984 US election as a realigning election. At the Presidential level, the inability of the Democratic party in recent times, to produce candidates with broad appeal who can also keep their fractious coalition together, has created
112
TI!e US Elections
o[ 1984
a distinct Republican advantage. Republican candidates have been better attuned to the national mood since 1968, and having established the West and South-at least when the Democratic candidate is not a southerner-as a base, they have an advantage in the electoral college which is very difficult for Democratic candidates to overcome. To the extent that the Democrats in recent Presidential elections have been confined to successes in a handful of declining north-eastern ‘rustbelt’ states and liberal enclaves, there has been a realignment at the Presidential level which began in the mid-1960s and of which 1984 was merely the most recent confirmation. This, however, has been a realignment in terms of style and ideology, rather than one in terms of party, as is shown in Table 8. While there has been a gradual increase in Republican identification since their nadir in the mid-1970s most Americans continued to identify with the Democratic party, and the number of Independents remained high after reaching a plateau in 1974-8. The New York Times/CBS exit poll in 1984 found that the gap between the two parties in terms of identification had closed to only three points among those voting in the Presidential election. Another ominous sign for the Democrats was that 40 per cent of voters in the 18-24 age group called themselves Republicans, to only 34 per cent for the Democrats.t2 However, the Republicans had made dramatic identification gains in some polls after the 1980 election, and these had been quickly eroded by the 1982 recession. Moreover, the lack of ideological rapport between the GOP and younger voters on ‘moral’ and foreign policy matters, makes one rather dubious as to whether they will establish a long-term commitment to that party. Beneath the Presidential level Democratic strength is still impressive. They stand an excellent chance of regaining control of the Senate in 1986, and in House elections, redistricting and incumbency have given them an even greater advantage than the Republicans enjoy in Presidential elections. In the state legislatures-which are primarily responsible for drawing electoral boundaries in most instances-they suffered only modest losses in 1984, and have established a dominance which appears to persist no matter how severely they are repudiated at the national level. Should Reagan have to adopt unpopular measures to deal with the deficit or crises overseas, and were the economy to relapse into
TABLE 8.
Party
Year 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1372 1976 1980 1982’ 1984?
’ Chicago National
identification
Democrat % 48 46 47 52 45 41 40 41 48 38
patterns Independent % 23 23 23 :: 35 37 28 24 26
1952-84 Republican % 28 31 30 25 25 23 23 32 ::
Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey 1983, in Na&nol JOUTMI, 29 October 1983. 2 CBS/New York Times Exit Poll, New York Times, 8 November 1984. So urce: University of Michigan Survey Research Center’s American National Election Studies (1952-80). in Nacionul Journal, 29 October 1983.
NICOL
c. ftAE
I13
recession during the second Reagan term, Democratic prospects at the Congressional and even Presidential levels, would probably be as good as they were in late 1982 and early 1983. Their main problem remains the complete inability of their Presidential nominating process to produce nominees with the ability to unite the party behind them. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Newsweek Special election issue, November/December 1984, p. 70. National Journal, 29 September 1984. The Economist, 3 November 1984. The Economist, 17 November 1984. National Joumai, 29 September 1984. Time, 19 November 1984. William Schneider, ‘Half A Realignment’, New Republic, 3 December 1984. Spending figures in US News G World Report, 19 November 1984. Norman J. Ornstein, Thomas E. Mann, Michaet J. Malbin, and John F. Bibby, Vi&z/ Statistic On Congress 1982 ~~hin~on, DC: AEI, 1982). p. 48. 10. The &onomist, 22 December 1984. 11. National Jourml, 10 November 1984. 12. International Herald Tribune, 12 November 1984.