Who Voted For Whom?

Midterm elections are unlike presidential elections for one important reason. Without a presidential candidate at the top of the ticket, voter turnout tends to be among the most committed voters in either party. Voter turnout on average is more than 13 percent lower in midterm elections than it is for presidential elections when comparing them between 1960 through 1998. Turnout in midterm elections often goes up when there is anger among the electorate as there was in 1994 with Democrats. In 1998, voter turnout was approximately 36.1 percent down from 38.8 percent in the previous midterm election.[21]

Republicans try to mobilize their base of support among white males, high wage earners and those of Protestant religious affiliation. Republicans mobilize their voters through phone banks, television advertising and direct mail. The Republican party's efforts are usually augmented by the Christian Coalition whose 45 million voter guides, handed out at thousands of churches on the weekend before the election, do not endorse specific candidates but provide a checklist of where candidates stand on issues that are important to religious conservatives. The guides have been particularly effective in the South and in the upper Midwest "Bible Belts."[22]

Democrats try to mobilize women, racial minorities, union workers, lower income wage earners and religious minorities. In particular, Democrats have relied on get-out-the-vote operations by traditional supporters such as organized labor. The AFL-CIO, the largest labor union in the United States, has worked actively to elect Democrats, for the most part, over the last 60 years. This was due to the alliance labor built with the Democrats during the 1930s in the Great Depression which provided government jobs for the unemployed. In 1996, labor launched the largest media campaign in its history to influence voter choice in the election to turn control of the Congress back to the Democrats. Their efforts were largely unsuccessful. In 1998, labor took its resources out of large media buys and put them back into get-out-the-vote operations.

Meanwhile, the national Democratic party targeted Affican-Arnericans to turnout in large numbers at the polls. African-Americans vote on average between 80-90 percent Democratic on election day and this year there was a concerted effort to get Black church ministers to urge their congregations to get-out-the-vote. In 1994, African-Americans represented only 9 percent of those who voted. In 1998, they represented 10 percent of the voting populace. This one percentage point difference may have been the most crucial factor shaping the election in several key states and congressional districts across the country. African-Americans voted 88 percent for House Democrats in this year's election.[23]

Table 2 breaks down the electorate's voting pattern in the 1998 midterm election. The table shows that women, minorities and those from union households voted strongly Democratic in House races. While males, whites and non-union households voted strongly Republican. The largest swing group in the election were voters who called themselves moderates. Moderates constituted approximately half the electorate and voted for Democrats by a 54-43 percent margin. This helped to offset the Republican advantage among those voters who called themselves conservatives. The result was that the total popular vote between Democrats and Republicans was very close for the second consecutive election when tabulating the results of all 435 House races.

What impact did the Clinton/Lewinsky matter have on the election? As stated earlier, only 5 percent of voters stated that the Clinton/Lewinsky matter was the most important issue in the election. But that does not mean that the investigation was unimportant to voters. Sixty-two percent of voters disapproved of the way Republicans in Congress were handling the Clinton/Lewinsky matter. Sixty-three percent stated that Bill Clinton should not be impeached, 56 percent stated that he should not resign from office and 58 percent said the matter should be dropped entirely. Voters who responded negatively to these impeachment issues voted strongly for Democrats indicating that their votes were influenced, in part, by the scandal.[24]

The Clinton/Lewinsky matter did not work entirely in favor of the Democrats. Bill Clinton was viewed unfavorably as a person by 61 percent of voters. These voters overwhelmingly voted Republican in the election. Furthermore, nearly two-thirds of the voters believed that the Clinton/Lewinsky matter had damaged the President's ability to lead the country. However, that did not translate into defeats for the Democrats.[25]

Senate Races

Going into the final weekend the election polls showed that Senate races in eight states--California, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin--were nearly even. Six of those seats were held by Democrats and two by Republicans. One-third of the Senate was up for election in the Senate in 1998. If the Democrats could not hold their own in close races, in the eight states listed above, then Republicans were poised to increase their majority in the Senate. At the time of the election, Republicans controlled 55 Senate seats and Democrats 45 Senate seats.

As the election neared, most political pundits believed that Republicans would be able to increase their majority in the Senate by one-to- three seats based on how many of the closely contested seats were being held by Democrats. Much attention was paid to the fact that the Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial (Campaign) Committee, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, had targeted large sums of his party donations into the eight close races to help elect Republicans. However, reports from the Federal Election Commission showed that through October 14, 1998, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had actually put more money into the California, Illinois, Kentucky, New York and North Carolina races. This helped to offset the fundraising advantage that Republican candidates had in all of these states except for California. Therefore, Democrats were able to neutralize the flandraising advantage of Republicans' in key states and compete effectively in all the competitive races on election day.[26]

The election map on the following page breaks down the outcome of Senate races. Neither party gained seats on election day. Democrats won six of the eight close races. Large voter turnouts of African-Americans in states such as New York and North Carolina were decisive in Democrats defeating Republican incumbents. The turnout was crucial in North Carolina where the challenger, trial lawyer, John Edwards won a slim victory over incumbent Lauch Faircloth.[27]

The most interesting race for the Senate was in New York. The incumbent Senator, Republican Alphonse D'Amato bragged about bringing projects to the state and took pride in being called "Senator Pothole." His challenger was a nine-term Democratic Congressman from Brooklyn, Charles Schumer, who was one of the leading gun control advocates in the House of Representatives. Both candidates had aggressive personalities and there was deep animosity between them. For example, Schumer's campaign slogan was "too many lies for too long." On the other hand, D'Amato called Schumer a "Putzhead" which some interpreted as an ethnic slur. During one debate on local television in New York, both candidates were so out of control that the moderator pleaded: "Gentleman, gentleman this is getting out of hand .... as the presiding officer, I am in charge here, temporarily." But the election did have a passion that was reminiscent of political contests of the last century; and, it was a very high profile election where political celebrities came to campaign. The President, the First Lady and the Vice-President made numerous visits to campaign and raise money for Congressman Schumer. Senator D'Amato had New York State's popular Governor, George Pataki, New York City Mayor Rudolph Guiliani and former Mayor, Ed Koch campaign for him. Going into the election, the polls showed the race even with Schumer leading in New York City and D'Amato leading in the suburbs and in upstate sections of New York. On election day, Schumer's margin of victory in New York City was much larger than expected which enabled him to prevail with a comfortable victory. New York's negative Senate campaign which some had predicted would have a major impact on reducing voter turnout was not as severe as had been forecasted.[28]

Going into the fall election campaign, Republicans were defending 228 seats to 206 for the Democrats and I Independent. When the President's videotape testimony was released on public airwaves, there was a strong possibility of impeachment and removal from office. House Democrats were criticizing the President and waited to see how voters would react. At least one Democrat, Congressman Paul McHale of Pennsylvania called for his resignation. In this vacuum of support, there were predictions that Republicans might add 30 seats to their majority in the House making it easier to push through a policy agenda of lower taxes and smaller government. However, the projected gains were scaled back with increasing frequency as the election approached which showed that most incumbents were running safely and that "open" seats, where there was no incumbent running, were not breaking in the Republican Party's favor as had been expected.

At a time when most candidates had run away from commenting on the Clinton/Lewinskymatter, the National Republican Congressional (Campaign) Committee launched its $ 10 million blitz of anti-Clinton ads, primarily in the South, against vulnerable Democratic House incumbents such as Sanford Bishop of Georgia and John Spratt of South Carolina in the waning days of the campaign. The idea was to gin up voter turnout among those who thought Clinton had lied and should be impeached. These potential voters could help Republicans win House seats. In the end, the ads may have backfired because turnout among Blacks was way up in many Southern states where the ads were shown, but there is no evidence that turnout increased among those who disapproved of the President. Furthermore, the controversial commercials were played frequently on the national news over the weekend before the election. One of the ads said "Reward Bill Clinton?" Unfortunately for Republicans, the answer in many cases was "yes." The ads which were approved by Speaker Newt Gingrich may have ultimately contributed to his downfall.[29]

In the end, Republicans lost five seats in the House, reducing their governing majority to 223 seats, compared to 211 for the Democrats and I Independent. Among voters on election day, 41 percent had a favorable impression of Congress and 55 percent had a negative impression of Congress. Congress' approval rating had declined up to ten points in most polls from a month earlier, which was probably due to the negative perception of how Republicans were handing the impeachment process. Republicans still maintained their majority in the House; but their narrow margin of control would make it more difficult to promote a conservative policy agenda.[30]

Gubernatorial Races

Republicans fared much better in gubernatorial races. Republicans were elected or reelected to governorships in seven of the eight largest states in the country. It also meant that Republican governors would have enormous control over redistricting in the year 2000, when congressional districts are redrawn. Their ability to sign or veto redistricting legislation would give them a significant advantage in adding new seats to the Republic-an majority in Congress after the millennium.

Republicans did well because they proved to be pragmatic managers and quite popularamong their electorates. The victory margins of Republican incumbents were staggering in four highly populated and politically powerful states: John Engler of Michigan won by 24 percent; George Pataki of New York won by 21 percent; Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania won by 26 percent; and, George Bush, Jr. of Texas won by 38 percent.., With the exception of Texas, Bill Clinton had won the other three states in both 1992 and 1996.

The emergence of the Bush brothers in the South was another major story of the campaign year. Not only did George Bush, Jr. win reelection but his brother, Jeb was elected Governor of the nation's fourth largest state, Florida by a comfortable margin. George Bush, Jr. hoped to become the first son since John Quincy Adams in 1824, to follow in his father's footsteps and be elected President. Texas and Florida together command 57 electoral votes together, or approximately one-fifth of the electoral votes needed to be elected President. If George Bush, Jr. runs, brother Jeb is expected to put his campaign machinery behind him.

Democrats made gains in the South where they had been struggling in recent years. States such as South Carolina and Alabama switched from Republican to Democrat; and, Georgia remained in control of the Democrats giving them at least a foothold in the South. An exceptional turnout of Blacks enabled moderate Democrats to beat more ideological rivals in these states. These results demonstrate, once again, that 1998 was the year where politically pragmatic candidates won an exceptionally large number of gubernatorial races.

The largest prize on election day went to the Democrats. Lieutenant Governor, Gray Davis, a Democrat, was elected by a margin of 1. 5 million votes over his challenger Republican Attorney General, Dan Lungren. California has 54 electoral votes, exactly one-fifth the number needed to get elected president. Over the last fifteen years, the surge of immigration into the state of Hispanics and Asians has made California one of the most ethnically diverse states. Democrats have appealed strongly to such constituencies by opposing strict immigration reform and changes in affirmative action policy, As a result, the state has been trending towards them since 1992. Davis' landslide victory is highly significant because redistricting in California might add 6-9 seats for Democrats in Congress.  

Before the election, Republicans controlled 32 governorships, the Democrats 17 and there was I Independent governor in Maine. After the election, Republicans still controlled 31 governorships, the Democrats 17 and there were 2 Independents elected governor--the second one in Minnesota.

The election of Jesse "The Body" Ventura as Governor of Minnesota was the most improbable story of the election year. Minnesota is a state famed for producing a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and two Vice-Presidents of the United States over the last thirty-five years. Political parties have always been strong in the state which has given voters many fine public servants. The Republican candidate, Norm Coleman was the highly regarded Mayor of the state capital, St. Paul. The Democratic nominee, Attorney General, Hubert "Skip" Humphrey III had recently negotiated a $6 billion settlement with the tobacco companies that was well-received in the state.

Ventura was a hulking girth of a man who had been a professional wrestling star for a decade and then a television wrestling commentator for the World Wrestling Federation. Later, he had been the Mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis.

Ventura's appeal was his ability to be both witty and direct with voters. He particularly appealed to young voters drawing enormous crowds on college campuses. As a celebrity, he would make self-deprecating jokes about his career as a wrestler. One popular plank of his campaign was to promise a $1,000 tax cut for voters if, and when, he got elected. Finally, as the Reform Party candidate in Minnesota, which had no party infrastructure, he was free to appeal to voters on his own as a social and economic libertarian-- supporting abortion terms running a rights, drug legalization (although he backed off that one), lower taxes and less government. His supporters called themselves "The Bod Squad" as they campaigned with him throughout the state. Perhaps, most importantly, the party nominees were limited to spending $2.1 million apiece by the state's campaign spending law. Even though Ventura raised only $400,000, his message was not obscured in a blizzard of commercials by the opposition. Ventura won with 37 percent of the vote drawing the largest group of support among white men under the age of 30 who felt dissatisfied with the status quo. Minnesota is the first instance where Gen-X voters made the difference in the outcome of a major election.[31]