California Capitol Week  Election follow-up

11/10/00

((Jack))

This week . . . history in the making The closest election ever . . .   results hang in the balance while one state recounts its votes.  How could the outcome impact Governor Davis’s political career?

((Melissa))

And there were tight races all the way down the ticket.  Republicans retain control of Congress. Plus, California initiatives…  …Will one change the war on drugs?  And another signal the end of the road for vouchers . .

((Melissa))  Hello, I’m Melissa Crowley

(( Jack)) and I’m Jack Kavanagh.  How will the 2000 election impact your life?  That’s next. Thank you for joining us. Too close to call . . .  down to the wire . . . a real nail-biter . . . However you want to call it, this election was the most exciting, and, perhaps, most expensive presidential race in history. We are taping this show on Thursday and still waiting to hear who is going to be the 43^rd President of the United States.  The newspapers have had fun with this, haven’t they?

((Melissa)) Oh gosh, this is one of the early headlines.  A lot of the newspapers had to do not one, not two, but three editions.  As we go across the country, “US History on Hold,” “Bush, Gore in Cliffhanger as the First Lady Wins in New York.”  Everyone knew that one at least early on, and one thing that most everybody does know, most voters and Americans now know about the electoral college, so when it’s all said and done, at least we accomplished that this time.

((Jack)) Even after the re-count, there are still thousands of absentee ballots from overseas that need to be counted and a potential legal challenge over the outcome and some disputed votes.

(Mel) Now joining us help us sort this all out: 

Dan Schnur, republican political consultant and former national communications director for John McCain.

Susan Rasky, Journalism professor from U-C Berkeley.

And former California Journal Political editor Carroll Willis, whom you may remember from his penname and appearances on our show as Steve Scott.

((Jack)) Dan, first question to you.  What do we throw out first?  Exit polls before polls close on election night on broadcast networks?  That’s option A, or, B, the entire electoral college.  Prioritize.  What do we want to get rid of first?

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) Well, the first thing I threw out, of course, were my notes for this show because when I was asked to be on the program the Thursday after election, I came prepared to talk about who was going to be the Secretary of Agriculture and Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.  Now, we’ve got to settle for this silly election.  I would, given the choice of the two, were it legally possible, I would throw out exit polls because there is no reason for us to know at six p.m. as opposed to 10 p.m. when those elections are called.  As far as the electoral college, in fact, I think it is a good thing, and I don’t think you’re going to see a public uproar against it.  Obviously, the founding fathers developed the Electoral College for a much different age with a much more difficult form of mass communication, but I think even in this era of modern technology, it still performs a useful function because if you did an election based solely on the popular vote, the candidates would only visit the large cities.  All the candidates are doing is going to New York, LA, and Chicago.  The rest of the country doesn’t get a chance to have it’s voice heard.

((Melissa)) Susan, now we know about all the competitive pressures that the newspapers and broadcast industries face, do you agree with throwing out the exit polls as Dan suggested?

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) Nope.  I agree with him on the Electoral College.  I absolutely disagree on the exit polls.  I think we are in the business—and I guess I’m here to defend it—of making news as it happens, of relaying it as it happens, and I looked at those networks and thought, “Ain’t it wonderful.  Ain’t it grand that I can see it here happening, watching it getting made.”  I thought it was terrific.

((Jack)) Carroll, Susan makes a very good point, but that’s when the system works.  It didn’t work this time.

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) Well, yeah.  I’m going to sound like a real wimp here, but I think there’s a middle ground here.  Exit polling on election night, particularly about the characteristics of the electorate is valuable, it’s interesting, it helps us understand what’s on the mind of the voters as the election is preceding.  The problem is, A, the release of projections and exit polling information that projects the outcome before the polls have closed in the entire country, and the other problem is the inability of the technicians and the people that the networks hire to make these analyses to resist the urge to be four-tenths of a second ahead of the other guy.  That creates the circumstances where you have this humiliating spectacle of the projections in Florida going back and forth.  They’re so intent upon making a call that they make fools of themselves whereas, you go back to 1960, Huntley/Brinkley said “We don’t know.”  “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer.

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) But the election, as close as we now know this one is—at this moment in time, the candidates are separated by less than eight hundred votes—it’s seems to me that you could have called that exit poll either way and been perfectly right.  What’s wrong with that?

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) But I think Carroll or Steve or whatever you call yourself these days, is absolutely right.  The valuable information after the fact is knowing how people voted by demographic and why people voted the way they did.  Why did women vote the way they did?  Why did seniors vote the way they did?  Why did Asian Americans vote the way they did?  But calling an election while it’s still going on, to me is like ESPN saying, “The Raiders are beating the Chiefs in the third quarter, therefore we project they’re going to win the Superbowl.”  I mean, who need’s it?

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) We had the idiotic spectacle of having Florida called the wrong way before they had even closed all the polls in Florida.  They called Florida before the Panhandle—

((Melissa)) Okay, why was this race, as Jack was saying, why was this race so close?  We have a great economy, lots of prosperity.  Why did it come down to the wire now as we look at just a thousand votes separating the two candidates?  Dan, your thoughts on that.

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) My first Presidential campaign was working for an incumbent Vice President, George Bush Senior—or as we now call him, Bush Classic—running against  the Governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis—

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) Who the Democrats call “Bush Lite.”

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) Running in an age of peace and prosperity—

((Jack)) In that race with Perot?

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) No, not in 1988, and what Bush did is we ran on the Reagan coattails are hard as we possibly could.  We said, “If you liked two terms of Ronald Reagan, we’re going to give you thirds,” and Al Gore, at least in my opinion, made a very great mistake.  He and the people around him decided, correctly, that there are two Clintons: the good policy Clinton who everybody likes and the bad personal Clinton who everybody hates, and they were so scared of the bad Clinton, they locked him in the White House basement, and I think it cost them the election.

((Jack)) All right, let’s throw Ralph Nader into this mix, because Ralph Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida.  Al Gore would be President of the United States if that had not happened.  What is the Ralph Nader phenomenon, and does it relate to the John McCain phenomenon and all the other phenomena we’ve seen out there?

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) I don’t think the Ralph Nader phenomenon relates as much to the John McCain phenomenon as much as it relates to the Pat Buchanan phenomenon and the Pat Robertson phenomenon and the Ross Perot phenomena.  This is what happens in American politics.  When one party holds the White House for a significant period of time, it does so by moving to the political center.  The people on the extreme left and the extreme right get antsy, and so twelve years of Reagan/Bush led to Pat Buchanan.  Eight years of Clinton/Gore made the liberals in the Democratic party just as antsy.  It led to Ralph Nader.

((Jack)) Is that a natural vacuum of forums on politics on the state level as well as on the national level?

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) A lot less so it seems to me.  I think one of the problems—

((Jack)) The reason I bring that up is Sebastopol now has a Green Party majority.  We saw a Green party member in the Assembly.

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) For about five minutes.  I mean, I think that’s the problem that the Green Party has, and they need to face up to that.  It's one thing to run a celebrity frontrunner; it’s another thing to build a real party by running for local elections, fielding candidates in local races, and working to win.  You don’t start it from the top.  You start it from the bottom.

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) And if you look at the result for Ralph Nader, you’ve had a rather significant group of people who, when they got into the voting booth, said, “Look, I just can’t hand over the Supreme Court to George Bush,” and so Nader’s vote total pulled down.  The problem with Florida is not—I mean, 97,000 votes for Ralph Nader in Florida is not that big a deal.  It’s like two percent.  The problem is, it was a crucial two percent.  Dan is right in how the extremes get antsy in the situation where the party itself plays to the middle, but also I think in Ralph Nader’s situation, you have a case where it’s someone who is very well known to the public.  It’s an easy place to take your protest vote because you know who Ralph Nader is.  It’s much more difficult to pull the level for—

((Jack)) Let me throw in McCain because McCain also attracted a lot of people at the beginning of the race.  As we got toward the end, he was able to transfer those voters over to George Bush.  We didn’t see that with Bill Bradley, we didn’t see that with Ralph Nader on the Democratic side.  Is it more mean spirited on the Democratic side?

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) Well, I think part of the reason that McCain was so successful at transferring his votes over to George Bush is that McCain voters were looking for someone other than George W. Bush to place their antagonism against Bill Clinton.  I mean, they were upset certainly about the campaign finance reform issue was a factor, but they knew they weren’t going to vote for Al Gore because he was Clinton Two to them, but they couldn’t necessarily support George W. Bush.  When McCain was out of the picture, they were naturally going to go back to George W. Bush.

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) The other reason is that the difference, the true difference between Bradley and Gore was about that much when you looked at them closely, and I think voters understood that.

((Melissa)) Let’s look at it in California and how it may impact voters in our state.  A lot of folks are already talking about Governor Gray Davis, if Gore does lose this race, as one of the top contenders.  He did deliver California for Gore.  What do you think about his chances, and, also, as we look ahead, some folks are saying that Senator elect Hillary Clinton may also be a possible pick after she serves out her Senate term, Dan?

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) And now that the polls have been closed for thirty-six hours, I think it’s worth beginning to talk about the 2004 election (Pauses for laughter), but as it stands right now, if Bush’s lead does hold on, I think you’re looking at Gray Davis versus Hillary Clinton in Manchester.  Get ready for it.

((Jack)) Dan, in that environment, obviously Hillary Clinton has a little brighter star on the national stage than Gray Davis does.  California is a very important place in the country, but it doesn’t get a lot of visibility, especially on the east coast.

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) But Davis will have an advantage that my former boss Governor Wilson did not have when we ran for President, money, but more important than that is that Davis’ ideological basis in the party will be in the ascendancy.  If the Democrats lose the White House, Hillary Clinton will be a very vocal voice for the party, but for the center, with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman, there’s really not a natural other leader for them to follow besides Davis.

((Jack)) Carroll, do we want to jump to that conclusion, though?  Could Gray Davis simply walk away from this?

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) I don’t think he’s capable of it.

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) Our organization is a strong supporter of Governor Gray Davis.  I say that up front.

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) The Manchester Holiday Inn, you’ll love it.

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) The problem that Governor Davis has as far as Presidential ambitions are concerned are the same ones that any governor has in looking ahead, and that is, you’ve got to take care of the home fires first.  Gray Davis, to the extent that he is seen looking to far ahead of his 2002 election, he runs the risk of looking too ambitious, and he probably doesn’t damage his ability to get reelected in California, but certainly he makes it more tempting for members of the legislature to play against him—

((Melissa)) Susan, certainly he has the war chest for it if he decides to—

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) He does, but we who write about Gray Davis call it “ambition that ov’rleaps itself.”  I think there’s a real danger of getting him too far out ahead and then what happens if the California economy heads south over the next year or so?  You know, I think—

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) You don’t even have to go there.  What about electricity deregulation?

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) I was going to say that, and then the big time bomb.

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) And that’s the point because as uncomfortable as it is for me to say nice things about Gray Davis, I will in this respect.  He is extraordinarily cautious, and he’s extraordinarily politically savvy.  If you noticed recently, he cancelled his trip to the Pacific Rim to stay here and do what?  To stay here and deal with the state’s energy problems.  He understands that that is his potential Achilles’ Heel heading into his reelection cycle, and he is smart enough to know that if it appears that he has put a lot of attention and time into the problem, that will greatly protect his reelection bid.

((Jack)) Before we move down ticket, just so I have it clarified in my mind, are you saying that should Gore not be elected President and Bush is elected President, then when it comes to the next Presidential race, the front runners are going to be Hillary Clinton and Gray Davis and not Al Gore?

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) Among them, among them.

((Jack)) I’m saying, is he damaged goods in four years?

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) Who?  Gore?  I don’t think so personally, especially if he comes out on top in the popular vote and ultimately loses in the electoral college.  He won’t be considered a quote-on-quote “loser” in the same way that a Michael Dukakis or a Walter Mondale have been in the past.  If the Congress and President remained gridlocked as many people anticipate that they will over the course of the next four years, and if the economy goes south, Gore will have had enough time to do as Richard Nixon did and rehabilitate his image, and—

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) It also depends on if he does what Richard Nixon did in 1960, which is to stand by like a statesman and say, “Okay, this is close, but the voters.  I’m not going to—“

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) Here’s my prediction: by Monday, Gary South is on a plane to Little Rock going through Whitewater real estate records.

((Melissa)) On that note, why don’t we touch on the Congressional races and see if there were any surprises.  You spoke about deregulation.  Many folks felt that played a role in the Susan Davis/Brian Bilbray race.  Anything catch your eye?  Anything surprise you?

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) Well, it’s interesting.  For a long time, Steve—in his former life—

((Melissa)) Steve-slash-Carroll

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) Yes, he used to talk about Bilbray becoming sort of the George Brown on the other side.  You know, for years Republicans tried to knock off Congressman George Brown and simply couldn’t.  He seemed to get stronger and stronger.  The same seemed to be true of Brian Bilbray in San Diego, and I think up until the last minute, there were people who thought that he would pull it out, that their views were the same, that he couldn’t really criticize Susan Davis—

((Melissa)) There was a lot of money thrown into these races as well.  You know, the Mike Honda race, for example.  Some pretty high levels encouraged him to run, Clinton actually.

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) Well, what I think you’ve seen in California that you haven’t seen in other high profile high cost Congressional races is the strength, not just of the Democratic party in California, but also the strength of what a journalist might refer to as the Democratic machine.  Basically, you have extremely well organized, extremely disciplined, extremely experienced campaign operations on the Democratic legislative side, both on the state senate and in the state assembly.  These organizations know what to do to get out the vote.  In situations like the Bilbray seat where you did have an overlay with some legislative races—the Dee-Dee Albert Senate Race, in the Glendale area where Jim Rogan lost and you had overlay with the state Senate race—in these clustered areas, the Democrats are extremely talented at pooling their resources and getting people to the polls.  The point I make to people is that, despite twelve million dollars of Republican money on behalf of George Bush and zero dollars on behalf of Al Gore, Bush improved on Bob Dole’s 1996 performance by a whopping 0.6%.  The Democrats just know how to do it in this state.

((Jack)) All right, real quickly, this Democratic wave that swept through California this past election, when you look at the Machado seat, it’s very, very tight.  In fact, we’re not sure which way it’s going to go.  Why didn’t it stick there if it stuck on the rest of the state?

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) This is what’s happened in California, and it’s a reflection on what’s happening nationally.  The coasts are very, very Democratic and everything in between is very, very Republican.  The further you get from the Pacific Ocean, the more conservative California gets, and this Machado seat is just far enough east to make it a swing seat between Republicans and Democrats.

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) Also, demographically there are a lot of things happening in the Machado seat.  You have conservative people fleeing the Bay Area, moving over into Tracy, you have a generally conservative cast to that district, and you had just a real nasty race (Pulls out a hummock of political mailers).  I mean, I happen to live in that seat, and this is what I got, and there’s some tough stuff in here, particularly aimed at Mike Machado, and you really have a situation where here’s a guy who was so popular in his district that somebody else named Machado actually tried to run on his name recognition and now he’s hanging on by his fingernails.

((Melissa)) Now, we look at the Bay Area, and a lot of money was pumped into some campaigns, including some educational campaigns.  Prop 39 passed, which lowers the bond threshhold.  We are also looking at what some are calling the end of the voucher initiative that failed in California and in Michigan.  Do you think that that might spell the end for vouchers?

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) Absolutely not, absolutely not.  I think it’s a huge mistake if anyone tries to read it as such.  The situation in Michigan was complicated by an internal political war in the Republican party, and the situation here was complicated by a badly written initiative that I think may have done the voucher people and Tom Draper—Tim Draper, sorry, a lot of—

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) But, in fact, a lot Republicans and a lot of Conservatives and a lot of voucher proponents came out against the initiative because they felt it was too widely based.  Most voucher proponents believe that a voucher program such as the one Jeb Bush runs in Florida, which targets the poorest children at the worst performing schools, is a much better way to go.  Because the Draper initiative was so wide, it ended up developing a lot of opposition that would have supported something a little less—

((Melissa)) It might be something that is rewritten?

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) No, I disagree.  The problem that you have is that every time you run one of these ballot drills, you create a situation where the word “voucher” becomes an epithet, it becomes a pejorative, and every time you run something like this and it loses the way that it does, that word suddenly becomes a buzzword a catch word, and the connection people have in their minds—while they may actually want that type of reform—but the minute you say vouchers, you know, it’s—

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) And that’s why more measured people talk about school choice, but the most important thing that happened in the initiatives this year was not vouchers, was not drugs.  No, in my opinion it was Prop 39.  Not because of what it accomplished in terms of school bonds, but the passage of Prop 39 because of the tremendous support from Silicon Valley, mark my words guys, this marks the beginning of a huge, huge—

((Jack)) Of the ringing of the bell of Prop 13?

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) Well, not just the ringing of Prop 13, but you’re going to see Silicon Valley, so enchanted with it’s ability to pass this initiative, instead of getting involved with messy, legislative processes, you’re going to see these guys going to the ballot again and again and again to get what they want.

((Jack)) Let me ask you about Prop 36.  We have seen Prop 215, which was the medical marijuana initiative, go through, and now this has come along.  It’s probably going to upset the way that California has been doing the drug business for a long time.  Where did that come from?

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) I think that is, more than anything, an expression of [the feeling] that we have been going the wrong direction.  We have been spending too much on prisons.  We have a mandatory sentence—

((Jack)) Is it drug war fatigue?

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) It’s drug war fatigue.  It’s mandatory sentencing fatigue.  It’s a cry to reassert some common sense, to give judges discretion that’s been taken away from them by the mandatory sentencing.  It’s not just about drugs.  It’s a whole constellation of law enforcement issues.

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) Most Californians want violent criminals in prison.  That’s why they voted for “Three Strikes” for example, but I think that many people understand that a non-violent drug offender ought to have the option of treatment.  What’s interesting about Prop 36 is that for years and years and years and years, the initiative process has been how conservatives get policy made in California.  Prop 13, Prop 187, bilingual education.  Now the liberals have figured out, “Hey, we can play this game too,” and it’s not only in California—

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) Well, yeah, exactly.  I was going to say, not only are they capable of making the same mistakes that conservatives have in things like the case of the voucher initiative, which is that they tend to overreach.  This is something that was cast in basic, common sense terms.  The economy is good enough that voters have the luxury of thinking more long term on issues like the drug war, and it was a product of the more relaxed atmosphere that allows you to take a more measured look at things and say, “If it’s not working, let’s try doing it this way.”

((Melissa)) All right, we are in our final moments, unfortunately, and as we’re still hanging in the balance to find out the historic outcome of this election, we’d like to sort of pick your brains about your most memorable moments from Election 2000.

((Susan Rasky, Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley)) Well, I have to say that there are two.  I couldn’t narrow it down to one.  The first was a speech that George W. Bush gave way before the primary season in North Carolina, and I was watching it on Road to the White House and looking at him and saying, “Hmm, the seeds of Ronald Reagan are here.  This is new language for the Republican party, compassionate conservatism with a face and a language that people could understand.  This guy is going somewhere.”  The second was the debate in Harlem between Bill Bradley and Al Gore, which of all the debates was the most fantastic.  It was two politicians on the top of their game, pandering shamelessly to the audience, and the audience loved every minute.

((Jack)) Dan, your most memorable moment?

((Dan Schnur, Republican Political Consultant)) Mine unsurprisingly was any number of experiences on the McCain campaign, but two stand out in particular.  One was trying to get through a crowd in Manchester, New Hampshire with him, watching people treat a 63 year old man talking about campaign finance reform like the second coming of Elvis Presley and realizing that people really are unhappy with the way campaigns are run in this country, and the second, a much quieter moment, was being in a bookstore with him in Marin County and after speaking about his autobiography, Faith of my Fathers, watching veterans come up to John McCain with copies of his book, with pictures of them from Vietnam, from World War Two with tears in their eyes, and, for me, it was a very moving experience.

((Jack)) Carroll, how about you?

((Carroll Wills, Democratic Political Consultant)) Well, unfortunately, I don’t have something quite so lyrical.  Maybe not favorite moment, but certainly the most distinctive moment for me was the first radio debate I had to participate in as an advocate rather than as a wiseacre journalist.  Actually, it happened to be on proposition 34, the campaign finance reform initiative, and I went in thinking, “Well, this is no big deal.  I’ve done radio a lot,” and, boy, by the time I had to actually get on there and watch what I was saying and measure every word, my heart was pounding.

((Jack)) Carroll, Dan, Susan, thank you very, very much. 

We would like your thoughts:

Should the popular vote decide the presidential race, or do you support the electoral college system? Send us your feedback to capitolweek dot o-r-g, or drop us a letter to the address on your screen. That is our program for this week, I’m Jack Kavanagh.

((Melissa)) And I’m Melissa Crowley. Next week, electricity rates keep climbing.  What will it take to keep them under control? Thanks for joining us,  We’ll see you next time.