Charles E. Cook Jr.

Election Season Heats Up

A lthough it is easy to come up with more interesting presidential

candidates than Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W.
Bush, it would be hard to come up with two who are more evenly balanced.
The primary campaigns helped to even the playing field, bringing the two
candidates to approximately the same level.
Earlier in the campaign, Bush was Paul Bunyon, towering over Gore in
expectations and polling. But Bush’s bruising primary battle with Senator
John McCain showed that Bush is not nearly as formidable a candidate as he
once appeared. Gore started this race with serious problems with his cam-
paign structure and his personal style. But his strong showing against former
Senator Bill Bradley helped to improve his. The implications of a tight presi-
dential contest on down-ballot contests are clear; there will be minimal, if
any, coattails from the presidential race. The House, Senate, and gubernato-
rial races will largely be fought on their own terms. Most specifically, if Re-
publicans are to hold on to their majority in the U.S. House, they will have
to do it on their own. The presidential nominee is not likely to help much.
In the two-way matchups in the eight major national polls released since
Bush and Gore locked up their respective nominations, three show Gore
ahead, five put Bush up. Both the ABC/Washington Post and NBC/Wall Street
Journal polls show Gore ahead by three percentage points while a Time/CNN
poll conducted by Yankelovich Partners puts the Tennessean up by two
points. Bush’s largest lead is six in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup; the Battle-
ground Poll conducted by Celinda Lake and Ed Goeas and the Fox/Opinion
Dynamics survey showed the Bush lead at four points. The Texas governor
Charles E. Cook Jr. writes weekly columns for the National Journal magazine and
CongressDaily AM, published by the National Journal Group. He is a political analyst
for CNN and the editor and publisher of the Cook Political Report, a Washington-based,
nonpartisan newsletter analyzing U.S. politics and elections.

Copyright © 2000 by The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The Washington Quarterly • 23:3 pp. 241–248.

T HE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY ■ SUMMER 2000 241

 l Charles E. Cook Jr.

led the vice president by three points in polls done by Newsweek and Zogby
International. Average all of these results together, and Bush has a statisti-
cally insignificant one-and-a-half point lead.
That does not factor in Pat Buchanan, the presumptive Reform Party
nominee, who looks headed for the 3 percent to 8 percent range. The most
recent polling on this race was done by CNN/USA Today/Gallup, which
showed Buchanan with 6 percent. Buchanan took two points from Bush,
none from Gore, and four from undecided. In the ABC/Post poll, where
Buchanan polled 4 percent, he took two points from Gore, one point from
the undecided, and none from Bush. Buchanan pulled just three points in
the Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll, with two from Gore, one from Bush.
Newsweek had Buchanan drawing four points from Bush and three points
from Gore while Time/CNN/Yankelovich saw Buchanan’s five points di-
vided, three from Bush, two from Gore. With such an erratic pattern emerg-
ing, it’s safer to make no assumptions about Buchanan until polls are taken
closer to the election.
While any appreciable coattails are unlikely, the presidential race is not
completely irrelevant to the political equations in other contests. Of clear
concern is the West Coast, where it is critical that the Bush campaign not
write off California with its nine competitive House races; Washington state
with four key races; or Oregon with a single competitive race. House Repub-
licans are fortunate to have former National Republican Congressional
Committee executive director Maria Cino serving as political director of the
Bush campaign. She is obviously mindful of their needs and concerns. Con-
versely, Democrats in a number of southern districts must pray that Gore re-
mains at least competitive in their state; they can win in a narrow-loss
scenario, but not in a blow out.
A hot topic these days is what role California will play in the November
presidential election. With the Golden State’s denizens seeing their home
turf as the center of the U.S. political universe, it is common to hear opera-
tives from both parties in the state insisting that it is a “must win” for the
Democrats. Implicit is that the state’s 54 electoral college votes are signifi-
cantly important in determining the outcome of the general election. Yet,
the simple fact is that in presidential elections, California is not nearly as
important as Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. If an election is
fifty-fifty nationally, these are the states sitting right on the bubble and
would likely determine the victor. Conversely, California is no longer a
“swing state.” Instead, Democrats carry it when they’re winning, and would
lose it anyway if they were trailing in a national election. Increasingly, be-
cause of the dramatic growth in the Hispanic population and former Repub-
lican governor Pete Wilson’s successful attempt to drive a wedge between

242 T HE W ASHINGTON QUARTERLY ■ SUMMER 2000

 Election Season Heats Up l

Latino voters and the Republican party, California is getting to be a tough

place for Republicans to compete.
To understand the difficulties for a GOP presidential nominee in the
state, one only needs to look at the numbers. In 1996, while President Bill
Clinton was beating Bob Dole by 8.5 percentage points in the national
popular vote, he beat Dole by 12.9 percentage points in California. Against
President George Bush in 1992, Clinton beat the incumbent by 5.6 points
nationwide, but topped Bush by 13.4 points in California. Even in 1988 and
1984, victorious Republican candidates carried the Golden State by less
than their national margins. Then-Vice President Bush beat Michael
Dukakis by 7.8 percentage points nationally;
his margin in California was less than half of
that (3.5 percent). Four years earlier, President
Reagan stomped former Vice President Walter
E leven states, with
122 electoral
Mondale by 18.2 points nationally, but ran two
points behind that in his home state of Califor- votes, are the key
nia. Indeed the last time that Republicans out- presidential
performed in California was in 1980, when battlegrounds.
Reagan beat President Jimmy Carter there by
16.8 points, almost double his national spread
of 9.7 points.
This trend is in sharp contrast to the role
that California used to play in presidential elections. In 1976, the last really
close presidential election, GOP incumbent Gerald Ford eked out a win in
the Golden State over Democrat Jimmy Carter, 49.3 to 47.6 percent. In the
two previous close presidential races, native son Richard Nixon carried the
state both times, 50.1 to 49.6 percent in 1960 and 47.8 to 44.7 percent in
1968. In the legendary 1948 election, Harry Truman slipped by Dewey in
California, 47.6 to 47.1 percent, even closer than the national margin, 49.6
to 45.1 percent.
That said, Bush still has to compete in California, even if he knows that
he will probably lose the state. First, any presidential campaign conceding
California has huge public relations problem, and will not want to have to
answer the question, “If you can’t compete in the largest state in the union,
how can you compete at all?” Though the question makes much less sense
when one understands national voting patterns, it is still a headache with
which no presidential candidate wants to contend. Given the important role
of Californians in funding national politics, this is particularly important.
Second, as noted earlier, with 7 of the 50 closest congressional races in
the country located in the state, plus numerous other hotly contested state
legislative seats up for grabs, a major party presidential nominee can hardly

T HE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY ■ SUMMER 2000 243

 l Charles E. Cook Jr.

“write off” California. To do so risks being blamed for down-ballot political

carnage. Watch for Bush to show the flag, appear fairly frequently in the
state, and insist that he’s going to compete for the support of every last Cali-
fornia voter. But do not expect him to carry the state or even spend a great
deal of his hard, federal dollars in the state. Watch for the Bush campaign
and the national party to tell California Republicans to fund a full-blown
campaign themselves.
Looking more broadly at the electoral college, Bush starts off with a clear
advantage in 24 states for a total of 209 electoral votes while Gore begins
with the edge in 15 states plus the District of Columbia, for a total of 207
electoral votes. To win the presidency, 270 votes are needed.
Bush seems certain to prevail in sixteen states (135 electoral votes),
chiefly Southern and Mountain states with a few Midwestern states thrown
in for good measure. Bush’s strong states are Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Idaho
(4), Indiana (12), Kansas (6), Mississippi (7), Nebraska (5), North Caro-
lina (14), North Dak ota (3), Oklahoma (8), South Carolina (8), South Da-
kota (3), Texas (32), Utah (5), Virginia (13), and Wyoming (3). Bush has a
narrower advantage in eight states (74 electoral votes), again chiefly South-
ern and Mountain states, though New Hampshire, a formerly solid Republi-
can state, is the only state from New England represented. These
Bush-leaning states are Arizona (8), Colorado (8), Florida (25), Georgia
(13), Louisiana (9), Montana (3), Nevada (4), and New Hampshire (4).
Gore starts off with a big advantage in the District of Columbia (3) and
six states, mostly from the Northeast for a total of 71 electoral votes: Hawaii
(4), Massachusetts (12), Minnesota (10), New York (33), Rhode Island (4),
and West Virginia (5). Gore leads by a closer margin in an eclectic batch of
nine states (136 electoral votes): California (54), Illinois (22), Iowa (7),
Maryland (10), Oregon (7), Tennessee (11) Vermont (3), Washington (11),
and Wisconsin (11).
Leftover are eleven states with 122 electoral votes: Arkansas (6), Con-
necticut (8), Delaware (3), Kentucky (8), Maine (4), Michigan (18), Mis-
souri (11), New Jersey (15), New Mexico (5), Ohio (21), and Pennsylvania
(23). These are the battleground states that will determine the election.

The Fight for the House

Only a few months ago, the conventional wisdom in the halls of Capitol Hill
as well as the corridors of K Street was that a Democratic takeover of the
House of Representatives was almost a foregone conclusion. Many on both
sides of the aisle seemed to believe it was almost inevitable that Democrats
would score the (then) five seats necessary for a majority. Though the con-

244 T HE W ASHINGTON QUARTERLY ■ SUMMER 2000

 Election Season Heats Up l

test for control of the House is exceedingly close and is likely to remain a
photo finish, Republicans seem to have a very slight advantage at this junc-
ture. Indeed, an analysis of each of the 435 districts today suggests that the
outcome would probably range between a Republican gain of three seats and
a Democratic gain of five, one seat short of a majority.
Even last fall, the widely-held view was probably overly generous for Demo-
crats. While things were in fact going well for Democrats, the outcome of the
fight was still too close to call. Democrats had enjoyed a run of good luck,
which seemed to negate the then-five seat advantage that Republicans ruled
the House. But this commonly-held assessment
was also the byproduct of severe morale prob-
lems within the ranks of House Republicans, M any prospective
their staffs, and sympathizers and, to a lesser challengers have
degree, excessive Democratic optimism.
In January, however, things took a turn in opted to wait to run
favor of Republicans. The switch of Virginia for the House until
Representative Virgil Goode from the Demo- 2002.
cratic to the Republican Party was effectively
a one-seat net change, with Goode a solid bet
for reelection both before and after his party
switch. The retirement announcement of an-
other Virginian, Democrat Owen Pickett, is almost as dramatic, as it was ex-
ceedingly unlikely that Republicans would have beaten the 69 year old,
six-termer had he run for re-election. Now it will be very difficult for Demo-
crats to hold onto this newly opened seat in this heavily Republican district.
The other two major developments in January were somewhat less dra-
matic but still important. In Florida’s Republican-leaning twelfth district
seat, where Representative Charles Canady is abiding by a promise to serve
only three terms, Democrats’ only hope was to convince Rick Dantzler, the
party’s 1998 lieutenant governor nominee, to run. Although Dantzler
waffled back and forth on running, ultimately he decided not to run, leaving
the seat safely ensconced in Republican hands.
Similarly, Democrats had grown increasingly pessimistic that attorney
Marjorie McKeithen would take on Richard Baker in Louisiana’s sixth dis-
trict. McKeithen had lost to Baker by only 49 percent to 51 percent in 1998.
Still, Democrats hoped she might have a change of heart. She did not, offi-
cially indicating her noncandidacy in January. While Democrats continue to
scramble to come up with a replacement in this district that was redrawn in
1996 and made considerably more African-American and less Republican,
their hopes are dimming.
But Democrats were pleased with their showing in the March 7 open pri-

T HE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY ■ SUMMER 2000 245

 l Charles E. Cook Jr.

maries in California and argue that it gave them a needed momentum

booster after a lackluster January. In the open primary, where all candidates
run on one ballot and the two top vote-getters from each party go onto face
each other in November, Democratic incumbents fared better than Republi-
can incumbents. No Democratic incumbent took less than 52 percent of the
vote, while four GOPers came in under 52 percent and one, embattled Rep-
resentative Jim Rogan, actually garnered fewer votes than his Democratic
opponent. And, in the open seat contest in the fifteenth district being va-
cated by GOP Representative Tom Campbell,
Democratic candidates outpolled Republicans
C ontrol of the 59 percent to 39 percent. Although one
should not read too much into these results, it
House is still a toss- is fair to say that Democrats had a good night.
up, but Republicans It is also important to remember that these re-
today have the sults are simply a snapshot in time, not a set-
in-stone indicator of future results.
tiniest of edges. It would be a mistake to say today that Re-
publicans are likely to hold onto the House,
just as it would have been a mistake to give it
to Democrats back in December. With rela-
tively few open seats, few incumbents from either party sitting in enemy ter-
ritory, and evenly matched recruiting prospects, the range of potential
outcomes is unusually narrow.
As for open seats this cycle, Democrats have held their retirements down
to seven seats, the smallest number for either party since 1958. Republicans
have 23 retirements (including the most recent, Virginia’s Tom Bliley), a
normal level for the majority party. Unless there are many more retirements,
the number of open seats in this election will rank among the four fewest in
the last thirty years. With the incumbent reelection rate averaging 94 per-
cent, the number of open seats drives the volatility of a cycle. The fewer re-
tirements, the less volatile the election is likely to be.
Another reason the House seems less volatile is that there are an unusually
small number of endangered incumbents on either side of the aisle. Fewer
than a dozen members today appear to be facing very difficult races. Two
dozen more are facing competitive races but few, if any, appear career threat-
ening. In some other cases, many prospective challengers have opted to wait
to run for the House until 2002, when new district lines will be in place.
Candidate recruitment has an impact as well. One of the most impor-
tant factors in Congressional elections is the candidate recruiting process,
in which leaders and strategists of both parties scatter across the country,
trying to identify and persuade the best possible candidates to run. Al-

246 T HE W ASHINGTON QUARTERLY ■ SUMMER 2000

 Election Season Heats Up l

though many candidates decide on their own to run for Congress, many
others are discovered and persuaded, or need a little convincing to take
the big step. Using survey and demographic data, opposition research, and
more than a little hot air and sweet talk, they try to put the strongest pos-
sible team on the field.
Like a good basketball game between two evenly matched teams, the mo-
mentum in the battle for control of the House will continue to bounce back
and forth between the two parties for the next eight months. Each recruit-
ing success or failure and each new open seat will shift the balance of the
game. Control of the House is still a toss up, but Republicans today have the
tiniest of edges.

The Senate Races

Although neither party is likely to make significant gains, there are at least
a dozen, and some say as may as 15 or 16, seats in play, creating a wide range
of theoretical outcomes. Having said that, the most likely change to the cur-
rent 55-seat Republican to 45-seat Democratic Senate is a Democratic gain
of 1 or 2 seats, though a wash is certainly possible. A Democratic gain of
three seats is also likely, but a four-seat gain appears very unlikely. Demo-
crats would need a five-seat gain (holding the White House) for a majority
and would need to pick up six seats if they lose the presidential election.
Democrats are concerned with their four open seats in Nebraska, Ne-
vada, New Jersey, and New York, where Senators Bob Kerrey, Richard H.
Bryan, Frank Lautenberg, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, respectively, are re-
tiring. In addition, incumbent Charles S. Robb in Virginia is locked in a very
tight battle with his Republican challenger. At this point, the Democratic
candidate in Nevada trails his Republican opponent by a wide margin, while
Republicans have very slim leads in New York and Virginia. The races in
both Nebraska and New Jersey remain too undeveloped to declare a
frontrunner, and the outlook in these contests may not be known until after
their primaries. But at this point, it looks very unlikely that Democrats will
hold all five of these vulnerable seats, with losses of one or two the mini-
mum that they can realistically expect.
But Republicans still have eight seats—twice as many as Democrats—in
real jeopardy. The open seat in Florida where Senator Connie Mack is step-
ping down seems almost outside their grasp as two candidates fight for the
GOP nod, which will not be decided until September. In Delaware, most be-
lieve that incumbent Senator William V. Roth, Jr. trails his Democratic op-
ponent by as much as 10 points, while in Michigan, polling has consistently
shown Senator Spencer Abraham maintaining a very slight lead over his

T HE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY ■ SUMMER 2000 247

 l Charles E. Cook Jr.

challenger. Although it is not known who will win the Democratic nomina-
tion to take on Senator Rod Grams in Minnesota, the incumbent has not
run a strong campaign and seems ideologically out of step with the state. He
is vulnerable regardless of who emerges from the primary. Senators John
Ashcroft of Missouri and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island remain in the
toss-up column, but both seem to be ahead and holding their own, and
there is evidence that Chafee is amassing a lead over both Democrats seek-
ing that nomination.
Aside from these six races, there are four more incumbents on the watch
list: Senators Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, Conrad Burns in Montana,
Slade Gorton in Washington, and James M. Jeffords in Vermont. These races
have not yet become competitive, but each has the potential to become a
hot spot for the GOP.

248 T HE W ASHINGTON QUARTERLY ■ SUMMER 2000