Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-xxrs7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T15:48:49.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The 2000 US Presidential Election: Can Retrospective Voting Be Saved?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2003

MORRIS FIORINA
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
SAMUEL ABRAMS
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
JEREMY POPE
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Abstract

According to a portrait of elections widely held in academic political science, election outcomes depend on the ‘fundamentals’, especially peace and prosperity. Al Gore's election showing in 2000 runs counter to the preceding interpretation of elections. Objective conditions pointed to a comfortable victory, if not a landslide, but Gore's narrow popular vote margin fell well below the expectations held by many political scientists. This article attempts to account for Gore's under-performance via detailed analyses of National Election Studies surveys. We find that Gore's often criticized personality was not a cause of his under-performance. Rather, the major cause was his failure to receive a historically normal amount of credit for the performance of the Clinton administration. Secondary contributors were the drag of Clinton's personal affairs and Gore's decision to run to the left of where Clinton had positioned the Democratic party. Quite possibly these three factors are logically related: failure to get normal credit reflected Gore's peculiar campaign, which in turn reflected fear of association with Clinton's behaviour.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)