TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 111692 / 11169910.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1995-02-26 | 11KB | 206 lines

<text id=92TT2552> <title> Nov. 16, 1992: A New Coalition for the 1990s </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992 Nov. 16, 1992 Election Special: Mandate for Change </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> COVER STORIES, Page 47 ELECTION `92 A New Coalition for the 1990s </hdr><body> Clinton wins with support that is more Western, more female, more single, more moderate and more white than past Democratic mosaics By LAURENCE I. BARRETT For all the talk about trust, character and family values during the campaign, the issue that killed George Bush at the polls was the same issue that plagued him all year long: the economy. The country's anxiety over kitchen-table concerns allowed Bill Clinton to put together a coalition that is more diverse than any that has elected a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's triumph three decades ago. Though Ross Perot's presence kept Clinton's popular vote under 50%, the Democratic coalition has the potential to endure much as the Republican alliance did in five of the past six presidential elections. States as diverse as New Hampshire and California went Democratic Tuesday for the first time since 1964 -- not because two young Southerners wowed voters there, but because both states had plunged from prosperity during the Bush years. In the national exit poll conducted by Voter Research & Surveys, a consortium of TV networks, 43% of voters named the economy as the paramount issue -- twice the percentage identifying any other concern. Among that 43%, Clinton topped Bush better than 2 to 1. From the earliest primaries, the Arkansas Governor stressed his ideas for overhauling the economy, just as he attacked Bush's wan performance in that area. Bush, unable to boast about protecting prosperity, invested much of his rhetoric -- and his party's energy -- in issues that voters viewed as peripheral. Bush captured two-thirds of those who considered "family values" critical, but only 15% of the electorate fell into that category. Similarly, the G.O.P. sought to hold its conservative base by giving a large megaphone to its antiabortion faction. Bush led among those who think that abortion should be illegal under all or most circumstances, but that group made up only one-third of the electorate. Clinton captured the larger pro-choice faction. White Christians who call themselves Fundamentalists stayed loyal to the Republicans, as they had in the past three elections. Even in this right-leaning group, however, the Democratic ticket of two born-again Southern Baptists made inroads, drawing more white Evangelicals than either Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale had attracted. Partly for that reason, and partly because Ross Perot ate into Bush's support, the Democrats were able to reclaim parts of the South and Southwest. Those regions had been the stoutest of Republican strongholds for most of the past quarter-century, since Richard Nixon perfected his Southern strategy. Early in his term, Bush and his top advisers set out to capture a larger share of the African-American bloc. That effort failed in the end, another victim of the party's lunge toward the far right. Bush received only 11% of the black vote, half what he had once hoped to achieve. Jewish Americans, another group targeted under the "big tent" strategy that imploded, also eluded Bush. Seventy-eight percent voted Democratic, with 11% for Bush and 11% for Perot. Four years ago, Bush won 35% of Jews. Among white voters of all religions, Clinton tied Bush -- a better showing than a Democrat has made since 1976. Bush's slowness in addressing both the recession and the long-term trends that threaten the nation's well-being, along with the G.O.P.'s emphasis on social conservatism, helped Clinton capture two groups: women and younger voters. In most elections, women are likelier than men to vote for the more liberal candidate, and they feel more vulnerable in hard times. Four years ago, when the country felt confident, Bush managed only a statistical tie among female voters and won his majority from men. This week Bush trailed narrowly among men but lost by a decisive 11 percentage points among women. The impact of Bush's social conservatism and performance on the economy was even more striking when pollsters explored the gender gap. Single parents, more dependent on public services than others, gave Clinton a margin of 20 points. His lead among women who work outside the home was 12 points. Those who identify themselves as "homemakers," and tend to be more traditional in their attitudes as well as older, stayed with Bush. Clinton's support of measures such as the Family Leave bill, which Bush vetoed, hurt the President. One important ingredient of the Reagan-Bush reign in the 1980s was the Republicans' ability to woo younger voters. Ronald Reagan's optimistic aura appealed to twentysomethings, who previously tended to support Democrats. Bush retained that support in 1988 by a narrow margin and did even better among slightly older baby boomers. This year Clinton ran ahead of Bush in every age group, but his largest margin was among those between 18 and 24. One reason was Clinton's limber courtship of the young in show-biz terms -- playing his sax on the Arsenio Hall show, for instance, and featuring rock music at his rallies. But recent high school and college graduates facing a bleak employment market had more substantive reasons for abandoning the G.O.P. Though Clinton was the most liberal candidate in the field, he managed to come across as enough of a centrist to draw slightly more support from independents than other Democratic candidates had. On the other hand, he ran behind Dukakis among those who identified themselves as liberal. A sliver of them apparently stayed home. And, despite Perot's appeal to independents -- the Texas billionaire captured one-quarter of those unaffiliated with the two parties -- Clinton still won a plurality of those voters. As expected, more voters participated than did in the 1980s; 54% of those 18 and older went to the polls, vs. 50% in 1988. Aside from turnout tending to increase in hard times, registration rose this year, and Perot attracted new participants. In late October, when Perot climbed briefly in the polls and caused the margin between Clinton and Bush to tighten, it appeared that the free-spending independent would be the biggest beneficiary of the increased turnout. But Clinton got 48% of those who said they were voting for the first time, vs. 29% for Bush and 23% for Perot. That was another sign that the Democrat capitalized on the ferment in this year's politics. All three candidates talked about change, Perot in the most vivid terms. Bush tried to warn voters that Clinton's new direction would be too radical and costly. Clinton clearly won that argument by a significant margin. Asked to rank the importance of nine "candidate qualities," change drew the highest response (38%). Clinton won nearly two-thirds of that group, while Bush came in third. That quality had sustained Clinton throughout an unusually harsh campaign season. Starting last January, he repeatedly had to persuade voters that despite what they were hearing about Gennifer Flowers and draft evasion, he was a reliable agent of change. This fall, desperate to catch up, Bush ferociously attacked Clinton, but the President won a Pyrrhic victory. Earlier surveys showed that the public doubted Clinton's credibility and gave him higher negative ratings than a front runner usually gets. On Election Day, half of those who rated a candidate's honesty as an important quality voted for Bush. But that group amounted to only 14% of the electorate. Bush also succeeded in convincing the public that Clinton would raise taxes. However, the surveys showed that Bush was expected to increase taxes too. Two-thirds of voters, moreover, did not believe Bush's explanation of his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. Negative campaigning helped Bush, but not nearly so much as he had hoped. As it had during the primaries, the public's preoccupation kept returning to the economy. Despite the fluctuations in opinion polls during the last two weeks of the campaign, the overall shape of the race never changed. Campaign Hotline, the daily political newsletter, counted 196 national surveys after Perot left the race on July 16. Bush did not lead in a single one. Clinton's advantage in early autumn in most polls ran in double digits. Growing doubts about Clinton, Perot's dramatic re-entry on Oct. 1, the independent's feisty performance in the debates and his saturation-advertising campaign injected suspense into the contest. Still, most surveys continued to show Clinton clinging to a lead of several percentage points, and the final measurements last weekend were close to the actual popular-vote result. The variations among competing surveys -- including one showing deadlock a week before the election -- were caused by difficulties in calculating the increase in turnout. The Perot factor was also hard to parse. The Texan drew many of the voters who said they valued change, and might have continued to surge had he not wounded himself with his reckless charges about Republican dirty tricks. When asked the hypothetical question of how they would have voted had Perot not been on the ballot, Clinton edged Bush by 7 percentage points. Though Perot's presence cost Clinton a popular-vote majority, the geographic sweep of the Governor's victory was impressive. But the electorate is hardly starry-eyed about the President-elect or united on just how activist the next Administration should be. Asked on Election Day whether a Clinton victory would make them feel excited, optimistic, concerned or scared, 42% responded positively, while 54% expressed apprehension. And more voters still preferred a Federal Government that spends less of their tax money to one that seeks to provide more services. Countering those attitudes, as well as grappling with the economic problems that Bush could not solve, will be among the President-elect's most urgent challenges. </body></article> </text>