Election 2000: After a year of close campaigning, it's time for answers

Coming face of U.S. government may reflect unusual popular priorities

By Ian Christopher McCaleb/CNN

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Americans voted Tuesday to deliver their verdicts on the makeup of the United States government, after just over a year of listening to candidates for president, the Congress, and a handful of governorships state their cases for election.

The 2000 contest for a four-year lease on the Oval Office has shaped up into one of the most closely fought presidential races in the last quarter-century. And, the battles for control of the Senate and the House of Representatives appear to be extremely close -- the Republicans currently hold the majority in both chambers.

No one can predict with certainty which of the two major parties will, by day's end, land in the driver's seats of the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government.

Still, the ratio of Democratic to Republican governors may likely change, and a handful of ballot measures could draw some voters out of their homes to cast ballots on key matters of social policy and ideology.

The race for the White House

This year's major party nominees for the presidency, Vice President Al Gore for the Democrats and Texas Gov. George W. Bush for the Republicans, have had to fine-tune their broad messages to suit these interesting times.

There is a rarely concocted recipe for tightly contested presidential election years such as this one, and it calls for a heavy portion of sustained, record-setting national economic performance.

The contest between Vice President Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush is the most closely fought presidential race since 1960

Vast portions of the voting public are relatively content with their personal financial good fortunes, brought about by several years worth of a high-flying stock market propelled for the most part by the burgeoning information technology sector.

That widespread contentment has translated into complete unpredictability when pollsters and political observers have tried to translate voter sentiment into potential presidential voting patterns. They have discovered that they cannot count strictly on the economy to predict Tuesday's presidential victor.

Good economic numbers and a complacent voting class can make for tough election-year strategizing. More often than not, presidential elections are won or lost based on competing notions of the economy's performance and long-term health -- and how a limping economy can and should be fixed.

Gore adopted a populist message that urges those who are comfortable with their current financial situations to keep the prosperity rolling by voting him into the presidency.

But Gore has said he isn't satisfied with the work the administration has done. Large swaths of the population have been left behind by the economic boom, he says, and they must be given an opportunity to catch up to everyone else.

They've been left out, Gore has asserted, largely because the so-called special interests -- most notably health insurers, large pharmaceutical concerns and big oil companies -- have charged unfairly high prices, and some of their practices have had the effect of keeping low-wage earners stranded in their economic strata.

"The president you elect tomorrow," Gore said Monday in St. Louis, "will take office on Jan. 20 with the largest surplus that our nation has ever had. And we have 44 million Americans without health insurance."

Bush -- son of former President Bush, the chief executive ousted by Clinton in 1992 under the dark shadows of a national economic downturn -- argues that though the economy has shown improvement since his father left office, the reasons have little to nothing at all to do with the Clinton-Gore administration.

Bush and his fellow Republicans credit the Congress for asserting great pressure on the Clinton administration between 1994 and 1997, when that year's balanced budget accord between the White House and the Congress became law.

The Clinton-Gore administration has credited its eight-year federal budgeting strategy for turning the recessions of the early 1990s into an atmosphere that has brought about that balanced budget agreement, some 22 million new jobs, and low rates of unemployment in most regions of the country.

The federal budget surpluses that have come about because of that 1997 budget law and a variety of other factors should be apportioned to boost some federal entitlements and the Defense Department, Bush has argued.

The rest, he says, should be handed back to the taxpaying public in the form of an ambitious $1.3 trillion, 10-year tax relief package.

The two-term governor of Texas, unable to call for vast economic reforms, has chosen instead to focus on other sensitive areas for overhaul -- the public education system; the armed forces; the 35-year-old Medicare health insurance program; and Social Security.

He has also promised a more abstract form of overhaul, one that has appealed to conservatives and independents worn weary of stories of President Clinton's extracurricular activity in the Oval Office, specifically his activities with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

While Gore has endeavored to keep Clinton at arm's length to avoid any association with a number of deeply probed White House irregularities, including the Lewinsky matter, Bush has seized upon the clamor of the Clinton years.

"It is time to give this nation a fresh start after a season of cynicism," Bush told a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin on Monday afternoon. "That is what this campaign is all about."

The pull of singular voting blocs

There are other factors at work here -- Green Party candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader is claiming chunks of Gore's Democratic base in a number of key states, while Reform Party candidate and former conservative commentator Pat Buchanan is nibbling at the fringes of the ultra-conservative voting bloc.

Other "critical constituencies," argues CNN's Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider, could toss this election in the direction of either the Republicans or the Democrats.

"Al Gore is in striking distance of George W. Bush," Schneider said Monday.

A decent turnout of female voters, Schneider said, can boost Gore over the top Tuesday. Bush, he said, is doing too well with male voters for Gore to be given a chance with them.

"In 1996, Bill Clinton got 54 percent of the women's vote," helping give him 49 percent of the total vote, Schneider said.

"Where is Gore with women? Just 50 percent," Schneider said. "Given how badly he is doing with men, and it is very bad, he has got to boost his standing with women."

Conversely, Schneider said, the independent vote could bolster Bush's fortunes.

Historically, Schneider said, independents "have rarely gone for the Democrats. Gore, he estimated, only enjoys some "40 percent" of the independent vote.

With polling numbers for both candidates rising and falling since the summer's political conventions, with some 12 to 15 states still in play heading into election Tuesday, and with a number of independent and undecided voters still sitting on the fence, an issue as ill-defined as "Clinton fatigue" could factor in to this year's presidential outcome.

Where goes the House?

Of course, there are a number of intangible elements that could influence the national presidential decision: Bush's easygoing, likeable demeanor, Gore's experience and encyclopedic knowledge of issues and government.

But look at the makeup of the U.S. House of Representatives and ask yourself just how much the so-called fatigue factor can make a difference in a national election.

The Democrats need six seats to wrest control of the House of Representatives from the GOP

In 1998, the lightning rod Newt Gingrich, a Georgia Republican, was speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Lewinsky saga was poised to tie up the operations of the House and Senate into 1999 as the House voted to impeach the president late in 1998, and the Senate voted to acquit the president in 1999.

The Republicans took the House for the first time in 40 years with the 1994 mid-term election. That year's majority class, which was comprised of some 40 brash GOP freshmen and a backbone of longtime conservative stalwarts, ran Congress' lower chamber on overdrive -- pushing a raft of bills outlined in their "Contract with America" as major party priorities.

Gingrich's leadership style rubbed many voters wrong. His high profile, coupled with the House GOP's dogged pursuit of the Whitewater-Lewinsky matter, resulted in a stinging rebuke from the voting public in 1998 -- when to the surprise of many, the Democrats picked up a number of House seats.

A comfortable Republican majority was reduced significantly two years ago, and Democrats are now giddy at the prospect of taking the chamber back.

With the 106th Congress still in session -- members are expected to return to work following Tuesday's national vote -- the Democrats now need only six seats to wrest the House from the GOP.

Of 435 seats in the House, the Republicans hold 222 to the Democrats' 209. There are two independents in the chamber, one of whom routinely sides with the Democrats, the other with the GOP. There are also two vacant seats, left open following recent lawmaker deaths.

This year, there are 34 open seats in the House -- meaning the people who occupied those seats are not running for re-election. The Republicans hold now hold 26 of those open seats, the Democrats only eight, making retention of the House an uphill struggle for the current majority.

The Republicans could retain a vast portion of those seats, but still see their majority jeopardized. Some of their veterans are in fierce fights, as are some freshmen of both parties.

Whoever takes the House this year will likely hold one of the slimmest majorities in congressional history, making life for either a President Gore or a President Bush difficult at best. Both hope to push social agendas predicated on their deep-seated views of how the federal budget surplus should be spent.

As a result, predicted Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times, the major priorities of the next president "may have to be sanded back."

"I think the overwhelming likelihood is that in the next Congress, you'll see even smaller majorities than we have now. And we weren't really able to get anything done in the last few years," Brownstein said Monday on CNN.

Senate GOP majority may slim down

In the Senate, there is some angst that the Democrats could pick up enough seats to significantly diminish the pull of the upper chamber's Republican majority. There may even be an outside possibility that the Democrats could take the chamber.

Of the Senate's 100 seats, two for each state, 34 are up for consideration this year. As the 106th session rolls to a close, the Republicans hold 54 of those seats, the Democrats 46. That means the Democrats would have to pick up five seats for a slim 51-seat majority.

Should Al Gore win the presidency, the Democrats would only need a net gain of four seats in the Senate to claim a slight majority, as the vice president is also the sitting president of the Senate. Gore's running mate, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, could conceivably occupy the chamber president's seat when needed to cast tie-breaking votes.

But the odds are running against a Democratic takeover of the Senate, and Lieberman's status as a vice presidential candidate contributes to the obstacles that stand before the minority party.

Lieberman, chosen by Gore just prior to the party conventions as the No. 2 man on the Democratic ticket, has refused to relinquish his quest to gain re-election to his Senate seat. Should he and Gore be elected, Connecticut's Republican governor could choose Lieberman's successor -- presumably a member of the GOP.

Of the 34 contested seats this year, 19 are Republican-held, while 15 are held by the Democrats. Still, only some 17 of those contests are expected to be competitive, and a handful of those have generated serious national interest.

In the most notable of those -- first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton faces off against Republican Rep. Rick Lazio for the New York seat set to be vacated by the retiring Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Another race of note pits a sitting senator against his recently deceased opponent. Missouri Democratic Gov. Mel Carnahan, who was challenging Republican Sen. John Ashcroft, died in an October plane crash. His name remains on the state ballot, and his wife has agreed to take the seat should Carnahan triumph -- and polls in the state remain tight.

A select number of well-known Republican incumbents, most notably Conrad Burns of Montana, William Roth of Delaware and Slade Gorton of Washington, are facing fierce Democratic challenges and could lose their seats.

Governors, ballot issues

Eleven governorships are up for grabs this year, including the race for governor in Missouri.

Carnahan chose to run for Senate in part because he was term-limited as governor. With his death, Lieutenant Gov. Roger Wilson assumed the office, while Democratic state Treasurer Bob Holden battles Republican Rep. Jim Talent for the keys to the governor's mansion.

In West Virginia, Republican Cecil Underwood, at 78 the nation's oldest governor, is locked in a tight struggle with Democratic Rep. Bob Wise, and New Hampshire Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen battles former GOP Sen. Gordon Humphrey for the right to stay put in Concord.

Ballot issues, certain to raise hackles in some states in most election years, may not grab as much attention this year, though single issues could push voters to their local polling places.

Of the most noteworthy: Michigan, California and Washington have some form of school voucher issue on their ballots. Colorado and Nevada residents will consider medicinal marijuana questions, while Coloradans and Oregonians will ruminate over the question of required background checks for individuals wishing to purchase firearms at gun shows.