If there is one thing the pundits are certain of, it’s that George W. Bush and Al Gore are now the Republican and Democratic nominees. Beyond that, it gets more complicated.
Pundits marvel at the abysmal showing by Bill Bradley, who lost every primary. (As Doris Kearns Goodwin [MSNBC] puts it, “To be an insurgent, you have to insurge.”) David Peeler (CNN) notes that Bradley outspent Gore in every state, yet couldn’t even win New York, where he played basketball for 10 years, or Missouri, where he grew up. Most talking heads think Gore is a better candidate because of Bradley’s challenge. Paul Begala (MSNBC) thinks that Gore will pay more attention to poverty, campaign-finance reform, and health care because of Bradley’s campaign.
All the networks mention Gore’s victory-speech challenge to Bush: In the general election, Gore wants two debates a week, no 30-second TV and radio ads, and a voluntary ban on soft money. Andrea Mitchell (MSNBC) advises Bush to take Gore’s debate bait, because Bush is now a practiced debater and needs one-on-one forums to dispel his image as a lightweight. Interviewed on MSNBC, Gore says, “I’ve learned from my mistakes. Like John McCain, I bring personal experience to the cause and commitment of campaign-finance reform.” Translation: If John McCain can learn from his participation in the S&L catastrophe, I can learn from my participation in the 1996 fund-raising scandals.
Why couldn’t the insurgents win? John Fund (CNN) and Bob Novak (CNN) note that the front-loaded, establishment-run primary system plays to the front-runner’s advantage. (Even a maverick like Dwight Eisenhower couldn’t win the GOP nomination in ‘52 without winning over the establishment, notes Novak.) Others note that Bradley didn’t respond to Gore’s attacks until it was too late. Dick Morris (Fox News) blames John McCain for responding to the style of Bush’s attacks rather than to their substance. (Neither McCain nor Bradley did post-primary interviews.)
Can Bush win in November? The exit polls give some clues. Bill Schneider (CNN) notes that while Gore won nationally on the issues, Bush won on personal qualities. And in a good economy, notes Frank Luntz (MSNBC), personality usually trumps issues. Tony Snow (Fox) remarks that Bush won a majority of Catholics in New York, and Paula Zahn (Fox) says that most New Yorkers thought McCain played dirtier than Bush. In other words, says Michael Barone (Fox), Bush was able to revive the reformist image he won in South Carolina and lost in Michigan. On the other hand, 40 percent of McCain voters nationally–independents whom Bush will need to win–said that they planned to vote for Gore in the fall. And in California, Bush received higher disapproval ratings than Gore–a sharp rise from six months ago–and lost by large margins among women voters and Hispanics. In fact, Al Hunt (CNN) says it will be impossible for Bush to win California in November. Bob Novak (CNN) advises Dubya to concede the West and focus on the Midwest.
Whatever the exit polls say, pundits are eager to recommend campaign strategies for the general election. Newt Gingrich (Fox) says that negative ads about Democratic scandals will not be enough to beat Gore in good economic times. Bush should stick to two issues, the former House speaker says: Social Security reform and education reform. Democratic strategist Pat Cadell (MSNBC) thinks that Bush still has time to adopt more aggressive campaign-finance reform proposals; Bill Kristol (Fox) thinks that this is virtually certain to happen. (A dissenter is John Fund, who says that campaign-finance reform is not a big issue with voters.) Cynthia Tucker (CNN) predicts that Bush will play down his large tax-cut proposal, which Gore will use to brand him an extremist. (Sure enough, Gore mentions “risky tax scheme” in his victory speech.) But Neal Caputo (Fox) thinks that the stock market may go south, which would allow Bush to criticize Alan Greenspan’s increasingly frequent interest-rate hikes. (In his Fox interview, Bush uses a question about interest-rate hikes to tout his tax cut.) Dick Morris (Fox) says that Gore should try to link Dubya to his father’s failed economic policies in 1992, since this tax-scare strategy worked for the Democrats in 1996. Morris and Schneider both predict that the election will be very close; Morris compares 2000 to the neck-and-neck contests of 1960, 1968, and 1976.
The wild card, of course, is John McCain. And pundits go into a frenzy asking, “WWJD?” (What Will John Do?) A few, such as Mort Kondracke (Fox) think that he will go back to the Senate, as he has repeatedly promised to do. Will he make a third-party run? Bob Dole says no way–his Senate buddy is a loyal Republican, he protests. But Fred Barnes (Fox), Bill Kristol, and to some extent, Michael Barone (Fox) think that McCain will seriously consider this option. (Many refer to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing McCain to be competitive with Bush and Gore in a three-way race.) More likely than a Bull Moose ticket, the pundits think, is that McCain joins the Republican ticket as vice-presidential candidate. (“Bush needs McCain more than McCain needs Bush,” says Gregory Rodriguez on MSNBC.) Indeed, both Kristol and Dick Morris think that Bush-McCain is the most likely GOP ticket. Kristol notes that McCain still has weight to push around in the party: He will control more than five state delegations at the convention, which will enable him to introduce platform proposals. Morris says that Bush will think like Ronald Reagan in 1980, and co-opt his more moderate rival. Gingrich (Fox) says that Bush-McCain would be a “very powerful ticket” and that if asked, McCain would heed the call of duty.
What if McCain does not make the ticket? The pundits throw out vice-presidential names like confetti: Bob Novak suggests Bill Bennett; Scott Reed (CNN) suggests Tennessee Sen. (and McCain supporter) Fred Thompson or Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating. Nelson Warfield (MSNBC) suggests Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge; and Frank Luntz (MSNBC) suggests Ohio Rep. John Kasich. On the Democratic side, Andrea Mitchell mentions Andrew Cuomo, and Lisa Caputo (MSNBC) mentions former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.
Guess Who Won California!
As most Slate readers know, broadcasters are not allowed to reveal California exit poll data before the polls close on the West Coast. (If you need a refresher, click here.) Well, at least they try:
If [Gore] pulls this off tonight–[and] it’s 2-1/2 hours until the California polls close–but if he does pull off a sweep, it has never happened in the history of contested primaries.–Paul Begala (MSNBC)Watching the returns in California is the campaign of John McCain, looking at their list of states vs. George W. Bush–clearly the powerhouse of the evening.
–Brian Williams (MSNBC)
They’re still holding out hope that he might win the beauty-contest in California, but if he doesn’t, the senator is clearly going to have to re-evaluate.
–Lisa Myers (MSNBC)
It looks like George Bush–at least according to our MSNBC work–was surging in California, and may beat McCain.
–Frank Luntz (MSNBC)
If [McCain] loses in California, I think he’s out of the race. Interesting fact of the exit polls today–Al Gore won tonight, George Bush won tonight. Both have come out of California with, according to our exit polling in California, huge unfavorable numbers.
–Chris Matthews (MSNBC)
Look, Bush is going to wipe out McCain when it comes to Republicans in California. … So George W. Bush is going to run away with everything in California. The McCain people had hoped that he might be able to run away with the so-called beauty contest. … It doesn’t look like it’s going to happen, although we don’t have enough information yet.
–Tony Snow (Fox)
Last Word
You’d better have a [vision] about the future if you’re going to beat Al Gore, because you can’t beat Gore on the present.
–Newt Gingrich (Fox)
[To read Ballot Box’s “Instant Analysis” of Super Tuesday results in Slate, click here.]
