TIME - Man of the Year/CompactPublishing-TimeMagazine-TimeManOfTheYear-Win31MSDOS.iso/moy/111692/11169910.000

Text File | 1993-04-08 | 10.0 KB | 200 lines

                                                                                COVER STORIES, Page 47

ELECTION `92

A New Coalition for the 1990s


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.