North Carolina datanet. |
Previous | 30 of 54 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
North Carolina DataNet June 2000 Issue # 25 Historical Perspectives on NC Politics ! Thad Beyle, editor ( beyle@ email. unc. edu) Jennifer Drolet, managing editor ( jdrolet@ irss. unc. edu) ! North Carolina DataNet is a quarterly newsletter published by the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. ! To join our mailing list, please contact Thad Beyle, Dept. of Political Science, CB # 3265, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599- 3265. ! 850 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $ 475. NC DataNet June 2000 Issue # 25 Turnout in NC's Gubernatorial Primaries Ferrel Guillory ( UNC- CH Program on Media, Southern Politics and Public Life, School of Journalism and Mass Communications) Despite competitive races in both the Democratic and Republican parties, North Carolina’s gubernatorial primaries brought forth wails of lament over “ all- time low’’ voter turnout. Indeed, the turnout was very low, but that’s not the whole story. The ac-companying table “ First Primary Turnout as a Measure of Party Strength” ( page 2) points to several trends that form a more nearly complete picture. As North Carolina has become increasingly a state of two- party competition since 1972, there has been a steady drop in turnout ( i. e., total vote as a percentage of registered voters), in party primaries for governor and U. S. senator. During much of the twentieth century, when North Carolina was a one- party state, the battle for the gover-nor’s mansion took place within the Democratic Party. Turnout was relatively high in the primaries, because citizens who wanted to help decide who became governor knew that they had to take part in the Democratic primary. Now, more than twice as many voters cast ballots in the general election as in party primaries. In total voters who show up to cast ballots, Democratic Party turnout still exceeds GOP turnout. But Republican Party participation has expanded since the early ’ 70s. Republican vote- count hit a peak in 2000, though it still fell more than a quarter of a million votes below the Democratic total. Democratic primary votes peaked in 1984, and stabilized in the mid- 500,000 range in the 1990s. Over the past eight years, North Carolina has had an astounding 1.1 million in-crease in the raw number of registered voters: registration climbed from 3.8 million in 1992 to 4.9 million in 2000. On the surface, it appears that voter registration out- paced population growth in the 1990s. What happened? It is that North Carolina has dramati-cally felt the effects of the 1993 federal law, popularly known as “ motor- voter.’’ This law made it easier for people to register to vote, whether through the de-partment of motor vehicles, mail- in registration, or social services agencies. What’s more, the law put limits on the purging of voter rolls. The staff of the State Board of Elections estimates that the current voter registration total is inflated by 500,000 “ inac-tive’’ voters, including people who have moved away or who have not voted in recent elections but whose names cannot be purged under the law until 2001. The two- party vote total in 2000 was just about the same as in 1996, but the turnout percentage was lower because the total registration figure was significantly larger. ( continued on page 2) This will be the last issue of North Carolina DataNet published by the Odum In-stitute for Research in Social Science. See page 14 for details on our new home. ! North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 2 Another factor probably has contributed to lower turnout percentages in the 1990s than in the ’ 70s and ’ 80s. Presidential contests usually draw more voters to the polls than statewide races. When the General Assem-bly decided to schedule all first primaries in May, it had the effect of putting North Carolina late in the presiden-tial nominating lineup. With the national nominations practically decided before North Carolinians have voted for three consecutive primary elections, presidential races have not served as a draw to higher turnout in gubernato-rial and senatorial primaries. In effect, North Carolina now has two distinct electorates: 1) a core of partisan voters– Republicans as well as Democrats– who decide party nominations, and 2) a much larger general- election group that includes party loyalists, independents, and swing voters. ♦ NC Party Registration: 1966- 2000 Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science) Over the past one- third of a century there have been some significant shifts in how North Carolina voters view themselves when registering to vote. ( See “ NC Vot-ers’ Party Registration” table ( below left). In the mid- 1960s, registered Democrats outnum-bered registered Republicans by a 4.5 to 1 ratio. Since then, there has been a consistent decline in the percentage of voters registered as Democrats, from nearly 80% to just above 50%. Between 1966 and 1972 the decline av-eraged 2.1 percentage points each two- year period. Be-tween 1972 and 1984 the decline slowed to an average of only a half a percentage point each two- year period. Then, since 1984 the decline has averaged about 2.5 per-centage points each two- year period. By April of this year, the Democratic- Republican registration ratio was only 1.5 to 1. Over the same period, Republican registration has increased from just below 18% in 1966 to nearly 34% this past April. But that increase has been at a slower pace, averaging less than a percentage point gain each two- year period. The periods of greatest gain were in the mid 1960s and 1980s. However, since 1996 that growth has leveled off at about one- third of the registered voters. One of the most interesting shifts over the period is the growth of Independent or non- affiliated voters in the state. At only 2.5% of the registered voters in 1968, their percentage has risen to 15.4% by this April— a six-fold increase. For most of the period that growth was by very small increments each two- year period. But over the 1990s the increments have become greater, rising from 5.5% of the registered voters in 1990 to 15.4% in April 2000. No wonder both major political parties have opened up their primaries to these unaffiliated voters. If you can get them to vote in your party’s primary, you will probably get their vote in the November election— or so the theory goes. ♦ First Primary Turnout as a Measure of Party Strength Democrat Republican Total Votes Reg. Voters % Turnout 1960 643,060- G ------------- 643,060 N/ A N/ A 1972 808,105- G 107,583- G 915,688 2,280,000 40.2 1984 955,799- G 148,574- S 1,104,373 3,271,000 33.8 845,946- S 140,354- G 1992 701,606- G 270,568- S 972,174 3,817,000 25.5 1996 588,926- S 279,610- G 867,536 4,331,000 20.0 1998 540,031- S 265,288- S 705,319 4,740,000 14.9 2000 553,794- G 312,529- G 865,323 4,930,000 17.5 G = Gubernatorial primary S = Senatorial primary Source: NC State Board of Elections NC Voters' Party Registration: 1966- April 2000 Year % Dem. % Rep. % Ind. 1966 79.7 17.8 ( not avail.) 1968 75.5 21.6 2.5 1970 75.3 21.9 2.5 1972 73.4 22.9 3.7 1974 72.6 23.6 3.8 1976 72.5 23.5 4.0 1978 72.6 23.3 4.1 1980 72.4 23.5 4.1 1982 71.9 24.0 4.1 1984 70.0 25.6 4.4 1986 68.6 27.2 4.2 1988 65.6 29.6 4.9 1990 63.7 30.8 5.5 1992 60.6 31.9 7.5 1994 58.6 32.8 8.7 1996 54.4 33.7 11.9 1998 52.7 33.9 13.4 2000 ( April) 50.6 33.9 15.4 Sources: NC Center for Public Policy Research, “ The Two Party System in NC,” ( Raleigh, Dec 1987); NC Free, Sep 1998; and NC State Board of Elections. North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 3 NC Voter Registration & Turnout in General Elections: 1960- 2000 Total NC Total NC NC Turnout Party of Winner Voting- Age Registered # of % of Reg. % of Voting- Year Population Voters Voters Voters Age Pop. Pres. Sen. Gov. 1960 2,585,000 N/ A 1,368,556 -- 52.9 D D D 1962 2,647,000 N/ A 813,155 ( senate) -- 30.7 -- D -- 1964 2,723,000 N/ A 1,424,983 -- 52.3 D -- D 1966 2,798,000 1,933,763 901,978 46.6 32.2 -- D -- 1968 2,921,000 2,077,538 1,587,493 76.4 54.4 D D D 1970 3,043,000 1,945,187 932,948 63.9 30.7 -- -- -- 1972 3,541,399 2,357,645 1,518,612 64.4 42.9 R R R 1974 3,725,037 2,279,646 1,020,367 ( senate) 44.8 27.4 -- D -- 1976 3,884,477 2,553,717 1,677,906 65.7 43.2 D -- D 1978 4,053,977 2,430,306 1,135,814 ( senate) 46.7 28.0 -- R -- 1980 4,222,654 2,774,844 1,855,833 66.9 43.9 R R D 1982 4,416,444 2,674,787 1,330,630 49.7 30.1 -- -- -- 1984 4,585,788 3,270,933 2,239,051 68.5 47.4 R R R 1986 4,738,687 3,080,990 1,591,330 ( senate) 51.6 33.6 -- D -- 1988 4,887,358 3,432,042 2,134,370 62.2 43.7 R -- R 1990 5,016,747 3,347,635 2,068,904 ( senate) 61.8 41.2 -- R -- 1992 5,182,321 3,817,380 2,611,850 68.4 50.4 R R D 1994 5,359,333 3,635,875 1,533,728 42.2 28.6 -- -- -- 1996 5,499,000 4,330,657 2,618,326 60.5 47.6 R R D 1998 5,620,000 4,740,272 2,012,143 42.4 35.8 -- D -- 2000 ( April) 4,930,319 ?? -- ?? Sources: Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac of the United States ( Washington, DC: National Journal, 1972- 1998); US Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States ( various years); Federal Elections Commission; Office of the Secre-tary of State, North Carolina Manual ( Raleigh: Department of State, since 1966); NC State Board of Elections, " General Voter Registra-tion and Election Statistics,” NC Center for Public Policy Research, North Carolina Focus ( 1989) and " The Two Party System in North Carolina," ( Raleigh, Dec 1987); and Curtis Gans, Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. Largest Vote- Getters in Major Statewide Office Races: 1980- 1998 Candidate Status Race Year Total Votes NC Outcome Jim Hunt incumbent NC Governor 1996 1,436,638 won Jim Hunt open seat NC Governor 1992 1,368,246 won Terry Sanford incumbent US Senator 1992 1,194,015 lost Harvey Gantt challenging inc. US Senator 1996 1,173,875 lost Jim Hunt incumbent NC Governor 1980 1,143,143 won Bill Clinton challenging inc. President 1992 1,114,042 lost Bill Clinton incumbent President 1996 1,107,849 lost Jim Hunt challenging inc. US Senator 1984 1,070,488 lost John Edwards challenging inc. US Senator 1998 1,029,237 won Rufus Edmisten open seat NC Governor 1984 1,011,209 lost Harvey Gantt challenging inc. US Senator 1990 981,573 lost Bob Jordan challenging inc. NC Governor 1988 957,687 lost Michael Dukakis open seat President 1988 890,167 lost Robert Morgan incumbent US Senator 1980 887,653 lost Jimmy Carter incumbent President 1980 875,635 lost Walter Mondale challenging inc. President 1984 824,287 lost Terry Sanford challenging inc. US Senator 1986 823,662 won Ronald Reagan incumbent President 1984 1,346,481 won Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1996 1,345,833 won Lauch Faircloth challenging inc. US Senator 1992 1,297,892 won George Bush open seat President 1988 1,237,258 won Bob Dole challenging inc. President 1996 1,225,938 won Jim Martin incumbent NC Governor 1988 1,222,338 won Jim Martin open seat NC Governor 1984 1,208,167 won Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1984 1,156,768 won George Bush incumbent President 1992 1,134,661 won Jim Gardner open seat NC Governor 1992 1,121,955 lost Robin Hayes challenging inc. NC Governor 1996 1,097,053 lost Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1990 1,088,331 won Lauch Faircloth incumbent US Senator 1998 945,943 lost Ronald Reagan challenging inc. President 1980 915,018 won John East challenging inc. US Senator 1980 898,064 won James Broyhill incumbent US Senator 1986 767,668 lost I. Beverly Lake, Jr. challenging inc. NC Governor 1980 691,449 lost Source: Almanac of American Politics, 1982- 2000 D e m o c r a t s Re p u b l i c a n s North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 4 Cost of Gubernatorial Elections Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science) The cost of running for office seems to be getting higher and candidates’ need to raise money is as impor-tant as their need to gain voting support. Nowhere does this seem more true than in this state’s gubernatorial elections since 1968. If we look at how much the candi-dates reported spending over the last eight gubernatorial elections, we see an increase from $ 2.2 million in 1968 to $ 18 million in 1996. ( See “ Total Spending Reported” column in table below.) But when the inflation of the dollar over the period is factored in, a somewhat different picture emerges. To control for inflation in the expenditures for each of the eight elections, the actual dollars spent were converted into May 2000 dollar equivalents ( see “ Converting Cam-paign Expenditures” box on page 6). Those results are presented in the table below in the “ Total Spending ( in 2000$ Equivalent)” column. Here is what our analysis reveals: ♦ The most expensive gubernatorial race over the pe-riod was in 1972, when ten candidates sought the governorship and both parties had to go to a second primary to choose their candidates. Nearly four out of every five dollars spent was by a Democratic can-didate. By 51.3% to 48.7% margin, Jim Holshouser beat Democrat Hargrove “ Skipper” Bowles and be-came the first Republican to win the governor’s chair in the twentieth century. The total spent for that race was $ 33.6 million in 2000$, an average of $ 22.29 for each general election voter! ♦ The second most expensive race was the 1984 to succeed then two- term Democratic Governor Jim Hunt. A total of fourteen candidates spent the 2000$ equivalent $ 23.1 million in their quest for the gover-norship. Again, Democratic candidates spent nearly four out of every five dollars in the campaign ( in good part because there were ten Democratic candi-dates running and they needed a second primary to select their candidate, Attorney General Rufus Ed-misten). Congressman Jim Martin cruised through Cost of Gubernatorial Elections: 1968- 1996 A. Campaign Expenditures per Election Year Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in 2000$) 1968 $ 2,190,136 $ 10,735,961 1,558,308 $ 6.89 1972 $ 8,201,585 $ 33,613,053 1,507,785 $ 22.29 1976 $ 4,428,910 $ 13,340,090 1,658,999 $ 8.04 1980 $ 3,818,190 $ 7,938,025 1,884,543 $ 4.21 1984 $ 14,048,311 $ 23,143,840 2,226,727 $ 10.39 1988 $ 12,513,720 $ 18,109,580 2,180,025 $ 8.31 1992 $ 13,353,473 $ 16,284,723 2,595,184 $ 6.27 1996 $ 18,021,728 $ 20,024,142 2,566,185 $ 7.80 Total $ 142,754,106 16,177,756 $ 8.82 Avg. $ 17,844,263 2,022,220 $ 8.82 B. Type of Election Contested Primary? Year Status Candidates Dem. Rep. Margin of Victory Dem $ Rep $ 1968 Open Seat 5 Y Y + 6 D 55.7% 44.3% 1972 Open Seat 10 YY YY + 3 R 78.4% 21.6% 1976 Open Seat 9 Y YY + 32 D 90.2% 9.8% 1980 Incumbent 7 Y Y + 25 D 90.1% 9.9% 1984 Open Seat 14 YY Y + 9 R 78.2% 21.8% 1988 Incumbent 6 Y N + 12 R 53.9% 46.1% 1992 Open Seat 9 Y Y + 10 D 54.5% 42.5% 1996 Incumbent 9 N Y + 13 D 50.3% 49.7% Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000 dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.) Contested Primary? Listed by party; Y = yes; YY = second primary Dem $/ Rep $ = percent of total election expenditures spent by Democratic versus Republican candidates. North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 5 his party’s primary and then defeated Edmisten 54% to 45% to become North Carolina’s second Republi-can governor in the century. The amount spent was equal to $ 10.39 per general election voter. ♦ Next is the 1996 election, the third most expensive race. Democrat Jim Hunt won his fourth term over Republican Robin Hayes by a 56% to 43% margin. The nine candidates spent $ 20 million in 2000$ in this race, or about $ 7.80 per general election vote. The least expensive race was Hunt’s 1980 second term victory. The seven candidates only spent $ 7.9 million in 2000$ or $ 4.21 per general election vote. ♦ Looking at how much the candidates spent per vote cast in the general election, we see that while the races in 1972 ($ 22.29 per general election voter) and 1984 ($ 10.39) were the priciest, they were followed by the 1988 race ($ 8.31), the 1976 race ($ 8.04), and then the 1996 race ($ 7.80). Over the eight- election period the average amount spent per voter was $ 8.82. The five races for an open seat ( 1968, 1972, 1976, 1984, 1992) were more expensive on a $ 10.17 cost per voter basis than were the three incumbent reelection races ( 1980, 1988, 1996) on a $ 6.95 cost per voter basis. ♦ Note also the increasing parity in candidate spending between the two parties. From 1972 to 1984, Demo-cratic candidates considerably outspent their Repub-lican counterparts. There was a 9 to 1 Democratic advantage in Jim Hunt’s first two elections ( 1976, 1980) and a 4 to 1 ratio in the 1972 and 1984 elec-tions as noted above. Since the 1984 election, Re-publican spending has steadily closed in on Demo-cratic spending: the margin difference in 1996 was a mere 0.6%. Several things stand out in terms of spending by individual candidates in these eight elections ( see table below): ♦ In five of the eight races, the winning candidate spent more than the losing candidate. In 1976 Jim Hunt outspent his opponent by a 6 to 1 ratio and then followed that up by outspending his 1980 opponent by a 8.5 to 1 ratio. Winners’ and Losers’ Spending in NC Gubernatorial Elections: 1968- 1996 Campaign Spending by Winning Gubernatorial Candidates Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote Year Candidate Party Reported ( in 2000$) Votes Cast ( in 2000$) 1968 Bob Scott D $ 623,487 $ 3,056,309 821,233 $ 3.72 1972 Jim Holshouser R $ 962,289 $ 3,943,807 767,470 $ 5.14 1976 Jim Hunt D $ 1,665,913 $ 5,017,810 1,081,293 $ 4.64 1980 Jim Hunt D $ 3,199,316 $ 6,651,385 1,143,145 $ 5.82 1984 Jim Martin R $ 3,051,498 $ 5,027,180 1,208,167 $ 4.16 1988 Jim Martin R $ 5,770,785 $ 8,351,353 1,222,338 $ 6.83 1992 Jim Hunt D $ 6,978,623 $ 8,510,516 1,368,246 $ 6.22 1996 Jim Hunt D $ 9,063,854 $ 10,070,949 1,436,638 $ 7.01 Total $ 50,629,309 9,048,530 Average $ 6,328,664 1,131,066 $ 5.06 Campaign Spending by Losing Gubernatorial Candidates 1968 Jim Gardner R $ 651,351 $ 3,192,897 737,075 $ 4.33 1972 " Skipper" Bowles D $ 4,507,264 $ 18,472,393 729,104 $ 25.34 1976 David Flaherty R $ 277,045 $ 834,473 564,102 $ 1.48 1980 I. Beverly Lake, Jr. R $ 373,113 $ 786,098 691,449 $ 1.14 1984 Rufus Edmisten D $ 2,402,984 $ 3,958,787 1,011,209 $ 3.91 1988 Bob Jordan III D $ 6,738,168 $ 9,751,329 957,687 $ 10.18 1992 Jim Gardner R $ 5,655,013 $ 6,896,357 1,121,955 $ 6.15 1996 Robin Hayes R $ 6,953,236 $ 7,725,818 1,097,053 $ 7.04 Total $ 51,618,152 6,909,634 Average $ 6,452,269 863,704 $ 7.47 Average ( without 1972) $ 4,735,108 882,293 $ 5.36 Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000 dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.) Source: NC State Board of Elections North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 6 ♦ In two of the three exceptions to this winner spend-ing more than losers pattern, Republican candidates defeated their opponents in winning the election ( 1972, 1988). The other exception was in 1968 when Lieutenant Governor Bob Scott bested Congressman Jim Gardner by a six- point margin despite being slightly outspent by Gardner. ♦ The most expensive campaign over the eight-election period was in 1972 when Democratic candi-date Hargrove “ Skipper” Bowles’ lost to Republican Jim Holshouser even though spending $ 18.5 million in 2000$ in the race! His nearly 5 to 1 spending ratio against Holshouser still saw him lose by 3 percent-age points. I once asked Terry Sanford why Bowles lost the 1972 race despite spending so much on his campaign. His answer was quick and short: “ It wasn’t his turn!” Bowles had bested Lt. Governor Pat Taylor in a tough second primary and it was “ Taylor’s turn” to be governor. So, he lost support among Democrats in the General Election. ♦ It may seem like an old saw, but every governor elected since 1972 has been named Jim. And in 1968, the losing candidate was named Jim, and that same Jim tried to come back in 1992 only to be bested by another Jim, Hunt that is. In this current 2000 election year, we may see the Republican candidates outspend their Democratic coun-terparts for the first time ever. Will that yield them their third GOP governor since the turn of the last century? Could be, and since the race is for an open seat it will be expensive no matter who wins. And since there are no Jims in the race, the results are not as easy to predict. ♦ Cost of U. S. Senatorial Elections Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science) The political history of North Carolina’s two U. S. Senate seats is a tale of contrasts over the past 130 years. The seat currently occupied by Jesse Helms was held by a total of eleven individuals between 1872 and 1973, with an average term of service of more than nine years. Between 1872 and 1946, only four individuals held this seat, averaging nearly nineteen years of service each. Then between 1946 and 1973, seven men averaged under four years of service each. Among the seat’s notable alumni were Furnifold Simmons, who helped create and run the first Democratic political machine over the first quarter of the twentieth century; UNC System president Frank Porter Graham, who was appointed by Governor Kerr Scott in 1950 to fill a vacancy; and Governor Scott himself. By the 1970s, it had become a seat of fairly rapid turnover. The John Edwards seat was held by a total of nine individuals between 1873 and 1975, with an average term of service of more than eleven years. Between 1932 to 1974, only three men served, for an average of fourteen years each. Notables holding this seat included Governor Ze-bulon Vance in the late nineteenth century; Governors Cameron Morrison of the 1920s and Clyde Hoey of the pre- World War II era; and Sam Ervin, the star of the Senate Watergate hearings. This seat was relatively sta-ble, especially between the Depression era and the 1970s. However, since the 1972 and 1974 elections, the political history of these seats has diverged considerably. Jesse Helms was elected in 1972, has served since 1973, and may seek yet another term in 2002. Meanwhile, the other seat has had six different occupants since “ Senator Sam” retired in 1974: Robert Morgan ( D), John Porter East ( R), Jim Broyhill ( R), Terry Sanford ( D), Lauch Faircloth ( R), and John Edwards ( D). Despite the relative stability of Helms’ seat and the great instability of the Edwards revolving door seat, it is the campaign costs for Helms’ seat that have been by far the higher of the two ( see “ Cost of US Senate Elec-tions” table on page 7). The five Helms races have cost candidates a total of $ 92 million ( in 2000 dollar equiva-lents) compared to the total of $ 48 million for the five revolving door races. A single race for the Helms seat has averaged ( in 2000 dollar equivalents), $ 18.4 million, while a single race for the revolving door seat has aver-aged $ 9.7 million ( in 2000 dollar equivalents). Some analysts argue that the Helms seat is stable precisely be-cause the Senator has been able to raise and spend so much money in his campaigns, while there are many rea-sons for the instability in the revolving door seat. Converting Campaign Expendi-tures to May 2000$ Equivalents Campaign expenditures were converted into May 2000 dollar equivalents in order to compare across years and control for inflation. May 2000 dollar equivalents were created from the Consumer Price Index- Urban, using 1982- 84 as the base years [= 1.000]. The May 2000 CPI- U in-dex value was 1.713. To determine each year’s 2000$ value, that year’s CPI- U was divided by the May 2000 1.713 value. The 1968 CPI- U was .349 on the 1982- 84 base; this divided by the 1.713 May 2000 CPI- U equaled .204. Other years are: 1972 = .418 [. 244] 1974 = .493 [. 288] 1976 = .569 [. 332] 1978 = .652 [. 381] 1980 = .824 [. 481] 1984 = 1.039 [. 607] 1986 = 1.096 [. 640] 1988 = 1.183 [. 691] 1990 = 1.307 [. 763] 1992 = 1.403 [. 819] 1996 = 1.569 [. 920] 1998 = 1.630 [. 952] North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 7 We will have to wait and see whether Helms seeks to extend his hold in 2002. If he doesn’t run, will the campaign expenditures be considerably less in that race? And in 2004, will Edwards be able to break the three-decade jinx of the revolving door by being reelected? ♦ Cost of US Senate Elections: 1972- 1998 Campaign Expenditures per Election Year Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in $ 2000) 1972 $ 1,124,339 $ 4,607,947 1,472,541 $ 3.13 1974 $ 1,166,728 $ 4,051,139 1,011,393 $ 4.01 1978 $ 8,387,293 $ 22,013,892 1,135,814 $ 19.38 1980 $ 2,124,084 $ 4,415,975 1,785,717 $ 2.47 1984 $ 26,379,483 $ 43,458,785 2,227,256 $ 19.51 1986 $ 9,356,753 $ 14,619,926 1,591,330 $ 9.19 1990 $ 25,572,829 $ 33,516,158 2,069,904 $ 16.19 1992 $ 5,438,482 $ 6,640,393 2,577,891 $ 2.58 1996 $ 22,582,246 $ 24,545,919 2,556,456 $ 9.60 1998 $ 17,707,153 $ 18,599,950 2,012,143 $ 9.24 Total $ 176,470,084 18,440,445 $ 9.58 Type of Election Contested Primary? Year Status Dem. Rep. Margin of Victory Dem $ Rep $ 1972 Open Seat YY Y + 8 R 43.0% 57.0% 1974 Open Seat Y Y + 26 D 67.0 33.0 1978 Incumbent YY N + 10 R 3.1 96.9 1980 Incumbent N N + 1 R 44.6 55.4 1984 Incumbent Y Y + 4 R 35.9 64.1 1986 Appointee Y Y + 4 D 44.7 55.4 1990 Incumbent YY Y + 6 R 30.5 69.5 1992 Incumbent N Y + 4 R 45.7 54.3 1996 Incumbent Y N + 7 R 35.4 64.6 1998 Incumbent Y N + 4 D 47.1 52.9 Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000 dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.) Appointee = incumbent had been appointed to the seat, and was now seeking election in his own right Contested Primary? Listed by party; Y = yes; YY = second primary Sources: Almanac of American Politics, 1974- 2000; NC State Board of Elections North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 8 Helms/ Hunt Political Money Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science) Over the last three decades, two major political figures have dominated our state’s politics: Senator Jesse Helms and Governor Jim Hunt. According to the analysis in the table below, their initial elections have turned out to be their least expensive races. Helms spent “ only” $ 2.7 million in his 1972 win and Hunt spent “ only” $ 5 million in his 1976 win ( in 2000 dollar equivalents). Since those elections, the cost of winning their elections has in-creased considerably, especially for Helms. Not only have they continued to win their elec-tions, they were involved in the “ Great 1984 Train Wreck” when they did battle over who would hold Helms’ U. S. Senate seat come 1985. The 1984 race was a train wreck in that these two political figures were on the same track moving at high speed toward each other. Once Hunt won reelection in 1980 and would be leaving office in 1985, it was fairly apparent that if he was to go further in the state’s politics, that U. S. Senate seat was the op-tion. And an expensive train wreck it was, with the can-didates spending ( in 2000 dollar equivalents), $ 43.5 mil-lion, making it probably the most expensive statewide political race in North Carolina history. To hold on to the seat, Helms outspent Hunt by a 1.8 to 1 ratio ( in 2000 dollar equivalents, that would be $ 27.9 million to $ 15.6 million). But Helms has consistently spent more money on his campaigns than has Hunt. The former spent $ 92 mil-lion in his five U. S. Senate races compared to the $ 45.6 million Hunt has spent on his four gubernatorial and one senatorial races— a 2 to 1 ratio. And this was even true in their 1996 reelection races, where ( in 2000 dollar equivalents), Helms outspent Hunt $ 16.9 million to $ 9.9 million, or a 1.7 to 1 ratio. ♦ Campaign Spending by Jesse Helms and Jim Hunt Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in 2000$) Jesse Helms 1972 $ 654,246 $ 2,681,366 795,248 $ 3.37 1978 $ 8,123,205 $ 21,320,748 619,151 $ 34.44 1984 $ 16,917,559 $ 27,870,772 1,156,768 $ 24.09 1990 $ 17,761,579 $ 23,278,609 1,088,331 $ 21.39 1996 $ 14,589,266 $ 16,870,103 1,345,833 $ 12.54 Total $ 92,021,598 5,005,331 $ 18.38 Average per election $ 18,404,319 1,001,006 $ 18.38 Jim Hunt 1976 $ 1,665,913 $ 5,017,810 1,081,293 $ 4.64 1980 $ 3,199,316 $ 6,651,385 1,143,145 $ 5.82 1984* $ 9,461,924 $ 15,588,013 1,070,488 $ 14.56 1992 $ 6,978,623 $ 8,520,907 1,368,246 $ 6.22 1996 $ 9,063,854 $ 9,852,015 1,436,638 $ 7.01 Total $ 45,630,130 6,099,810 $ 7.48 Average per election $ 9,126,026 1,219,962 $ 7.48 Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the actual amount reported; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000 dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.) 1984* Hunt’s US Senate race. All Helms’ races were for the US Senate. Sources: Almanac of American Politics, 1974- 2000; NC State Board of Elections North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 9 A State Lottery for NC? Thad Beyle ( Note: A version of this article appeared in the June 2, 2000 issue of the Chapel Hill News). This past spring, the two leading Democratic can-didates for governor agreed on one major issue: that North Carolina should establish a state lottery and use the proceeds for education. Mike Easley and Dennis Wicker disagreed on exactly what part of education should re-ceive these funds, but many observers were surprised at their insistence that the state get into the lottery business. Why should the lottery suddenly become a major issue in this year’s gubernatorial race? There are several reasons: money, media, policy, and politics. ♦ Money: adjoining states have lotteries and they have been attracting North Carolina money to them. Why shouldn’t we get a lottery so we keep those funds here in our state? And we do need more revenues for the state budget, especially in education. ♦ Media: not only do we see TV programs like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? flourishing, but there is close coverage of people who win major lotteries across the country. Who wouldn’t be enticed by pictures of happy new millionaires holding oversized checks with their winnings? ♦ Policy: Georgia has successfully used lottery receipts to subsidize college education through its Hope Scholarships, making the state a bright beacon for what a well conceived lottery can achieve to help education within a state. More Georgians are going on to college and are staying in the state. ♦ Politics: the 1998 gubernatorial elections in Alabama and South Carolina saw two incumbent anti- gaming Republican governors unseated by Democratic challengers who advocated a state lottery. If the is-sue can win elections, use it. Of course there are reasons not to get into the lot-tery business. These include serious religious objections over the lottery as a moral issue. Others worry about a lottery encouraging citizens to gamble, creating false hopes of winning a lot of money, and assisting them in becoming gambling addicts. Others see a lottery as a not so hidden tax, and a very regressive tax at that. What are the prospects of North Carolina adopting a state lottery? The first step is to get a lottery- supporting candidate elected as governor. Without a governor in the lead, a state lottery is dead in the water in this state. The next step is to get the newly elected legislature to agree with the new governor’s lottery proposal and put the proposition out to the public for a referendum vote. State legislative candidates can expect some serious questions this year about their stance on a possible state lottery. How would North Carolinians vote on this propo-sition? They would support it, according to the series of seven Carolina Polls taken between 1983 and 1999 which asked respondents about a state lottery ( see “ Trends in Lottery Support” table, below). Support has generally ranged from a 2 to 1 positive ratio to a 4 to 1 positive ratio, depending on how the question was worded. The recent fall 1999 Carolina Poll found a 62% support to 31% oppose ratio ( see “ Populations Likely to Support or Oppose” table, next page). Of interest here is which populations are most likely to support or oppose a state lottery. The sub-groups most likely to support a state lottery included re-spondents ages 18 to 24 years old, respondents who never attend church or attend church infrequently, re-spondents who have never married, respondents in the coastal region of the state, and respondents at the lowest end of the income scale. The sub- groups most likely to oppose a state lottery were respondents who attend church at least once a week, respondents age 65 or older, respondents in the mountain region, and respondents at the highest end of the income scale. The key differences here revolve around age, income, and religion. But as samples of adult North Carolinians, these polls can be misleading come election day. How would a sample of registered voters differ? More importantly, Trends in Lottery Support: 1983- 99 Poll Date Question* % Positive % Negative April 1983 a 59 G 28 B October 1989 b 66 S 25 O October 1990 b 61 S 24 O March 1994 c 72 Y 21 N March 1997 b 61 S 30 O March 1998 d 69 F 16 O October 1999 b 62 S 31 O * Question wording and response options: a " Do you think a state lottery would be a good idea or a bad idea?" G = good, B = bad b " Do you support or oppose a state lottery for North Carolina?" S = support, O = oppose c " Do you think North Carolina lawmakers should consider starting a lottery to help our schools?" Y = yes, N = no d " Some people favor a state lottery to raise reve-nue for the NC educational system. Other people oppose a lottery on moral or economic grounds.” F = favor, O = oppose ( Split sample; see note in “ Populations Likely to Support or Oppose a NC Lottery” table, page 10) Sources: Various years of the Carolina Poll ( http:// www. irss. unc. edu/ irss/ researchdesservices/ researchdeslinks/ cpollreports. htm). North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 10 how would a poll of “ likely voters” differ? My guess is that the lottery issue is much tighter than it first appears once we get down to people who would actually have the interest and take the time to vote. And with the issues and perspectives involved, it would be a very tough cam-paign. One last point on how even those in politics can misread public sentiment from election results. Newly elected Alabama Governor Don Siegelman took immedi-ate steps to implement his pro lottery stance. It passed the state legislature and then went out to the voters for their concurrence. They didn’t concur, defeating the proposal with a 55% “ no” vote! This was the same electorate that had elected the pro state lottery Siegelman only a year earlier by 58%. What happened? In retrospect, the media and other analysts now believe what happened in that election was the voters were more interested in evicting incumbent Governor Fob James than in getting a state lottery. So, read those public opinion polls and the votes in the poll booth very carefully. ♦ Presidential Voting and NC Voters Christine A. Kelleher and Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science) In its February 21, 2000 issue, USA Today re-leased a ranking of the best to worst U. S. presidents. All forty- one men who ever held the office were ranked ac-cording to the quality of their performance by a survey of fifty- eight presidential historians ( see “ USA Today’s Presidential Rankings versus NC’s Voting History” table on page 12). While it is interesting to explore where all of the different presidents fall in a national historical framework, an equally interesting question explores how the voters in North Carolina measured up in voting for our presidents. Did they support those at the top of the ranking more than those further down the rankings? Or is there no distinct pattern of North Carolina voters being able to discern the potential quality of performance? The top presidents, ranked in order from one to ten, were Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Lyndon B. John-son. There is a clear twentieth century bias in the top ten ranking, with only three— Lincoln, Washington, and Jef-ferson— nineteenth century mentions. The top presidents’ service in office generally coincided with major events in the history of our country: the Revolutionary War, the creation of the new Union, the Civil War, World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, and the Civil Rights era. The ten top presidents ran in nineteen presidential elections, winning eighteen of them nationally. They won a majority of North Carolina’s Electoral College ( EC) 1 votes in twelve ( 63%) of these races. The seven excep-tions are of interest. Two exceptions were tied to the fact that North Carolina was not in the Union when the elec-tion occurred. In 1789 ( George Washington’s first elec-tion), North Carolina had not yet ratified the Constitu-tion, having led the fight to have a Bill of Rights attached before ratifying it. In 1864 ( Lincoln’s second election), North Carolina was part of the Confederacy, having se-ceded from the Union. Another exception was in 1860 ( Lincoln’s first election), when the Civil War loomed on the horizon. Two other exceptions were tied to Teddy Roosevelt, who in 1904 was an “ accidental President” seeking to win the office in his own right and who in 1912 was a former president trying to regain the office as the candidate of the Progressive Party. The final two ex-ceptions were the two Eisenhower elections in the 1950s. While Ike didn’t carry North Carolina, his two presiden-tial campaigns had much to do in helping Republicans become a greater force in the state. Populations Likely to Support or Oppose a NC Lottery: Oct 1999 Sub- Groups More Likely to Favor a Lottery ( total sample) 62% 18- 24 years old 81 Never attend church 80 Attend church less than once a month 77 Never married 76 Attend church 1- 3 times a month 72 Live in coastal region 70 Earn less than $ 10,000 per year 69 Sub- Groups More Likely to Oppose a Lottery ( total sample) 31% Attend church at least once a week 47 65 years or older 45 Live in mountain region 41 Republican 37 Earn $ 80,000 or more a year 37 Note: Question wording was: " Some people favor a state lottery to raise revenue for the NC educational system. Other people oppose a lottery on moral or economic grounds. Do you strongly favor, favor, op-pose, or strongly oppose a state lottery with the reve-nue used to support education?" The sample was split for this question, with half the respondents asked the question as worded as above and half asked the question with sentences 1 and 2 reversed. The re-sponses were not appreciably different and the re-sults were merged for presentation here. Also, the “ strongly favor” and “ favor” responses were com-bined, as were the “ oppose” and “ strongly oppose” responses. Source: Fall 1999 Carolina Poll, October 23- 30, 1999, 717 adult NC residents. North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 11 Presidential Elections in NC First, let’s look at the fifty- three presidential elec-tions North Carolina held between 1789 and 1996. Over-all, in the fifty- one presidential elections in which the state’s EC votes counted, the winner nationally also won in the state thirty- four times ( 67%). But there have been four rather distinct patterns over the two centuries in the results of these elections in North Carolina. ♦ In the eighteen presidential elections in the pre- Civil War period, the state’s EC vote went to the winning candidate fourteen times ( 78%). The only presidents not winning the state’s EC votes during this period were John Adams ( 1796), John Quincy Adams ( 1824) and James Polk ( 1844). The other election was the 1789 noted above. ♦ In the ten presidential elections between 1860 and 1900, there was considerable deviation between the vote in the nation and the vote in the state, as the Civil War and its aftermath were being felt. Only four presidents won the state’s EC vote in this pe-riod: Ulysses S. Grant ( 1868 and 1872) and Grover Cleveland ( 1884 and 1892). This was a 44% winning rate, discounting the 1864 election noted above. ♦ In the seventeen presidential elections between the McKinley election of 1900 and the Johnson election of 1964, the state was safely Democratic. The only Republican presidential candidate to carry the state was Herbert Hoover in 1928. Many of the state’s Democratic voters just couldn’t buy the Democratic candidate, New York Governor Al Smith, a Catholic and a Prohibition- Era “ wet.” The state’s EC vote went to the winner in ten of these contests, a 59% winning rate. ♦ In the eight presidential elections since 1968, North Carolinians’ votes went to the Republican candidate in all but the 1976 Jimmy Carter victory. North Carolina’s vote went to the winner in seven of these eight elections ( 88%). How Individual Presidents Have Fared in NC Now, we turn to see how individual presidents have fared in presidential elections in NC. In this discus-sion, “ presidents” are individuals who either won the presidency, ran for reelection, or sought to regain the office. Election attempts prior to their initial presidential win ( e. g., Nixon in 1960) are not included. ( See “ Total Number of Presidential Elections” table, below.) ♦ These forty- one presidents were involved in sixty-three separate presidential elections and won fifty-three of them nationally ( 84%). They won the state’s EC vote in thirty- six of the sixty- three races ( 57%). ♦ The top twenty presidents in the rankings were in-volved in more presidential elections ( 38) than those in the bottom half ( 25), a 1.5 to 1 ratio. Part of this disparity is tied to those presidents in the lower half who either died in their first and only term ( Garfield, Harding, W. H. Harrison, Taylor), or as vice presi-dents succeeded to the presidency and only served out that term following the death of the elected president ( Arthur, Filmore, Ford, A. Johnson, Tyler). ♦ The twenty presidents in the top half of the rankings won thirty- four of their thirty- eight races nationally ( 89%), and won North Carolina’s EC vote in twenty-five of these races ( 66%). ♦ The twenty- one presidents in the bottom half of the rankings won nineteen of their twenty- five races na-tionally ( 76%) and won North Carolina’s EC vote in eleven of these races ( 44%). ♦ Nineteen presidents won every one of their elections in North Carolina: Buchanan, Bush ( 2 races), Cleveland ( 3 races), Grant ( 2), W. H. Harrison, Jack-son ( 2), Jefferson ( 2), L. Johnson, Kennedy, Madi-son ( 2), Monroe ( 2), Nixon ( 2), Pierce, Reagan ( 2), F. Roosevelt ( 4), Taylor, Truman, Washington, Wil-son ( 2) Total Number of Presidential Elections USA Today Won- US Lost- US Total # Quartile Ranking Total W- NC L- NC Total W- NC L- NC of Elections # 1 through # 10 18 12 4 [ 2]* 1 0 1 19 # 11 through # 20 16 11 5 3 2 1 19 # 21 through # 30 11 5 6 4 0 4 15 # 31 through # 41 8 6 2 2 0 2 10 Total 53 34 17 10 2 8 63 Note: Table includes all presidential elections in which a president was elected, an incumbent president sought another term, or a former president sought to return to the White House. Won/ Lost- US: Total = national elections won/ lost; W- NC = NC elections won; L- NC = NC elections lost * Two elections occurred when NC was not part of the Union ( Washington’s in 1789 and Lincoln’s in 1864). North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 12 USA Today’s Presidential Rankings versus NC’s Voting History NC Outcome NC Outcome Rank President Year Won? Vote % Rank President Year Won? Vote % 1 Abraham Lincoln W 1860 N 3% 21 Bill Clinton W 1992 N 43% W 1864* Not in Union W 1996 N 44% 2 Franklin Roosevelt W 1932 Y 70% 22 Jimmy Carter W 1976 Y 55% W 1936 Y 73% 1980 N 47% W 1940 Y 74% 23 Gerald Ford 1974* VP W 1944 Y 67% 1976 N 44% 3 George Washington W 1789* Not in Union 24 William H. Taft W 1908 N46% W 1792 Y 12/ 12 EC 1912* N 12% 4 Theodore Roosevelt 1900* VP 25 Richard M. Nixon W 1968* Y 40% W 1904 N 40% W 1972 Y 70% 1912 N 28% 26 Rutherford Hayes W 1876 N 46% 5 Harry Truman 1944* VP 27 Calvin Coolidge 1920* VP W 1948 Y 58% W 1924 N 40% 6 Woodrow Wilson W 1912 Y 59% 28 Zachary Taylor W 1848 Y55% W 1916 Y 58% 29 James Garfield W 1880 N 48% 7 Thomas Jefferson W 1800 Y 58% 30 Martin Van Buren W 1836 Y 53% W 1804 Y 14/ 14 EC 1840 N 42% 8 John Kennedy W 1960 Y 52% 31 Benjamin Harrison W 1888 N 48% 9 Dwight Eisenhower W 1952 N 46% 1892 N 36% W 1956 N 49% 32 Chester Arthur 1880* VP 10 Lyndon Johnson 1960* VP 33 Ulysses S. Grant W 1868 Y 53% W 1964 Y 56% W 1872 Y57% 11 Ronald Reagan W 1980 Y 49% 34 Herbert Hoover W 1928 Y 55% W 1984 Y 61% 1932 N 29% 12 James Polk W 1844 N 48% 35 Millard Filmore 1852* VP 13 Andrew Jackson W 1828 Y 73% 36 John Tyler 1840* VP W 1832 Y 85% 37 William H. Harrison W 1840 Y58% 14 James Monroe W 1816 Y 97% 38 Warren Harding W 1920 N43% W 1820 Y 96% 39 Franklin Pierce W 1852 Y 50.4% 15 William McKinley W 1896 N 47% 40 Andrew Johnson 1865* VP W 1900 N 46% 41 James Buchanan W 1856* Y 57% 16 John Adams W 1796 N 1/ 24 EC 17 Grover Cleveland W 1884 Y 53% 1888 Y 52% W 1892 Y 48% 18 James Madison W 1808 Y 48% W 1812 Y 15/ 15 EC 19 John Q. Adams W 1824 N 36% 1828 N 27% 20 George Bush W 1988 Y 58% 1992 Y 44% Rank = USA Today ranking ( See “ Presidential Voting” article, page 10) Year: W = won national election for president NC Outcome: Won in NC? = Yes/ No; Vote % = % of the NC popular vote ( for elections prior to 1816, the # of Electoral College votes won out of # possible are listed in lieu of actual returns). VP = vice- president, succeeded after death of president * = See the “ Notes for Presidential Rankings Table” ( page 13) for details on particular years. Sources: Seth B. Hinshaw, North Carolina Election Returns 1790- 1866: Covering the Races for President, Governor and US House ( Stockport, OH: S. B. Hinshaw, 1992); John L. Chaney, Jr., ed., North Carolina Gov-ernment, 1585- 1974, ( Raleigh: Secretary of State's Office, 1975); CQ's Guide to US Elections, ( Washington, D. C. CQ Press, 1975), and Venessa Goodman and Jack Betts, Growth of a Two- Party System in North Caro-lina ( Raleigh: North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research, 1987). North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 13 ♦ Fifteen presidents never won any of their twenty- two races in North Carolina: J. Adams, J. Q. Adams ( 2 races), Clinton ( 2), Coolidge, Eisenhower ( 2), Ford, Garfield, Harding, B. Harrison, Hayes, Lincoln, McKinley ( 2), Polk, T. Roosevelt ( 2), Taft ( 2). Summary The panel of fifty- eight presidential historians voted last winter on who they thought were the country’s best and worst presidents. North Carolina voters and electors have been casting their votes on presidents for over the past two centuries. There are parallels and de-viations between these two sets of votes. Not only is it the president’s job performance while in office that has counted in these votes, but the times in which they served: wars, good times and bad times, terms shortened by death, and being an “ accidental president” serving out the terms of those who died or left office. A general conclusion might be that North Carolina voters are both leaders and followers. They have fol-lowed national trends as well as deviated from them. Re-gardless of their political positions, however, they have undoubtedly demonstrated that their voice is an important one, revealing much about the nature and course of both North Carolina as a state as well as the more general no-tions surrounding American history and tradition. 1Regarding North Carolina’s treatment of Electoral College ( EC) votes, presidential electors were chosen by the state legislature in 1792; in the 1796 to 1808 elections, electors were selected in districts by popular vote; in 1812, electors were selected by the state legislature; and since 1816, electors have been selected by statewide popular vote. ♦ Notes for Presidential Rankings Table ( page 12) 1789 NC did not vote, since it had not yet ratified the U. S. Constitution. 1840 John Tyler ran as William Henry Harrison’s vice president in 1840 and succeeded to the presidency when Harrison died one month after the inauguration. Both major parties spurned any bid by Tyler to be nominated as their presidential candidate in 1844. 1852 Millard Filmore ran as Zachary Taylor’ vice president in 1848 and succeeded to the presidency follow-ing Taylor’s death in 1850. Filmore lost his bid for the Whig nomination for president in 1852. 1856 James Buchanan did not seek reelection in 1860, nor would either wing of his splintered party have considered him as a candidate. 1864 NC did not vote, since it had seceded from the Union. 1865 Andrew Johnson ran as Abraham Lincoln’s vice president in 1864 and succeeded to the presidency following Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865. Johnson survived an impeachment attempt in 1868, but the Democratic Party selected New York Governor Horatio Seymour as its candidate. 1880 Chester Arthur ran as James Garfield’s vice president in 1880 and succeeded to the presidency following Garfield’s assassination in 1881. Declining health prevented Arthur from running in 1884. 1900 Theodore Roosevelt ran as William McKinley’s vice president in 1900 and succeeded to the presidency following McKinley’s assassination in 1901. 1912 Woodrow Wilson beat Taft and Theodore Roosevelt 1920 Calvin Coolidge ran as Warren Harding’s vice president in 1920 and succeeded to the presidency following Harding’s death in 1923. 1944 Harry Truman ran as Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president in 1944 and succeeded to the presidency following Roosevelt’s death in 1945. 1960 Lyndon Johnson ran as John Kennedy’s vice president in 1960 and succeeded to the presidency following Kennedy’s assassination in 1963. 1968 Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey ( who received 29% of NC vote) and George Wallace ( 31%). 1974 Gerald Ford was appointed vice president by Richard Nixon after Spiro Agnew resigned in October 1973. Ford succeeded to the presidency following Nixon’s resignation in August 1974. North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 14 NC DataNet’s New Home Ferrel Guillory ( UNC- CH Program on Media, Southern Politics and Public Life, School of Journalism and Mass Communications) The Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life seeks to enhance the public service mission of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by serving as a vehicle for the university to assert its schol-arly strength and civic tradition in the region. Its princi-pal goals are to create on campus a common- ground meeting place for civic, business, journalistic and politi-cal leaders and to enrich research and learning opportu-nities for faculty and students. It is in keeping with the program’s efforts to make the work of scholars and their students more accessible that the program has become the publishing home of North Carolina DataNet. This is a quarterly newsletter of government and political data, edited by UNC- CH Politi-cal Science Professor Thad Beyle, and published, until now, by the Odom Institute for Research in Social Sci-ence ( IRSS). As a result of recent administrative changes, the Odum Institute can no longer publish North Carolina DataNet. Because of the value of this publication— as an outlet for faculty research and student projects— the Pro-gram on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life agreed to become its new publisher. The newsletter’s audience includes faculty in political science and the humanities, state legislators, journalists, opinion leaders, and others with an interest in politics in this state. In addition to publishing North Carolina DataNet, the Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life has the following line- up of projects: Executive Seminars for State Legislators This project, conducted in collaboration with the UNC- CH Program on the Humanities and Human Val-ues, gives lawmakers, with a special emphasis on emerging leaders, an opportunity to read, think, and talk about big issues of our time. The second seminar in this series is scheduled for November 12- 15, 2000, in Chapel Hill. The first seminar last year attracted eighteen state legislators from seven states. Presenters included former Governor William Winter of Mississippi, former Gover-nor James Holshouser of North Carolina, historians John Hope Franklin and William Leuchtenburg, UNC- CH Public Health Dean William Roper, UNC- CH Education Dean Madeleine Grumet, and former UNC System Presi-dent William Friday. Southern Journalists Roundtables Once a semester, the program gathers a roundtable of columnists, editorial writers, and state capital corre-spondents, along with UNC faculty and graduate stu-dents, to consider emerging and enduring issues in the Southern states. The fifth roundtable will take place fol-lowing the 2000 general election. Election 2000 Project The Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life joined as a “ state partner’’ to the Alliance for Better Campaigns, a Pew- funded organization working to expand candidate- centered discourse on television. The program has two roles: a) to encourage television stations in North Carolina to devote five minutes a day to cam-paign coverage in the thirty days prior to an election, as recommended by the federal Advisory Commission on the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Broadcasters; and b) to monitor TV coverage of the gubernatorial race in North Carolina. Jim Goodmon, the chief executive of Capitol Broadcasting Co., who served on the Advisory Commission, took the lead among state broadcasters in offering two- minute messages from major- party candi-dates for governor three times a day for the thirty days prior to the May 2 primaries on four of its TV stations, including WRAL- TV. In addition, WBTV- TV in Char-lotte aired a nightly report on primary campaigns throughout the month of April. Campaign 2000 Commentary The program has joined with WUNC- FM radio in an effort to bolster the station’s attention to and com-mentary on this year’s election campaigns. I will be a regular commentator for the station during its local seg-ments in the Friday afternoon All Things Considered time period. ♦ NC DataNet Odum Institute for Research in Social Science CB# 3355 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill NC 27599- 3355
Object Description
Description
Title | North Carolina datanet. |
Other Title | Data net; North Carolina data net; Datanet |
Date | 2000-06 |
Description | June 2000 (Number 25) |
Digital Characteristics-A | 299 KB; 14 p. |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_borndigital\images_master\ |
Full Text | North Carolina DataNet June 2000 Issue # 25 Historical Perspectives on NC Politics ! Thad Beyle, editor ( beyle@ email. unc. edu) Jennifer Drolet, managing editor ( jdrolet@ irss. unc. edu) ! North Carolina DataNet is a quarterly newsletter published by the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. ! To join our mailing list, please contact Thad Beyle, Dept. of Political Science, CB # 3265, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599- 3265. ! 850 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $ 475. NC DataNet June 2000 Issue # 25 Turnout in NC's Gubernatorial Primaries Ferrel Guillory ( UNC- CH Program on Media, Southern Politics and Public Life, School of Journalism and Mass Communications) Despite competitive races in both the Democratic and Republican parties, North Carolina’s gubernatorial primaries brought forth wails of lament over “ all- time low’’ voter turnout. Indeed, the turnout was very low, but that’s not the whole story. The ac-companying table “ First Primary Turnout as a Measure of Party Strength” ( page 2) points to several trends that form a more nearly complete picture. As North Carolina has become increasingly a state of two- party competition since 1972, there has been a steady drop in turnout ( i. e., total vote as a percentage of registered voters), in party primaries for governor and U. S. senator. During much of the twentieth century, when North Carolina was a one- party state, the battle for the gover-nor’s mansion took place within the Democratic Party. Turnout was relatively high in the primaries, because citizens who wanted to help decide who became governor knew that they had to take part in the Democratic primary. Now, more than twice as many voters cast ballots in the general election as in party primaries. In total voters who show up to cast ballots, Democratic Party turnout still exceeds GOP turnout. But Republican Party participation has expanded since the early ’ 70s. Republican vote- count hit a peak in 2000, though it still fell more than a quarter of a million votes below the Democratic total. Democratic primary votes peaked in 1984, and stabilized in the mid- 500,000 range in the 1990s. Over the past eight years, North Carolina has had an astounding 1.1 million in-crease in the raw number of registered voters: registration climbed from 3.8 million in 1992 to 4.9 million in 2000. On the surface, it appears that voter registration out- paced population growth in the 1990s. What happened? It is that North Carolina has dramati-cally felt the effects of the 1993 federal law, popularly known as “ motor- voter.’’ This law made it easier for people to register to vote, whether through the de-partment of motor vehicles, mail- in registration, or social services agencies. What’s more, the law put limits on the purging of voter rolls. The staff of the State Board of Elections estimates that the current voter registration total is inflated by 500,000 “ inac-tive’’ voters, including people who have moved away or who have not voted in recent elections but whose names cannot be purged under the law until 2001. The two- party vote total in 2000 was just about the same as in 1996, but the turnout percentage was lower because the total registration figure was significantly larger. ( continued on page 2) This will be the last issue of North Carolina DataNet published by the Odum In-stitute for Research in Social Science. See page 14 for details on our new home. ! North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 2 Another factor probably has contributed to lower turnout percentages in the 1990s than in the ’ 70s and ’ 80s. Presidential contests usually draw more voters to the polls than statewide races. When the General Assem-bly decided to schedule all first primaries in May, it had the effect of putting North Carolina late in the presiden-tial nominating lineup. With the national nominations practically decided before North Carolinians have voted for three consecutive primary elections, presidential races have not served as a draw to higher turnout in gubernato-rial and senatorial primaries. In effect, North Carolina now has two distinct electorates: 1) a core of partisan voters– Republicans as well as Democrats– who decide party nominations, and 2) a much larger general- election group that includes party loyalists, independents, and swing voters. ♦ NC Party Registration: 1966- 2000 Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science) Over the past one- third of a century there have been some significant shifts in how North Carolina voters view themselves when registering to vote. ( See “ NC Vot-ers’ Party Registration” table ( below left). In the mid- 1960s, registered Democrats outnum-bered registered Republicans by a 4.5 to 1 ratio. Since then, there has been a consistent decline in the percentage of voters registered as Democrats, from nearly 80% to just above 50%. Between 1966 and 1972 the decline av-eraged 2.1 percentage points each two- year period. Be-tween 1972 and 1984 the decline slowed to an average of only a half a percentage point each two- year period. Then, since 1984 the decline has averaged about 2.5 per-centage points each two- year period. By April of this year, the Democratic- Republican registration ratio was only 1.5 to 1. Over the same period, Republican registration has increased from just below 18% in 1966 to nearly 34% this past April. But that increase has been at a slower pace, averaging less than a percentage point gain each two- year period. The periods of greatest gain were in the mid 1960s and 1980s. However, since 1996 that growth has leveled off at about one- third of the registered voters. One of the most interesting shifts over the period is the growth of Independent or non- affiliated voters in the state. At only 2.5% of the registered voters in 1968, their percentage has risen to 15.4% by this April— a six-fold increase. For most of the period that growth was by very small increments each two- year period. But over the 1990s the increments have become greater, rising from 5.5% of the registered voters in 1990 to 15.4% in April 2000. No wonder both major political parties have opened up their primaries to these unaffiliated voters. If you can get them to vote in your party’s primary, you will probably get their vote in the November election— or so the theory goes. ♦ First Primary Turnout as a Measure of Party Strength Democrat Republican Total Votes Reg. Voters % Turnout 1960 643,060- G ------------- 643,060 N/ A N/ A 1972 808,105- G 107,583- G 915,688 2,280,000 40.2 1984 955,799- G 148,574- S 1,104,373 3,271,000 33.8 845,946- S 140,354- G 1992 701,606- G 270,568- S 972,174 3,817,000 25.5 1996 588,926- S 279,610- G 867,536 4,331,000 20.0 1998 540,031- S 265,288- S 705,319 4,740,000 14.9 2000 553,794- G 312,529- G 865,323 4,930,000 17.5 G = Gubernatorial primary S = Senatorial primary Source: NC State Board of Elections NC Voters' Party Registration: 1966- April 2000 Year % Dem. % Rep. % Ind. 1966 79.7 17.8 ( not avail.) 1968 75.5 21.6 2.5 1970 75.3 21.9 2.5 1972 73.4 22.9 3.7 1974 72.6 23.6 3.8 1976 72.5 23.5 4.0 1978 72.6 23.3 4.1 1980 72.4 23.5 4.1 1982 71.9 24.0 4.1 1984 70.0 25.6 4.4 1986 68.6 27.2 4.2 1988 65.6 29.6 4.9 1990 63.7 30.8 5.5 1992 60.6 31.9 7.5 1994 58.6 32.8 8.7 1996 54.4 33.7 11.9 1998 52.7 33.9 13.4 2000 ( April) 50.6 33.9 15.4 Sources: NC Center for Public Policy Research, “ The Two Party System in NC,” ( Raleigh, Dec 1987); NC Free, Sep 1998; and NC State Board of Elections. North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 3 NC Voter Registration & Turnout in General Elections: 1960- 2000 Total NC Total NC NC Turnout Party of Winner Voting- Age Registered # of % of Reg. % of Voting- Year Population Voters Voters Voters Age Pop. Pres. Sen. Gov. 1960 2,585,000 N/ A 1,368,556 -- 52.9 D D D 1962 2,647,000 N/ A 813,155 ( senate) -- 30.7 -- D -- 1964 2,723,000 N/ A 1,424,983 -- 52.3 D -- D 1966 2,798,000 1,933,763 901,978 46.6 32.2 -- D -- 1968 2,921,000 2,077,538 1,587,493 76.4 54.4 D D D 1970 3,043,000 1,945,187 932,948 63.9 30.7 -- -- -- 1972 3,541,399 2,357,645 1,518,612 64.4 42.9 R R R 1974 3,725,037 2,279,646 1,020,367 ( senate) 44.8 27.4 -- D -- 1976 3,884,477 2,553,717 1,677,906 65.7 43.2 D -- D 1978 4,053,977 2,430,306 1,135,814 ( senate) 46.7 28.0 -- R -- 1980 4,222,654 2,774,844 1,855,833 66.9 43.9 R R D 1982 4,416,444 2,674,787 1,330,630 49.7 30.1 -- -- -- 1984 4,585,788 3,270,933 2,239,051 68.5 47.4 R R R 1986 4,738,687 3,080,990 1,591,330 ( senate) 51.6 33.6 -- D -- 1988 4,887,358 3,432,042 2,134,370 62.2 43.7 R -- R 1990 5,016,747 3,347,635 2,068,904 ( senate) 61.8 41.2 -- R -- 1992 5,182,321 3,817,380 2,611,850 68.4 50.4 R R D 1994 5,359,333 3,635,875 1,533,728 42.2 28.6 -- -- -- 1996 5,499,000 4,330,657 2,618,326 60.5 47.6 R R D 1998 5,620,000 4,740,272 2,012,143 42.4 35.8 -- D -- 2000 ( April) 4,930,319 ?? -- ?? Sources: Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac of the United States ( Washington, DC: National Journal, 1972- 1998); US Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States ( various years); Federal Elections Commission; Office of the Secre-tary of State, North Carolina Manual ( Raleigh: Department of State, since 1966); NC State Board of Elections, " General Voter Registra-tion and Election Statistics,” NC Center for Public Policy Research, North Carolina Focus ( 1989) and " The Two Party System in North Carolina," ( Raleigh, Dec 1987); and Curtis Gans, Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. Largest Vote- Getters in Major Statewide Office Races: 1980- 1998 Candidate Status Race Year Total Votes NC Outcome Jim Hunt incumbent NC Governor 1996 1,436,638 won Jim Hunt open seat NC Governor 1992 1,368,246 won Terry Sanford incumbent US Senator 1992 1,194,015 lost Harvey Gantt challenging inc. US Senator 1996 1,173,875 lost Jim Hunt incumbent NC Governor 1980 1,143,143 won Bill Clinton challenging inc. President 1992 1,114,042 lost Bill Clinton incumbent President 1996 1,107,849 lost Jim Hunt challenging inc. US Senator 1984 1,070,488 lost John Edwards challenging inc. US Senator 1998 1,029,237 won Rufus Edmisten open seat NC Governor 1984 1,011,209 lost Harvey Gantt challenging inc. US Senator 1990 981,573 lost Bob Jordan challenging inc. NC Governor 1988 957,687 lost Michael Dukakis open seat President 1988 890,167 lost Robert Morgan incumbent US Senator 1980 887,653 lost Jimmy Carter incumbent President 1980 875,635 lost Walter Mondale challenging inc. President 1984 824,287 lost Terry Sanford challenging inc. US Senator 1986 823,662 won Ronald Reagan incumbent President 1984 1,346,481 won Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1996 1,345,833 won Lauch Faircloth challenging inc. US Senator 1992 1,297,892 won George Bush open seat President 1988 1,237,258 won Bob Dole challenging inc. President 1996 1,225,938 won Jim Martin incumbent NC Governor 1988 1,222,338 won Jim Martin open seat NC Governor 1984 1,208,167 won Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1984 1,156,768 won George Bush incumbent President 1992 1,134,661 won Jim Gardner open seat NC Governor 1992 1,121,955 lost Robin Hayes challenging inc. NC Governor 1996 1,097,053 lost Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1990 1,088,331 won Lauch Faircloth incumbent US Senator 1998 945,943 lost Ronald Reagan challenging inc. President 1980 915,018 won John East challenging inc. US Senator 1980 898,064 won James Broyhill incumbent US Senator 1986 767,668 lost I. Beverly Lake, Jr. challenging inc. NC Governor 1980 691,449 lost Source: Almanac of American Politics, 1982- 2000 D e m o c r a t s Re p u b l i c a n s North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 4 Cost of Gubernatorial Elections Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science) The cost of running for office seems to be getting higher and candidates’ need to raise money is as impor-tant as their need to gain voting support. Nowhere does this seem more true than in this state’s gubernatorial elections since 1968. If we look at how much the candi-dates reported spending over the last eight gubernatorial elections, we see an increase from $ 2.2 million in 1968 to $ 18 million in 1996. ( See “ Total Spending Reported” column in table below.) But when the inflation of the dollar over the period is factored in, a somewhat different picture emerges. To control for inflation in the expenditures for each of the eight elections, the actual dollars spent were converted into May 2000 dollar equivalents ( see “ Converting Cam-paign Expenditures” box on page 6). Those results are presented in the table below in the “ Total Spending ( in 2000$ Equivalent)” column. Here is what our analysis reveals: ♦ The most expensive gubernatorial race over the pe-riod was in 1972, when ten candidates sought the governorship and both parties had to go to a second primary to choose their candidates. Nearly four out of every five dollars spent was by a Democratic can-didate. By 51.3% to 48.7% margin, Jim Holshouser beat Democrat Hargrove “ Skipper” Bowles and be-came the first Republican to win the governor’s chair in the twentieth century. The total spent for that race was $ 33.6 million in 2000$, an average of $ 22.29 for each general election voter! ♦ The second most expensive race was the 1984 to succeed then two- term Democratic Governor Jim Hunt. A total of fourteen candidates spent the 2000$ equivalent $ 23.1 million in their quest for the gover-norship. Again, Democratic candidates spent nearly four out of every five dollars in the campaign ( in good part because there were ten Democratic candi-dates running and they needed a second primary to select their candidate, Attorney General Rufus Ed-misten). Congressman Jim Martin cruised through Cost of Gubernatorial Elections: 1968- 1996 A. Campaign Expenditures per Election Year Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in 2000$) 1968 $ 2,190,136 $ 10,735,961 1,558,308 $ 6.89 1972 $ 8,201,585 $ 33,613,053 1,507,785 $ 22.29 1976 $ 4,428,910 $ 13,340,090 1,658,999 $ 8.04 1980 $ 3,818,190 $ 7,938,025 1,884,543 $ 4.21 1984 $ 14,048,311 $ 23,143,840 2,226,727 $ 10.39 1988 $ 12,513,720 $ 18,109,580 2,180,025 $ 8.31 1992 $ 13,353,473 $ 16,284,723 2,595,184 $ 6.27 1996 $ 18,021,728 $ 20,024,142 2,566,185 $ 7.80 Total $ 142,754,106 16,177,756 $ 8.82 Avg. $ 17,844,263 2,022,220 $ 8.82 B. Type of Election Contested Primary? Year Status Candidates Dem. Rep. Margin of Victory Dem $ Rep $ 1968 Open Seat 5 Y Y + 6 D 55.7% 44.3% 1972 Open Seat 10 YY YY + 3 R 78.4% 21.6% 1976 Open Seat 9 Y YY + 32 D 90.2% 9.8% 1980 Incumbent 7 Y Y + 25 D 90.1% 9.9% 1984 Open Seat 14 YY Y + 9 R 78.2% 21.8% 1988 Incumbent 6 Y N + 12 R 53.9% 46.1% 1992 Open Seat 9 Y Y + 10 D 54.5% 42.5% 1996 Incumbent 9 N Y + 13 D 50.3% 49.7% Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000 dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.) Contested Primary? Listed by party; Y = yes; YY = second primary Dem $/ Rep $ = percent of total election expenditures spent by Democratic versus Republican candidates. North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 5 his party’s primary and then defeated Edmisten 54% to 45% to become North Carolina’s second Republi-can governor in the century. The amount spent was equal to $ 10.39 per general election voter. ♦ Next is the 1996 election, the third most expensive race. Democrat Jim Hunt won his fourth term over Republican Robin Hayes by a 56% to 43% margin. The nine candidates spent $ 20 million in 2000$ in this race, or about $ 7.80 per general election vote. The least expensive race was Hunt’s 1980 second term victory. The seven candidates only spent $ 7.9 million in 2000$ or $ 4.21 per general election vote. ♦ Looking at how much the candidates spent per vote cast in the general election, we see that while the races in 1972 ($ 22.29 per general election voter) and 1984 ($ 10.39) were the priciest, they were followed by the 1988 race ($ 8.31), the 1976 race ($ 8.04), and then the 1996 race ($ 7.80). Over the eight- election period the average amount spent per voter was $ 8.82. The five races for an open seat ( 1968, 1972, 1976, 1984, 1992) were more expensive on a $ 10.17 cost per voter basis than were the three incumbent reelection races ( 1980, 1988, 1996) on a $ 6.95 cost per voter basis. ♦ Note also the increasing parity in candidate spending between the two parties. From 1972 to 1984, Demo-cratic candidates considerably outspent their Repub-lican counterparts. There was a 9 to 1 Democratic advantage in Jim Hunt’s first two elections ( 1976, 1980) and a 4 to 1 ratio in the 1972 and 1984 elec-tions as noted above. Since the 1984 election, Re-publican spending has steadily closed in on Demo-cratic spending: the margin difference in 1996 was a mere 0.6%. Several things stand out in terms of spending by individual candidates in these eight elections ( see table below): ♦ In five of the eight races, the winning candidate spent more than the losing candidate. In 1976 Jim Hunt outspent his opponent by a 6 to 1 ratio and then followed that up by outspending his 1980 opponent by a 8.5 to 1 ratio. Winners’ and Losers’ Spending in NC Gubernatorial Elections: 1968- 1996 Campaign Spending by Winning Gubernatorial Candidates Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote Year Candidate Party Reported ( in 2000$) Votes Cast ( in 2000$) 1968 Bob Scott D $ 623,487 $ 3,056,309 821,233 $ 3.72 1972 Jim Holshouser R $ 962,289 $ 3,943,807 767,470 $ 5.14 1976 Jim Hunt D $ 1,665,913 $ 5,017,810 1,081,293 $ 4.64 1980 Jim Hunt D $ 3,199,316 $ 6,651,385 1,143,145 $ 5.82 1984 Jim Martin R $ 3,051,498 $ 5,027,180 1,208,167 $ 4.16 1988 Jim Martin R $ 5,770,785 $ 8,351,353 1,222,338 $ 6.83 1992 Jim Hunt D $ 6,978,623 $ 8,510,516 1,368,246 $ 6.22 1996 Jim Hunt D $ 9,063,854 $ 10,070,949 1,436,638 $ 7.01 Total $ 50,629,309 9,048,530 Average $ 6,328,664 1,131,066 $ 5.06 Campaign Spending by Losing Gubernatorial Candidates 1968 Jim Gardner R $ 651,351 $ 3,192,897 737,075 $ 4.33 1972 " Skipper" Bowles D $ 4,507,264 $ 18,472,393 729,104 $ 25.34 1976 David Flaherty R $ 277,045 $ 834,473 564,102 $ 1.48 1980 I. Beverly Lake, Jr. R $ 373,113 $ 786,098 691,449 $ 1.14 1984 Rufus Edmisten D $ 2,402,984 $ 3,958,787 1,011,209 $ 3.91 1988 Bob Jordan III D $ 6,738,168 $ 9,751,329 957,687 $ 10.18 1992 Jim Gardner R $ 5,655,013 $ 6,896,357 1,121,955 $ 6.15 1996 Robin Hayes R $ 6,953,236 $ 7,725,818 1,097,053 $ 7.04 Total $ 51,618,152 6,909,634 Average $ 6,452,269 863,704 $ 7.47 Average ( without 1972) $ 4,735,108 882,293 $ 5.36 Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000 dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.) Source: NC State Board of Elections North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 6 ♦ In two of the three exceptions to this winner spend-ing more than losers pattern, Republican candidates defeated their opponents in winning the election ( 1972, 1988). The other exception was in 1968 when Lieutenant Governor Bob Scott bested Congressman Jim Gardner by a six- point margin despite being slightly outspent by Gardner. ♦ The most expensive campaign over the eight-election period was in 1972 when Democratic candi-date Hargrove “ Skipper” Bowles’ lost to Republican Jim Holshouser even though spending $ 18.5 million in 2000$ in the race! His nearly 5 to 1 spending ratio against Holshouser still saw him lose by 3 percent-age points. I once asked Terry Sanford why Bowles lost the 1972 race despite spending so much on his campaign. His answer was quick and short: “ It wasn’t his turn!” Bowles had bested Lt. Governor Pat Taylor in a tough second primary and it was “ Taylor’s turn” to be governor. So, he lost support among Democrats in the General Election. ♦ It may seem like an old saw, but every governor elected since 1972 has been named Jim. And in 1968, the losing candidate was named Jim, and that same Jim tried to come back in 1992 only to be bested by another Jim, Hunt that is. In this current 2000 election year, we may see the Republican candidates outspend their Democratic coun-terparts for the first time ever. Will that yield them their third GOP governor since the turn of the last century? Could be, and since the race is for an open seat it will be expensive no matter who wins. And since there are no Jims in the race, the results are not as easy to predict. ♦ Cost of U. S. Senatorial Elections Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science) The political history of North Carolina’s two U. S. Senate seats is a tale of contrasts over the past 130 years. The seat currently occupied by Jesse Helms was held by a total of eleven individuals between 1872 and 1973, with an average term of service of more than nine years. Between 1872 and 1946, only four individuals held this seat, averaging nearly nineteen years of service each. Then between 1946 and 1973, seven men averaged under four years of service each. Among the seat’s notable alumni were Furnifold Simmons, who helped create and run the first Democratic political machine over the first quarter of the twentieth century; UNC System president Frank Porter Graham, who was appointed by Governor Kerr Scott in 1950 to fill a vacancy; and Governor Scott himself. By the 1970s, it had become a seat of fairly rapid turnover. The John Edwards seat was held by a total of nine individuals between 1873 and 1975, with an average term of service of more than eleven years. Between 1932 to 1974, only three men served, for an average of fourteen years each. Notables holding this seat included Governor Ze-bulon Vance in the late nineteenth century; Governors Cameron Morrison of the 1920s and Clyde Hoey of the pre- World War II era; and Sam Ervin, the star of the Senate Watergate hearings. This seat was relatively sta-ble, especially between the Depression era and the 1970s. However, since the 1972 and 1974 elections, the political history of these seats has diverged considerably. Jesse Helms was elected in 1972, has served since 1973, and may seek yet another term in 2002. Meanwhile, the other seat has had six different occupants since “ Senator Sam” retired in 1974: Robert Morgan ( D), John Porter East ( R), Jim Broyhill ( R), Terry Sanford ( D), Lauch Faircloth ( R), and John Edwards ( D). Despite the relative stability of Helms’ seat and the great instability of the Edwards revolving door seat, it is the campaign costs for Helms’ seat that have been by far the higher of the two ( see “ Cost of US Senate Elec-tions” table on page 7). The five Helms races have cost candidates a total of $ 92 million ( in 2000 dollar equiva-lents) compared to the total of $ 48 million for the five revolving door races. A single race for the Helms seat has averaged ( in 2000 dollar equivalents), $ 18.4 million, while a single race for the revolving door seat has aver-aged $ 9.7 million ( in 2000 dollar equivalents). Some analysts argue that the Helms seat is stable precisely be-cause the Senator has been able to raise and spend so much money in his campaigns, while there are many rea-sons for the instability in the revolving door seat. Converting Campaign Expendi-tures to May 2000$ Equivalents Campaign expenditures were converted into May 2000 dollar equivalents in order to compare across years and control for inflation. May 2000 dollar equivalents were created from the Consumer Price Index- Urban, using 1982- 84 as the base years [= 1.000]. The May 2000 CPI- U in-dex value was 1.713. To determine each year’s 2000$ value, that year’s CPI- U was divided by the May 2000 1.713 value. The 1968 CPI- U was .349 on the 1982- 84 base; this divided by the 1.713 May 2000 CPI- U equaled .204. Other years are: 1972 = .418 [. 244] 1974 = .493 [. 288] 1976 = .569 [. 332] 1978 = .652 [. 381] 1980 = .824 [. 481] 1984 = 1.039 [. 607] 1986 = 1.096 [. 640] 1988 = 1.183 [. 691] 1990 = 1.307 [. 763] 1992 = 1.403 [. 819] 1996 = 1.569 [. 920] 1998 = 1.630 [. 952] North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 7 We will have to wait and see whether Helms seeks to extend his hold in 2002. If he doesn’t run, will the campaign expenditures be considerably less in that race? And in 2004, will Edwards be able to break the three-decade jinx of the revolving door by being reelected? ♦ Cost of US Senate Elections: 1972- 1998 Campaign Expenditures per Election Year Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in $ 2000) 1972 $ 1,124,339 $ 4,607,947 1,472,541 $ 3.13 1974 $ 1,166,728 $ 4,051,139 1,011,393 $ 4.01 1978 $ 8,387,293 $ 22,013,892 1,135,814 $ 19.38 1980 $ 2,124,084 $ 4,415,975 1,785,717 $ 2.47 1984 $ 26,379,483 $ 43,458,785 2,227,256 $ 19.51 1986 $ 9,356,753 $ 14,619,926 1,591,330 $ 9.19 1990 $ 25,572,829 $ 33,516,158 2,069,904 $ 16.19 1992 $ 5,438,482 $ 6,640,393 2,577,891 $ 2.58 1996 $ 22,582,246 $ 24,545,919 2,556,456 $ 9.60 1998 $ 17,707,153 $ 18,599,950 2,012,143 $ 9.24 Total $ 176,470,084 18,440,445 $ 9.58 Type of Election Contested Primary? Year Status Dem. Rep. Margin of Victory Dem $ Rep $ 1972 Open Seat YY Y + 8 R 43.0% 57.0% 1974 Open Seat Y Y + 26 D 67.0 33.0 1978 Incumbent YY N + 10 R 3.1 96.9 1980 Incumbent N N + 1 R 44.6 55.4 1984 Incumbent Y Y + 4 R 35.9 64.1 1986 Appointee Y Y + 4 D 44.7 55.4 1990 Incumbent YY Y + 6 R 30.5 69.5 1992 Incumbent N Y + 4 R 45.7 54.3 1996 Incumbent Y N + 7 R 35.4 64.6 1998 Incumbent Y N + 4 D 47.1 52.9 Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000 dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.) Appointee = incumbent had been appointed to the seat, and was now seeking election in his own right Contested Primary? Listed by party; Y = yes; YY = second primary Sources: Almanac of American Politics, 1974- 2000; NC State Board of Elections North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 8 Helms/ Hunt Political Money Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science) Over the last three decades, two major political figures have dominated our state’s politics: Senator Jesse Helms and Governor Jim Hunt. According to the analysis in the table below, their initial elections have turned out to be their least expensive races. Helms spent “ only” $ 2.7 million in his 1972 win and Hunt spent “ only” $ 5 million in his 1976 win ( in 2000 dollar equivalents). Since those elections, the cost of winning their elections has in-creased considerably, especially for Helms. Not only have they continued to win their elec-tions, they were involved in the “ Great 1984 Train Wreck” when they did battle over who would hold Helms’ U. S. Senate seat come 1985. The 1984 race was a train wreck in that these two political figures were on the same track moving at high speed toward each other. Once Hunt won reelection in 1980 and would be leaving office in 1985, it was fairly apparent that if he was to go further in the state’s politics, that U. S. Senate seat was the op-tion. And an expensive train wreck it was, with the can-didates spending ( in 2000 dollar equivalents), $ 43.5 mil-lion, making it probably the most expensive statewide political race in North Carolina history. To hold on to the seat, Helms outspent Hunt by a 1.8 to 1 ratio ( in 2000 dollar equivalents, that would be $ 27.9 million to $ 15.6 million). But Helms has consistently spent more money on his campaigns than has Hunt. The former spent $ 92 mil-lion in his five U. S. Senate races compared to the $ 45.6 million Hunt has spent on his four gubernatorial and one senatorial races— a 2 to 1 ratio. And this was even true in their 1996 reelection races, where ( in 2000 dollar equivalents), Helms outspent Hunt $ 16.9 million to $ 9.9 million, or a 1.7 to 1 ratio. ♦ Campaign Spending by Jesse Helms and Jim Hunt Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in 2000$) Jesse Helms 1972 $ 654,246 $ 2,681,366 795,248 $ 3.37 1978 $ 8,123,205 $ 21,320,748 619,151 $ 34.44 1984 $ 16,917,559 $ 27,870,772 1,156,768 $ 24.09 1990 $ 17,761,579 $ 23,278,609 1,088,331 $ 21.39 1996 $ 14,589,266 $ 16,870,103 1,345,833 $ 12.54 Total $ 92,021,598 5,005,331 $ 18.38 Average per election $ 18,404,319 1,001,006 $ 18.38 Jim Hunt 1976 $ 1,665,913 $ 5,017,810 1,081,293 $ 4.64 1980 $ 3,199,316 $ 6,651,385 1,143,145 $ 5.82 1984* $ 9,461,924 $ 15,588,013 1,070,488 $ 14.56 1992 $ 6,978,623 $ 8,520,907 1,368,246 $ 6.22 1996 $ 9,063,854 $ 9,852,015 1,436,638 $ 7.01 Total $ 45,630,130 6,099,810 $ 7.48 Average per election $ 9,126,026 1,219,962 $ 7.48 Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the actual amount reported; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000 dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.) 1984* Hunt’s US Senate race. All Helms’ races were for the US Senate. Sources: Almanac of American Politics, 1974- 2000; NC State Board of Elections North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 9 A State Lottery for NC? Thad Beyle ( Note: A version of this article appeared in the June 2, 2000 issue of the Chapel Hill News). This past spring, the two leading Democratic can-didates for governor agreed on one major issue: that North Carolina should establish a state lottery and use the proceeds for education. Mike Easley and Dennis Wicker disagreed on exactly what part of education should re-ceive these funds, but many observers were surprised at their insistence that the state get into the lottery business. Why should the lottery suddenly become a major issue in this year’s gubernatorial race? There are several reasons: money, media, policy, and politics. ♦ Money: adjoining states have lotteries and they have been attracting North Carolina money to them. Why shouldn’t we get a lottery so we keep those funds here in our state? And we do need more revenues for the state budget, especially in education. ♦ Media: not only do we see TV programs like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? flourishing, but there is close coverage of people who win major lotteries across the country. Who wouldn’t be enticed by pictures of happy new millionaires holding oversized checks with their winnings? ♦ Policy: Georgia has successfully used lottery receipts to subsidize college education through its Hope Scholarships, making the state a bright beacon for what a well conceived lottery can achieve to help education within a state. More Georgians are going on to college and are staying in the state. ♦ Politics: the 1998 gubernatorial elections in Alabama and South Carolina saw two incumbent anti- gaming Republican governors unseated by Democratic challengers who advocated a state lottery. If the is-sue can win elections, use it. Of course there are reasons not to get into the lot-tery business. These include serious religious objections over the lottery as a moral issue. Others worry about a lottery encouraging citizens to gamble, creating false hopes of winning a lot of money, and assisting them in becoming gambling addicts. Others see a lottery as a not so hidden tax, and a very regressive tax at that. What are the prospects of North Carolina adopting a state lottery? The first step is to get a lottery- supporting candidate elected as governor. Without a governor in the lead, a state lottery is dead in the water in this state. The next step is to get the newly elected legislature to agree with the new governor’s lottery proposal and put the proposition out to the public for a referendum vote. State legislative candidates can expect some serious questions this year about their stance on a possible state lottery. How would North Carolinians vote on this propo-sition? They would support it, according to the series of seven Carolina Polls taken between 1983 and 1999 which asked respondents about a state lottery ( see “ Trends in Lottery Support” table, below). Support has generally ranged from a 2 to 1 positive ratio to a 4 to 1 positive ratio, depending on how the question was worded. The recent fall 1999 Carolina Poll found a 62% support to 31% oppose ratio ( see “ Populations Likely to Support or Oppose” table, next page). Of interest here is which populations are most likely to support or oppose a state lottery. The sub-groups most likely to support a state lottery included re-spondents ages 18 to 24 years old, respondents who never attend church or attend church infrequently, re-spondents who have never married, respondents in the coastal region of the state, and respondents at the lowest end of the income scale. The sub- groups most likely to oppose a state lottery were respondents who attend church at least once a week, respondents age 65 or older, respondents in the mountain region, and respondents at the highest end of the income scale. The key differences here revolve around age, income, and religion. But as samples of adult North Carolinians, these polls can be misleading come election day. How would a sample of registered voters differ? More importantly, Trends in Lottery Support: 1983- 99 Poll Date Question* % Positive % Negative April 1983 a 59 G 28 B October 1989 b 66 S 25 O October 1990 b 61 S 24 O March 1994 c 72 Y 21 N March 1997 b 61 S 30 O March 1998 d 69 F 16 O October 1999 b 62 S 31 O * Question wording and response options: a " Do you think a state lottery would be a good idea or a bad idea?" G = good, B = bad b " Do you support or oppose a state lottery for North Carolina?" S = support, O = oppose c " Do you think North Carolina lawmakers should consider starting a lottery to help our schools?" Y = yes, N = no d " Some people favor a state lottery to raise reve-nue for the NC educational system. Other people oppose a lottery on moral or economic grounds.” F = favor, O = oppose ( Split sample; see note in “ Populations Likely to Support or Oppose a NC Lottery” table, page 10) Sources: Various years of the Carolina Poll ( http:// www. irss. unc. edu/ irss/ researchdesservices/ researchdeslinks/ cpollreports. htm). North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 10 how would a poll of “ likely voters” differ? My guess is that the lottery issue is much tighter than it first appears once we get down to people who would actually have the interest and take the time to vote. And with the issues and perspectives involved, it would be a very tough cam-paign. One last point on how even those in politics can misread public sentiment from election results. Newly elected Alabama Governor Don Siegelman took immedi-ate steps to implement his pro lottery stance. It passed the state legislature and then went out to the voters for their concurrence. They didn’t concur, defeating the proposal with a 55% “ no” vote! This was the same electorate that had elected the pro state lottery Siegelman only a year earlier by 58%. What happened? In retrospect, the media and other analysts now believe what happened in that election was the voters were more interested in evicting incumbent Governor Fob James than in getting a state lottery. So, read those public opinion polls and the votes in the poll booth very carefully. ♦ Presidential Voting and NC Voters Christine A. Kelleher and Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science) In its February 21, 2000 issue, USA Today re-leased a ranking of the best to worst U. S. presidents. All forty- one men who ever held the office were ranked ac-cording to the quality of their performance by a survey of fifty- eight presidential historians ( see “ USA Today’s Presidential Rankings versus NC’s Voting History” table on page 12). While it is interesting to explore where all of the different presidents fall in a national historical framework, an equally interesting question explores how the voters in North Carolina measured up in voting for our presidents. Did they support those at the top of the ranking more than those further down the rankings? Or is there no distinct pattern of North Carolina voters being able to discern the potential quality of performance? The top presidents, ranked in order from one to ten, were Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Lyndon B. John-son. There is a clear twentieth century bias in the top ten ranking, with only three— Lincoln, Washington, and Jef-ferson— nineteenth century mentions. The top presidents’ service in office generally coincided with major events in the history of our country: the Revolutionary War, the creation of the new Union, the Civil War, World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, and the Civil Rights era. The ten top presidents ran in nineteen presidential elections, winning eighteen of them nationally. They won a majority of North Carolina’s Electoral College ( EC) 1 votes in twelve ( 63%) of these races. The seven excep-tions are of interest. Two exceptions were tied to the fact that North Carolina was not in the Union when the elec-tion occurred. In 1789 ( George Washington’s first elec-tion), North Carolina had not yet ratified the Constitu-tion, having led the fight to have a Bill of Rights attached before ratifying it. In 1864 ( Lincoln’s second election), North Carolina was part of the Confederacy, having se-ceded from the Union. Another exception was in 1860 ( Lincoln’s first election), when the Civil War loomed on the horizon. Two other exceptions were tied to Teddy Roosevelt, who in 1904 was an “ accidental President” seeking to win the office in his own right and who in 1912 was a former president trying to regain the office as the candidate of the Progressive Party. The final two ex-ceptions were the two Eisenhower elections in the 1950s. While Ike didn’t carry North Carolina, his two presiden-tial campaigns had much to do in helping Republicans become a greater force in the state. Populations Likely to Support or Oppose a NC Lottery: Oct 1999 Sub- Groups More Likely to Favor a Lottery ( total sample) 62% 18- 24 years old 81 Never attend church 80 Attend church less than once a month 77 Never married 76 Attend church 1- 3 times a month 72 Live in coastal region 70 Earn less than $ 10,000 per year 69 Sub- Groups More Likely to Oppose a Lottery ( total sample) 31% Attend church at least once a week 47 65 years or older 45 Live in mountain region 41 Republican 37 Earn $ 80,000 or more a year 37 Note: Question wording was: " Some people favor a state lottery to raise revenue for the NC educational system. Other people oppose a lottery on moral or economic grounds. Do you strongly favor, favor, op-pose, or strongly oppose a state lottery with the reve-nue used to support education?" The sample was split for this question, with half the respondents asked the question as worded as above and half asked the question with sentences 1 and 2 reversed. The re-sponses were not appreciably different and the re-sults were merged for presentation here. Also, the “ strongly favor” and “ favor” responses were com-bined, as were the “ oppose” and “ strongly oppose” responses. Source: Fall 1999 Carolina Poll, October 23- 30, 1999, 717 adult NC residents. North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 11 Presidential Elections in NC First, let’s look at the fifty- three presidential elec-tions North Carolina held between 1789 and 1996. Over-all, in the fifty- one presidential elections in which the state’s EC votes counted, the winner nationally also won in the state thirty- four times ( 67%). But there have been four rather distinct patterns over the two centuries in the results of these elections in North Carolina. ♦ In the eighteen presidential elections in the pre- Civil War period, the state’s EC vote went to the winning candidate fourteen times ( 78%). The only presidents not winning the state’s EC votes during this period were John Adams ( 1796), John Quincy Adams ( 1824) and James Polk ( 1844). The other election was the 1789 noted above. ♦ In the ten presidential elections between 1860 and 1900, there was considerable deviation between the vote in the nation and the vote in the state, as the Civil War and its aftermath were being felt. Only four presidents won the state’s EC vote in this pe-riod: Ulysses S. Grant ( 1868 and 1872) and Grover Cleveland ( 1884 and 1892). This was a 44% winning rate, discounting the 1864 election noted above. ♦ In the seventeen presidential elections between the McKinley election of 1900 and the Johnson election of 1964, the state was safely Democratic. The only Republican presidential candidate to carry the state was Herbert Hoover in 1928. Many of the state’s Democratic voters just couldn’t buy the Democratic candidate, New York Governor Al Smith, a Catholic and a Prohibition- Era “ wet.” The state’s EC vote went to the winner in ten of these contests, a 59% winning rate. ♦ In the eight presidential elections since 1968, North Carolinians’ votes went to the Republican candidate in all but the 1976 Jimmy Carter victory. North Carolina’s vote went to the winner in seven of these eight elections ( 88%). How Individual Presidents Have Fared in NC Now, we turn to see how individual presidents have fared in presidential elections in NC. In this discus-sion, “ presidents” are individuals who either won the presidency, ran for reelection, or sought to regain the office. Election attempts prior to their initial presidential win ( e. g., Nixon in 1960) are not included. ( See “ Total Number of Presidential Elections” table, below.) ♦ These forty- one presidents were involved in sixty-three separate presidential elections and won fifty-three of them nationally ( 84%). They won the state’s EC vote in thirty- six of the sixty- three races ( 57%). ♦ The top twenty presidents in the rankings were in-volved in more presidential elections ( 38) than those in the bottom half ( 25), a 1.5 to 1 ratio. Part of this disparity is tied to those presidents in the lower half who either died in their first and only term ( Garfield, Harding, W. H. Harrison, Taylor), or as vice presi-dents succeeded to the presidency and only served out that term following the death of the elected president ( Arthur, Filmore, Ford, A. Johnson, Tyler). ♦ The twenty presidents in the top half of the rankings won thirty- four of their thirty- eight races nationally ( 89%), and won North Carolina’s EC vote in twenty-five of these races ( 66%). ♦ The twenty- one presidents in the bottom half of the rankings won nineteen of their twenty- five races na-tionally ( 76%) and won North Carolina’s EC vote in eleven of these races ( 44%). ♦ Nineteen presidents won every one of their elections in North Carolina: Buchanan, Bush ( 2 races), Cleveland ( 3 races), Grant ( 2), W. H. Harrison, Jack-son ( 2), Jefferson ( 2), L. Johnson, Kennedy, Madi-son ( 2), Monroe ( 2), Nixon ( 2), Pierce, Reagan ( 2), F. Roosevelt ( 4), Taylor, Truman, Washington, Wil-son ( 2) Total Number of Presidential Elections USA Today Won- US Lost- US Total # Quartile Ranking Total W- NC L- NC Total W- NC L- NC of Elections # 1 through # 10 18 12 4 [ 2]* 1 0 1 19 # 11 through # 20 16 11 5 3 2 1 19 # 21 through # 30 11 5 6 4 0 4 15 # 31 through # 41 8 6 2 2 0 2 10 Total 53 34 17 10 2 8 63 Note: Table includes all presidential elections in which a president was elected, an incumbent president sought another term, or a former president sought to return to the White House. Won/ Lost- US: Total = national elections won/ lost; W- NC = NC elections won; L- NC = NC elections lost * Two elections occurred when NC was not part of the Union ( Washington’s in 1789 and Lincoln’s in 1864). North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 12 USA Today’s Presidential Rankings versus NC’s Voting History NC Outcome NC Outcome Rank President Year Won? Vote % Rank President Year Won? Vote % 1 Abraham Lincoln W 1860 N 3% 21 Bill Clinton W 1992 N 43% W 1864* Not in Union W 1996 N 44% 2 Franklin Roosevelt W 1932 Y 70% 22 Jimmy Carter W 1976 Y 55% W 1936 Y 73% 1980 N 47% W 1940 Y 74% 23 Gerald Ford 1974* VP W 1944 Y 67% 1976 N 44% 3 George Washington W 1789* Not in Union 24 William H. Taft W 1908 N46% W 1792 Y 12/ 12 EC 1912* N 12% 4 Theodore Roosevelt 1900* VP 25 Richard M. Nixon W 1968* Y 40% W 1904 N 40% W 1972 Y 70% 1912 N 28% 26 Rutherford Hayes W 1876 N 46% 5 Harry Truman 1944* VP 27 Calvin Coolidge 1920* VP W 1948 Y 58% W 1924 N 40% 6 Woodrow Wilson W 1912 Y 59% 28 Zachary Taylor W 1848 Y55% W 1916 Y 58% 29 James Garfield W 1880 N 48% 7 Thomas Jefferson W 1800 Y 58% 30 Martin Van Buren W 1836 Y 53% W 1804 Y 14/ 14 EC 1840 N 42% 8 John Kennedy W 1960 Y 52% 31 Benjamin Harrison W 1888 N 48% 9 Dwight Eisenhower W 1952 N 46% 1892 N 36% W 1956 N 49% 32 Chester Arthur 1880* VP 10 Lyndon Johnson 1960* VP 33 Ulysses S. Grant W 1868 Y 53% W 1964 Y 56% W 1872 Y57% 11 Ronald Reagan W 1980 Y 49% 34 Herbert Hoover W 1928 Y 55% W 1984 Y 61% 1932 N 29% 12 James Polk W 1844 N 48% 35 Millard Filmore 1852* VP 13 Andrew Jackson W 1828 Y 73% 36 John Tyler 1840* VP W 1832 Y 85% 37 William H. Harrison W 1840 Y58% 14 James Monroe W 1816 Y 97% 38 Warren Harding W 1920 N43% W 1820 Y 96% 39 Franklin Pierce W 1852 Y 50.4% 15 William McKinley W 1896 N 47% 40 Andrew Johnson 1865* VP W 1900 N 46% 41 James Buchanan W 1856* Y 57% 16 John Adams W 1796 N 1/ 24 EC 17 Grover Cleveland W 1884 Y 53% 1888 Y 52% W 1892 Y 48% 18 James Madison W 1808 Y 48% W 1812 Y 15/ 15 EC 19 John Q. Adams W 1824 N 36% 1828 N 27% 20 George Bush W 1988 Y 58% 1992 Y 44% Rank = USA Today ranking ( See “ Presidential Voting” article, page 10) Year: W = won national election for president NC Outcome: Won in NC? = Yes/ No; Vote % = % of the NC popular vote ( for elections prior to 1816, the # of Electoral College votes won out of # possible are listed in lieu of actual returns). VP = vice- president, succeeded after death of president * = See the “ Notes for Presidential Rankings Table” ( page 13) for details on particular years. Sources: Seth B. Hinshaw, North Carolina Election Returns 1790- 1866: Covering the Races for President, Governor and US House ( Stockport, OH: S. B. Hinshaw, 1992); John L. Chaney, Jr., ed., North Carolina Gov-ernment, 1585- 1974, ( Raleigh: Secretary of State's Office, 1975); CQ's Guide to US Elections, ( Washington, D. C. CQ Press, 1975), and Venessa Goodman and Jack Betts, Growth of a Two- Party System in North Caro-lina ( Raleigh: North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research, 1987). North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 13 ♦ Fifteen presidents never won any of their twenty- two races in North Carolina: J. Adams, J. Q. Adams ( 2 races), Clinton ( 2), Coolidge, Eisenhower ( 2), Ford, Garfield, Harding, B. Harrison, Hayes, Lincoln, McKinley ( 2), Polk, T. Roosevelt ( 2), Taft ( 2). Summary The panel of fifty- eight presidential historians voted last winter on who they thought were the country’s best and worst presidents. North Carolina voters and electors have been casting their votes on presidents for over the past two centuries. There are parallels and de-viations between these two sets of votes. Not only is it the president’s job performance while in office that has counted in these votes, but the times in which they served: wars, good times and bad times, terms shortened by death, and being an “ accidental president” serving out the terms of those who died or left office. A general conclusion might be that North Carolina voters are both leaders and followers. They have fol-lowed national trends as well as deviated from them. Re-gardless of their political positions, however, they have undoubtedly demonstrated that their voice is an important one, revealing much about the nature and course of both North Carolina as a state as well as the more general no-tions surrounding American history and tradition. 1Regarding North Carolina’s treatment of Electoral College ( EC) votes, presidential electors were chosen by the state legislature in 1792; in the 1796 to 1808 elections, electors were selected in districts by popular vote; in 1812, electors were selected by the state legislature; and since 1816, electors have been selected by statewide popular vote. ♦ Notes for Presidential Rankings Table ( page 12) 1789 NC did not vote, since it had not yet ratified the U. S. Constitution. 1840 John Tyler ran as William Henry Harrison’s vice president in 1840 and succeeded to the presidency when Harrison died one month after the inauguration. Both major parties spurned any bid by Tyler to be nominated as their presidential candidate in 1844. 1852 Millard Filmore ran as Zachary Taylor’ vice president in 1848 and succeeded to the presidency follow-ing Taylor’s death in 1850. Filmore lost his bid for the Whig nomination for president in 1852. 1856 James Buchanan did not seek reelection in 1860, nor would either wing of his splintered party have considered him as a candidate. 1864 NC did not vote, since it had seceded from the Union. 1865 Andrew Johnson ran as Abraham Lincoln’s vice president in 1864 and succeeded to the presidency following Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865. Johnson survived an impeachment attempt in 1868, but the Democratic Party selected New York Governor Horatio Seymour as its candidate. 1880 Chester Arthur ran as James Garfield’s vice president in 1880 and succeeded to the presidency following Garfield’s assassination in 1881. Declining health prevented Arthur from running in 1884. 1900 Theodore Roosevelt ran as William McKinley’s vice president in 1900 and succeeded to the presidency following McKinley’s assassination in 1901. 1912 Woodrow Wilson beat Taft and Theodore Roosevelt 1920 Calvin Coolidge ran as Warren Harding’s vice president in 1920 and succeeded to the presidency following Harding’s death in 1923. 1944 Harry Truman ran as Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president in 1944 and succeeded to the presidency following Roosevelt’s death in 1945. 1960 Lyndon Johnson ran as John Kennedy’s vice president in 1960 and succeeded to the presidency following Kennedy’s assassination in 1963. 1968 Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey ( who received 29% of NC vote) and George Wallace ( 31%). 1974 Gerald Ford was appointed vice president by Richard Nixon after Spiro Agnew resigned in October 1973. Ford succeeded to the presidency following Nixon’s resignation in August 1974. North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 14 NC DataNet’s New Home Ferrel Guillory ( UNC- CH Program on Media, Southern Politics and Public Life, School of Journalism and Mass Communications) The Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life seeks to enhance the public service mission of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by serving as a vehicle for the university to assert its schol-arly strength and civic tradition in the region. Its princi-pal goals are to create on campus a common- ground meeting place for civic, business, journalistic and politi-cal leaders and to enrich research and learning opportu-nities for faculty and students. It is in keeping with the program’s efforts to make the work of scholars and their students more accessible that the program has become the publishing home of North Carolina DataNet. This is a quarterly newsletter of government and political data, edited by UNC- CH Politi-cal Science Professor Thad Beyle, and published, until now, by the Odom Institute for Research in Social Sci-ence ( IRSS). As a result of recent administrative changes, the Odum Institute can no longer publish North Carolina DataNet. Because of the value of this publication— as an outlet for faculty research and student projects— the Pro-gram on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life agreed to become its new publisher. The newsletter’s audience includes faculty in political science and the humanities, state legislators, journalists, opinion leaders, and others with an interest in politics in this state. In addition to publishing North Carolina DataNet, the Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life has the following line- up of projects: Executive Seminars for State Legislators This project, conducted in collaboration with the UNC- CH Program on the Humanities and Human Val-ues, gives lawmakers, with a special emphasis on emerging leaders, an opportunity to read, think, and talk about big issues of our time. The second seminar in this series is scheduled for November 12- 15, 2000, in Chapel Hill. The first seminar last year attracted eighteen state legislators from seven states. Presenters included former Governor William Winter of Mississippi, former Gover-nor James Holshouser of North Carolina, historians John Hope Franklin and William Leuchtenburg, UNC- CH Public Health Dean William Roper, UNC- CH Education Dean Madeleine Grumet, and former UNC System Presi-dent William Friday. Southern Journalists Roundtables Once a semester, the program gathers a roundtable of columnists, editorial writers, and state capital corre-spondents, along with UNC faculty and graduate stu-dents, to consider emerging and enduring issues in the Southern states. The fifth roundtable will take place fol-lowing the 2000 general election. Election 2000 Project The Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life joined as a “ state partner’’ to the Alliance for Better Campaigns, a Pew- funded organization working to expand candidate- centered discourse on television. The program has two roles: a) to encourage television stations in North Carolina to devote five minutes a day to cam-paign coverage in the thirty days prior to an election, as recommended by the federal Advisory Commission on the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Broadcasters; and b) to monitor TV coverage of the gubernatorial race in North Carolina. Jim Goodmon, the chief executive of Capitol Broadcasting Co., who served on the Advisory Commission, took the lead among state broadcasters in offering two- minute messages from major- party candi-dates for governor three times a day for the thirty days prior to the May 2 primaries on four of its TV stations, including WRAL- TV. In addition, WBTV- TV in Char-lotte aired a nightly report on primary campaigns throughout the month of April. Campaign 2000 Commentary The program has joined with WUNC- FM radio in an effort to bolster the station’s attention to and com-mentary on this year’s election campaigns. I will be a regular commentator for the station during its local seg-ments in the Friday afternoon All Things Considered time period. ♦ NC DataNet Odum Institute for Research in Social Science CB# 3355 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill NC 27599- 3355 |
OCLC number | 33849908 |