Chike E. Okafor

It ain’t over until the fat lady sings. So goes a famous American saying. The fat lady in this case being the courts where the interpretation of voter intent, especially that of the Florida state voters is taking place and is holding up final definitive of who emerges as the next USA president. The USA presidential election occurs on November 7th of every even four years.

This year’s election is the most contentious and closest, pitting two baby boomers – Al Gore nominated by the Democratic Party who represents the conservative wing of his party and George Bush, a Republican party nominee and son of a former United states President who was defeated in 1992 by the Clinton / Gore Democratic Party ticket. Like his father, George Bush is a conservative who labeled his brand of conservatism – "compassionate conservatism." He argues that his ideology view issues with compassion, while in actual sense, it was an old wine reformulated and presented as a new wine. A "j-curve" economic system otherwise known as "trickle down economics" or "voodoo economics" of the Reagan era. The assumption under this economic policy believes that when the rich gets richer, that residue from such wealth acquisition would trickle down to those at the bottom of the economic pile.

Currently, there has been a sea of posturing and speculations among the major participants in this year’ election. The press has been accused of waffling in its proclamation of who won the election, especially regarding the 25 Florida electoral vote. An analysis of what transpired on November 7 showed that Gore won Florida vote. That is if one include in the overall tabulation, the "dimple chads", "pregnant chads" and other votes that were excluded by the overly eager Florida state Secretary of State, a Bush supporter and co-chairperson of his campaign, who seamed eager to declare George W. Bush the 43rd President of the United States, than getting to the bottom of who actually won the election in Florida State. Like Bill Moya said, Ms. Harris is enjoying her 15-minute of fame and is good at exploiting it to the maximum.

Throughout the election campaign, polls after polls showed Governor Bush leading Gore. But how reliable were these polls? It all depends on who is conducting the poll, how the questions were framed and asked, who participated in the polling, and the economic and racial background of the participants. For instance, according to ABC Nightly news cast, those who were polled immediately preceding the second Gore and Bush televised presidential joint appearance were republicans. Thus, the poll showed Bush won the debate.

Telephone survey that was used in the presidential polling forecast may be unreliable and skewed. Telephone interview is the fastest, cost efficient way to conduct a survey. According to David and Chava Nachmias, it has a "high likelihood of a serious sampling bias. When a substantial proportion of the population has no access to telephones, the sample tended to over-represent those who were relatively well – off who could afford a telephone." (Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 3^rd edition, p244)

In effect, the percentage of African Americans and perhaps, the Hispanics that participated in telephone survey, as being utilized in the present survey is minimal, especially when compared to the proportion in the general population. This group of electorates vote overwhelmingly Democrat and are most likely to reside in the urban areas. Throughout the electioneering campaign, Gore was reported to lead Bush only once and it lasted for a very short time span.

But the election result have shown that all along, vice president Gore had an invisible and undocumented lead over Bush in the poll, again not reflected by what was repeatedly presented to the American public through the media. So why did Gore fail to win the election? This depends on many factors. First, a compendium of the election outcome as at this writing is necessary.

According to CNN News and other media reports, Al Gore received 50,140,140 votes, that is 49 percent of the total votes cast and validated to date. He won 19 states, which earned him 255 Electoral College. Bush on the other hand had 49,782,288 votes, that is 48 percent with 246 Electoral College. He won 29 states. If the election in the United States of America is based on one man one vote of the universal suffrage – those over 18 years old, Al Gore without question, would be the 43^rd United States President since he earned 357,852 more votes than Bush. Unfortunately, the American system is based on a convoluted Electoral College system where electors from various states would converge at Washington DC on December 12th to nominate the President.

So, what went wrong? Why is Gore not preparing for transition rather than spending more time in the courts trying to gain the right to be the president-elect? Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate for the 2000 presidential election, properly summed up the answer. He argued that Gore is the only one that could beat Gore. He disagreed with the attempt to link his third party candidacy as the main factor that contributed to Gore’s demise as unjustifiable, therefore false.

Before a serious analysis can be made regarding the 2000 presidential election, it is important that due be given where it is deserved. George W. Bush ran an efficient and almost flawless campaign. He was not as pedant as people thought that is was. He was able to do it by sticking with the campaign scripts and by not accepting public funding at the onset of his campaign. That allowed him to tap into private funds where the law does not impinge upon the ability to raise millions. He benefited from anti Clinton forces that failed to run Clinton out of office by impeachment as a result of Lewinsky case. Finally, he benefited from a well oiled public relations campaign which despite his limited knowledge of the intricate workings of the government and the possibility that he lost Florida electoral college, was persistent in persuading the American people that he won the election.

Now, the analysis will begin with the 1992 presidential election. Gore was President Clinton’s running mate, a Senator from Tennessee and a one time presidential contender under the Democratic Party in 1988. During the general election, Clinton/Gore team popularized the phrase, "it is the economy stupid." The economy was slow; there was a high unemployment as the nation emerged from the gulf war. The nation was ready to take a chance on a new leadership thus, Clinton/Gore were elected after they defeated George P. Bush.

Fast forward to the year 2000, the economy is booming, there is a low unemployment and interest rate, so why did the American people fail to recognize Gore and give him credit for being a copilot of the greatest economic expansion in the USA history during a peace time. The answer lies beneath the fact that in his attempt to distance himself from the Clinton White House sleazes, Gore may have deprived himself of the opportunity to claim credit for the booming economy, thus his frequent evocation of " I am my own man". It is a total package.

Furthermore, drawing an analogy with Clinton, it was candidate Clinton who was dogged with repeated accusation of womanizing that almost consumed his quest to become the Democratic nominee, then regain a rebirth by appearing on Arsenio Hall’s show. Mr. Hall show was the only late night show being hosted by a black man at the time. The symbolism of his appearance on Arsenio Hall’s show was tremendous. First, it shows a commitment and identification with the black folks. Second, it afforded Clinton the opportunity to show the American people that he is human by blowing the trumpet.

Sometimes, little things can turn an election momentum to one’s favor. For instance, Governor George Bush went to the Oprah Winfrey’s Show, as part of a script to polish his image with women that polls showed Gore by ration of two to one favorable margins. He showed an affable image by kissing Oprah on the cheek, whereas, Gore shuck her hand when he appeared on her show. Bush‘s gesture helped to elevate his image with women as reflected in the polls. As similar issue came up in the 1988 presidential election where the elder Bush and Governor Dukkakis of Massachusetts were asked by CNN’s anchor man and the moderator of the joint appearance, Bernard Shaw to react to a hypothetical scenario where their wife was raped. The question was supposed to test their human and sense of compassion. Bush showed anger while Dukkakis showed opposite with a technical response.

In 1980, Reagan used a one liner against Jimmy Carter – "are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Again, in 1984, he used another one liner on Walter Mondale – " I will not exploit your youthfulness for political gain." The 2000 election was devoid of symbolism, but rather became a contest of personality and how to spend the surplus budget rather than new ideas of running the government.

In politics, a candidate who is able to define his or her opponent gains advantage in defining the terms of the campaign. In 1988 senior Bush was able to define Michael Dukakis, the Governor of Massachusetts and a Democratic Party nominee as weak on environment and will the heavily coded despicable Wily Horton videotape. When Gore was faced with the same situation, he retorted to argue that "I am not the most charismatic person, but if the election is about charisma, then vote for Bush, but if it is for fighting for you and your future, the solvency of social security, then I am your man." This kind of rhetorical argument did not persuade the American voters, although polls suggested that Al Gore’s programs were in tune with their views, yet that did not translate to a blow out for Gore over Bush on November 7.

Second, during the primary race, Al Gore campaigned from the center in an attempt to sell himself as a centrist to the general election. Usually, during the presidential primary, participants champion programs that are popular with their core constituency, and as soon as the primary is over, the nominee would move to the center. Gore failed in this aspect to energize the Democratic Party base namely the blacks, union, women and other minorities. It was exactly five days prior to the election that Gore began to visit black churches, too little too late.

The argument that George Bush is not smart is asinine; all that it takes to do well as a candidate is to meticulously follow a prescribed program. For instance, during the primary campaign, George Bush went to Jones University in South Carolina. Jones University is notorious for being at the fringe of the social and political spectrum. It was no secret that Jones University does not believe in the equality of the races and sexes. The University has a low opinion of Catholics. Yet, Bush went there to reassure the conservatives that he was on their side. He was criticized for taking his campaign to Jones University, which is analogous to laying a building foundation upon which a house would be built. Bush courting of ultraconservatives during the primary nomination for the Republican Party and afterwards moved to the middle as the general election campaign progressed.

Third, in an effort to distance himself from President Clinton, Gore denied himself the services of one of the most prolific and oratorical campaigner of modern history - President Clinton. Despite his missteps at the White House, Clinton still remains popular, especially among the African American electorate and other core Democratic Party constituencies. What Gore failed to comprehend was that when two white males vie for an office, they tend to split the white vote, thus, whoever that was able to energize the minority to the voting booth wins the election.

Fourth, the media was highly critical of every Gore mistakes. The news media, especially CBS Nightly news established what was called a "reality check." Most of the reality checks were to correct Mr. Gore’s penchant to over state events, or make up stories in order to buttress his point. A good example was his contention that his in-law’s prescription cost was higher than that of a dog.

Conversely, when Mr. Bush insulted a New York journalist for writing a critical piece on him, when he was exposed for DUI ticket at state of Maine and in a response to a question asked whether social security was some kind of federal program. The media gave him a tepid criticism and moved on.

Fifth, the selection of Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Con), a Jew as his running mates. Not many Americans can stand up and say it, but it is a fact that a sizeable number of the American population are not yet ready for a none male Caucasian to be a heart beat away from the presidency. Senator Lieberman did not help matters either when he spent a better part of his campaign talking about his religion and morality.

The same thing happened in 1984 when Walter Mondale selected former congresswoman from New York, Ms. Geraldine Ferrero as his running mate. Reagan who, like George Bush, has little understanding of the intricate convolution of the federal government trounced Walter Mondale’s candidacy. Unfortunately, Walter Mondale won his home state of Minnesota, and Al Gore lost his home state, Tennessee. Come to think of it, had Gore won his home state; all this talk about letting the fat lady sing would never come about. He would be busy putting together his transition team and interviewing those that would serve in the President Gore administration.

Unfortunately, Gore failed Gore and Ralph Nader was right. Gore won more votes that would have landed him at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Now the case of who won the election rest with the fat lady. Both Gore and Bush have dug themselves in the corner to the extent that the loser may not find a way to save face. It is incumbent upon them to create an atmosphere that would allow the loser to concede gracefully.

But after all the hoopla dies down, assuming that an inquisitor through the freedom of information act obtain a writ to open the Florida ballots to the public and found out the Gore was unfairly cheated and robbed the right to be the next president, then what would happen? Will the American people urge him to run again and overwhelmingly support him, just to right the wrong? What lesson can the developing countries learn from the current American imbroglio or quagmire? Again, the flaws in the world’s greatest democracy have been exposed. The only good lesson from it is that those who practice democracy must copy the way the system has been allowed to take its course. So far, there has been exchange of words and shoving but that is without the resort to armed conflict what would have followed should this happen in a developing country.

However, one thing still remains, the next United States President would preside over a divided country and a declining economy. The next president can be easily beating in the next four years because of the "economy stupid." Gore stands a better chance, like Richard Nixon did after losing to John F. Kennedy to capture the White House. Gore has built a strong organization and perhaps has learned from his mistakes. He would be a formidable candidate come the year 2004.

Furthermore, the next president may have extreme displeasure in dealing with fractured and divided congress. Both parties have 50 Senators each. If Bush wins, his vice president who suffers from health problem would play significant role in the Senate. He would be always on hand in order to break a deadlock by casting a deciding vote.

To my African brethren, it does not matter whom among the two contestants who won the presidential election. None of the two candidates demonstrated or showed a serious commitment to African issues, although, a government of Al Gore may fare better on African oriented issues such as better trading relationship with African nations and immigration policies that would help to bring families together. At least by either slip of tongue or design, we know where Bush stands when he proclaimed that African oriented issues does not feature on his immediate radar screen.

The writer is a US based commentator on national and international affairs