American Democracy Conference 2000:
Analysis of an Election that Kept Going, and Going…
(reprinted from the Center for Politics Spring 2001 Bulletin)
The Center for Politics seized upon the unique and historic nature of the 2000 election cycle by sponsoring the third annual American Democracy Conference, a program that brought together America's top journalists, academics, and political practitioners to help the nation gain valuable insights into the complexities of the current political climate. Co-sponsored by The Hotline, the event was held on December 4 in the Monticello Room of the historic Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C.
In the preceding months when the conference date was set, it was assumed that having a post-election event four weeks after Election Day would provide plenty of time for our panelists to digest the results and prepare the in-depth analysis that only political insiders could provide. Little did we know that after 27 days of counts, lawsuits, and recounts, the election would still be undecided and the United States would still not have a President-elect. Undaunted, the Center proceeded as planned and produced what is likely the best American Democracy Conference to date.
The conference, which was broadcast live on C-SPAN, consisted of three panels and featured several of America's best known political journalists and analysts, including Andrea Mitchell, Bill Plante, and Elizabeth Drew. The first panel, "Campaign 2000: How Did We Get Here, Where Are We Going?" focused on the events leading up to the November 2000 election and the immediate aftermath of the too-close-to-call vote. The panel, which included Mitchell, Plante, Drew, moderator Craig Crawford from The Hotline, and the Youth Leadership Initiative's Ursula Jesse, a senior at South Lakes High School in Reston, Virginia, also covered a variety of topics, including the Supreme Court, the primary system, and the relevance of the Electoral College. When discussing the reason turnout was so low even in such a tight race, Drew said, "both candidates were so busy playing it safe that neither one of them lifted our sights or our spirits … none of them went beyond the agenda of the day, neither of them had the kind of rhetoric for people to say "that's someone I really want to follow."
Prior to the second panel, conference attendees and viewers across the country heard from two senior Congressmen from opposite sides of the political aisle, but with shared concerns about the divided nation that the next President would likely face. Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA) offered that the Republicans in Congress "welcome the opportunity to work with the Democrats on some of the issues, but we will need presidential leadership." Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD) agreed with Davis and added, "who ever wins this election will be compelled both by principle and practicality to deal with the opposition if he wants to have any hope of success."
The last two panels, "Congress 2000: Split Indecision?" and "Predicting the Election: Crystal Ball or Ground Glass?" engaged the audience in topics such as the role of the 107th Congress, committee chair predictions, and the incessant polling that highlighted the 2000 election. Center Director Larry J. Sabato led a panel that featured respected pollers Kellyanne Fitzpatrick from The Polling Company and Fred Yang of the Garin-Hart Yang Research Group, as well as James Campbell of the State University of New York, Buffalo. The discussion revolved around why so many pundits and political scientists were so off base with their bold predictions about the 2000 elections, and also the factors that caused the major networks to miscall the Presidential winner twice on election night.
_____________________________________________
Copyright © 2003 U.Va. Center for Politics. All rights reserved.
