CAMPAIGN '74: Democrats: Now the Morning After

• Share

(5 of 7)

In retrospect, political analysts found it hard to imagine what Ford or any other Republican could have done to stem the Democratic tide. Said Pollster Daniel Yankelovich: "If the issue had been just the economy or just Watergate, there would not have been the same outcome. But at some level of consciousness, the people put the two together. The result was clear-cut anger and blame. They zeroed in on the Nixon-related Republicans, not conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans." In large measure, the reaction sprang from the electorate's strong trend toward populism and moral indignation, as limned in TIME Soundings, the quarterly survey conducted by Yankelovich's firm (TIME, Nov. 11).

Bright Spots. For the most part, Republican bright spots were confined to wins by moderates and liberals who had not been identified with Nixon. Among the notable survivors: Governors William G. Milliken of Michigan and Robert D. Ray of Iowa; Senators Jacob K. Javits of New York, Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania and Charles Mathias Jr. of Maryland. The conservative Republican contingent in the House was devastated. Of the 162 members who ran, 36 lost; voters returned all but four of the 219 Democrats in the House who sought reelection.

It was a campaign without well-defined national issues. The social questions that dominated the past two elections—law-and-order, welfare, and busing to integrate schools—were absent for the most part. Instead, inflation and the recession withered voters' attitudes toward Republican incumbents. Explains Emil Gutoski, a Republican precinct captain in Cicero, Ill., a blue-collar suburb of Chicago: "When people are hurting, they vote the opposition." Adds Political Demographer Ben Wattenberg: "In tunes of economic trouble, this country still regards the Democratic Party as the one that's more for the little guys."

Because of Watergate, the integrity of the candidates was another issue, often reflected in campaign styles. Many candidates made a point of disclosing their campaign finances, supporting campaign reform and opposing special interests. But Watergate had taken its toll long before the election, discouraging many top Republicans from challenging incumbent Democrats and drying up sources of G.O.P. funds.

Within the larger framework of Watergate and the economy, specific elections, as always, came down to a contest of personalities. This explains in part why an increasingly conservative voting public—as uncovered by TIME Soundings and other surveys—chose a more liberal Congress. With only rare exceptions, voters ignored traditional party or ideological categories. In Vermont, says former Governor Philip H. Hoff, "the ticket-splitting was just staggering." It helped elect Democrat Patrick J. Leahy to the Senate from traditionally Republican Vermont.