US Election article

10.39.18am GMT Fri 5th Nov 2004

John Kerry

Councillor Paul Elgood, writes for The Argus, 5 November 2004, on Tuesday's US Presidential Election.

Elections in America, like many other things in what is a hugely polarised country, usually come down to a fight between good verses bad. And that pretty much sums up the campaigns of George W. Bush and John Kerry. Hollywood could write the scripts. Americans like a stark choice and both campaigns spent most of their time and resources on a level of negative campaigning unseen over here. Most voters picked their candidates early on with only a small minority deciding late on - reflecting only minor changes in the polls in twelve months.

At about 12.30am UK time on Wednesday morning, a couple of hundred fanatical US Democrats at a Presidential Election night party in London dared to believe the unbelievable, that John Kerry might just become the 44th President of the United States of America. As polls started to close across the Atlantic, reports of record turnouts gave them hope of victory against Bush. Kerry was polling well in key states such as Pennsylvania, but by two o'clock they were looking nervous and by three o'clock it looked tough. At 4.15am it was effectively over as Florida was called for Bush. The Bush camp was ecstatic. The rest of us went home!

The 2004 American Election was largely a re-run of 2000. A bit like our own 2001 election which mirrored almost exactly the results of 1997.

Perhaps, no US election result in recent history has been so significant for the UK. With British troops controversially deployed in an American-led war in Iraq and the 'very' special relationship between Bush and Blair, unprecedented attention has been given over here to the campaign. The BBC alone had 770 correspondents covering the election.

The most interesting question for us is which candidate was Tony Blair's choice to win? It seems clear from Labour MPs on news reports that Labour Party members strongly favoured Kerry, as you would expect - imagine Labour supporters not backing Bill Clinton a few years ago? However, if Bush had fallen, Tony Blair would have looked incredibly isolated on the international stage and we would have been left fighting George Bush's war. Conversely, some senior Tories were backing John Kerry, especially after a reported fall out between Michael Howard and the Bush White House. But comparing politics in the UK and US is a tricky business; the US in many ways can be seen as more 'foreign' to the UK than say France or other European countries.

Over the last twelve months John Kerry emerged as a strong challenger to Bush. A distinguished political and military record made him a strong candidate. But in the TV world of American politics, his age worked against him. On TV he was stiff and too formal, especially compared to Bill Clinton who seems more like Elvis than a politician! Closer up though Kerry's manner is hugely charismatic, a different person to that seen on TV sets.

A critical moment in the campaign was the first Presidential TV debate at the end of September. Something like 65 million Americans tuned into what was widely seen as a Kerry win. Kerry looked Presidential, had a strong message and challenged the President on key issues such as Iraq. What Kerry lacked was either the good looks of JFK, who out shone Richard Nixon in the 1960 debates, or the infamous and witty one liners which have killed opponents in their tracks such as the quips delivered by Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter, 'there you go again'. Devastating.

To understand the election results you need to understand the nation. It is an epic country, taking as long to fly coast to coast as it does to cross the Atlantic from the UK. It is a federal nation, where statehood is everything. Amazingly to us, less attention is paid to who won the overall vote share as to who wins the electoral college, where votes are allocated state-by-state proportional to population size, on a winner takes all basis. And of course, America is the only country in the world where the lawyers could well decide the outcome of an election. It was said that both teams had a plane of lawyers ready to be deployed where necessary on Wednesday morning if a dispute occurred again.

Probably another key difference is the media. Newspapers are regionally based. Americans can choose from 100 if not 200 TV channels, including a more localised news network, and unlike the UK the election campaigns these are almost entirely fought through the media - be it news channels, newspaper ownership or political advertising. Indeed, even a few weeks ago a visitor who didn't switch a TV on in a key swing state such as Florida could be forgiven for not being aware that an election was going on.

For me, the biggest lesson for UK politics is voter registration. Both parties dedicated huge resources to register new voters in the key states. Residents of Brighton and Hove might want to check they have returned their electoral registration form to the Town Hall, especially as Tony Blair may well want to call an election next year. Walking into a record store in Miami, for example, young people were asked if they were registered and if they weren't, they were signed up there and then. And voters also had the chance to vote early, this helped to increase turnout.

American election campaigns last over a year. To close observers its now hard to believe its over - but then again in 2000 it took two months longer! Come the New Year the attention will turn to our own General Election, and the question will be can Blair repeat Bush's historic election victory?

This article was first published in the Argus, 5 November 2004.