The 2004 Florida Senate Race
The People Have Spoken: Competing Explanations and Inconsistency
As soon as the results were in, political pundits in Florida were busy touting their explanations for Mel Martinez’s success. Some have claimed that the vote came down to ethnic and gender divisions within the Florida electorate, pointing to numbers that show that more Hispanics voted for Martinez and more women for Betty Castor, his Democratic rival. However, this explanation for the GOP success has been seriously called into question. Both women and Hispanics, although often leaning to the Democratic side, have historically been split between the two parties on a multitude of isses, from Cuba and immigration stances to broader economic and social policy. Looking at women overall as a monolithic group is questionable in itself, as they comprise half of the entire the voting population and are relatively disorganized. This explanation also ignores other voting blocs that could have significantly influenced the election, such as Florida’s large Jewish population or its politically powerful Christian-right.
The effect of outsiders on the election, especially the Presidential race, seems to be a much more compelling explanation. Martinez entered the primary late, some say because of pressure from Presidential political strategist Karl Rove, and Washington GOP-types immediately endorsed him as their preferred candidate. Martinez ran TV spots featuring a personal endorsement from President Bush, and emphasized his former position in Bush’s cabinet. By connecting his immigrant narrative to his strong support of the adminstration’s policy stances, Martinez solidified his candidate identity in background and policy. The White House’s candidate won the primary, despite Governor Jeb Bush’s clear preference for other candidates, and despite criticism from the Governor and other state Republican leaders for some vicious Rove-inspired attacks on fellow Republicans.
In contrast, Castor only connected herself to the national Democratic apparatus at the end of the campaign by stumping for John Kerry in his final tour of Florida before November 2. This was strategically advantageous, as John Kerry was waging an uphill battle against a fierce GOP who had already succeeded in defining him as a candidate. The lack of a clear and credible national Democratic agenda, combined with the aggressive Republican effort with Martinez, put Castor at a heavy disadvantage in her ability to shape a narrative complete with policy stances, and may have ultimately lost her the race.
Neither candidate was very clear at the beginning of the campaign in specifying how their principles would apply to campaign tactics. While Castor claimed that she thought negative campaigning was morally wrong, the line between a comparative ad and a negative ad was seriously tested by her campaign. Likewise, the ruthless campaign run by Martinez against his Republican collegues and his Democratic challenger raised serious questions about his consistency. His claims that he “wouldn’t be in favor of that kind of rhetoric” seem completely dishonest considering that his campaign employed ridiculous exaggerations against fellow conservatives and Democrats alike.
This page is part of an undergraduate class assignment for POL 318: Strategies and Ethics in Campaigns, and is governed by the Davidson College Honor Code.