North Carolina Senate Race 2004
Bowles vs. Burr
Richard Burr won this bitterly contested race 52% to 47%. Despite being behind in the polls nearly the entire way, Burr ran a "low-key" campaign that paid off in the end (newsobserver.com). Among the various explanations of Burr's victory are his appeal to "the core voters of the Republican party," on social issues and his fiscal conservatism (newsobserver.com). Furthermore, Burr took advantage of N.C.'s Republican tendencies by allying himself with President Bush, who won N.C. with 56% of the vote in both 2000 and 2004 (infoplease.com cnn.com). Burr says that the three keys to his victory were "momentum from the tobacco buyout," a "disciplined" campaign, and a "miscalculation" by the Bowles campaign to go after Burr on health-care (Winston-Salem Journal). In the end, however, Burr's victory had less to do with breast cancer and Bowles' "antiquated spectacles" than with Burr's success at gaining name recognition and painting his opponent as a Clinton cohort (newsobserver.com news14charlotte.com). Brad Coker of Mason-Dixon Polling and Research agrees, saying Burr got a boost by riding "President Bush's momentum," and "reminding people" of Bowles' ties to Clinton (news14charlotte.com). As the campaign heated up, Burr received more attention, closing the gap in name recognition, and consequently, the polls. In May of 2004, 45% of voters polled said they did not "recognize" Burr (news14charlotte.com). By the end of September, that figure was down to 12%. Over that same period, suppor for Burr rose from 35% to 44% (news14charlotte.com). Burr ads associating Bowles with Clinton aired over the same period, helping to increase the percentage of people with an unfavorable impression of Bowles from 19% to 28% (news14charlotte.com).
Burr and Bowles both compromised their principles in order to be more attractive as candidates. This is most evident on trade issues, with each candidate trying to hide their past in a state hit hard by jobs lost overseas. Under Clinton, Bowles was a major player in negotiating NAFTA and trade deals with China, an opening the Burr campaign made sure to exploit. Bowles reminded voters that Burr voted for "similar agreements with Chile and Singapore" as recently as 2003 and that Burr even said he would have voted for NAFTA had he been in Congress in 1994 (creativeloafing.com). Naturally, each candidate said they had learned from their mistakes while charging that their opponent had not. Because both men have an unpleasant history with trade, it did not hurt either very badly. Similarly, when Burr went against a 1992 campaign promise to abolish PAC contriubtions from outside the district, it negated Bowles' unlikely claim that he supported Bush's tax cuts (creativeloafing.com).
Created by
12-5-04