This page is part of an undergraduate assignment at Davidson College.
Florida U.S. Senate 2004
Mel Martinez: Why Did He Win?
Martinez garnered 49% to Castor's 48%, so what made the difference? Success came down to voter turnout (Smith 2004). With the President's help, Republicans ran a more effective GOTV effort, especially in the panhandle (Teeple 2004). Registration drives at churches and gun shows excited evangelicals and infrequently voting rural conservatives (Smith 2004). The Hispanic vote boosted his support (NBC6 2004). Martinez' close alignment with President Bush helped instead of hindered, due to considerable outside support pumped into the state (Todd, 2004). Karl Rove handpicked Martinez to run, and the candidate did a better job of bringing out his core constituency than Castor (Crowley 2004).
The argument that Martinez won because of the driving issues of the campaign, terrorism and the moral agenda, is harder to buy (Dobbs Interview). Martinez offered this explanation believing citizens voted for substantive instead of symbolic or descriptive representation. Each candidate conveyed nuanced opinions on issues like abortion and gay marriage, but voters may have had trouble discerning this amidst the dominating Al-Arian issue (Caputo 2004). Since Al-Arian campaigned for Bush under Martinez in 2000, these attacks may have cancelled out. Instead, voters probably supported Martinez because of his fulfillment of the American dream (Bousquet 2004).
Before Washington pushed him to enter the Senate race, Martinez was an uncontroversial moderate. But during the primary, Rove forced Martinez to run far to the right. Deemphasizing his trial lawyer background, he touted tort reform. Accused of unethical campaigning, he blamed his staff. (Jacoby, 2004) Ultraconservatives gave him the nomination, but his dirty tactics made reconciliation more difficult. However, once he had the nomination, Martinez and Bush worked together to keep a consistent message in Florida (Todd, 2004). If consistency and repetition of message swept Bush back into office, the same holds true for Martinez. Republicans successfully hid the unethical inconsistencies Jacoby highlights, thus voters naively supported the GOP.
Castor was a consistent centrist throughout the race (Kumar 2004). Though she thought negative campaigning was morally wrong, she eventually gave in (de la Garza 2004). Taking a subtle route during the primary, she criticized Deutsch for his negative tactics (Koons 2004). Though she tried to stay true to her principles, she eventually responded with attacks of her own. However, her campaign claimed they were repeating previously states facts, not attacking (Flagg 2004). The Democratic candidates signed a pledge vowing to keep positive campaigns, but Deutsch's breech led to reneging by all (AP 2004). After winning the nomination, Castor first compared herself to Martinez, emphasizing their different issue positions (Kinnard 2004). But after the Al-Arian attacks, she fought back. Negative campaigning was an issue in their October 18th debate (Hicken 2004). Castor urged Martinez to stop attacking, but he refused (Sarasota 2004). Overall, her inconsistencies were fewer than Martinez', and did not seem to affect her support.
Send comments, questions, and suggestions to Laura Beach
Created: 9/8/04. Last updated: 12/6/04.