Joseph Mercurio on "The Game Is Over: The Outcome Never Changed In the Governor's Race"

The Outcome Never Changed In the Governor's Race

Retirement portfolios are in trouble, voters say their assessment of the economic outlook is bleak and personal income tax receipts are crashing way below projections, because estimated income tax from investments is down. The Conference Board reported that consumer confidence plummeted to a nine-year low. If the holiday shopping season has lower sales, New York will also be short sales tax revenue.

Not that Democrats like bad times, but this news should have altered the midterm election because voters normally punish the President's party over a bad economy.

Indeed Democrats will pick up more governors -- instead of winning two or three races they will take probably six or seven. Four days out, however, only Missouri and South Dakota (for the Democrats) and New Hampshire, Colorado and Arkansas (for the Republicans) still have contested US Senate races.

In New York, the Governor and Comptroller races are both heavily contested. Vast sums are being spent for Governor, which will likely prove to be the most expensive race ever. For Comptroller, both major party candidates are actually under-funded and as a result the outcome may be decided not by who would make the best Comptroller, but on social issues not in the Comptroller's realm.

In three states, California, New York, and Texas, there are gubernatorial candidates who have spent vast sums of personal money on campaigns. In each case they are proving once again that money alone does not buy elections. Ideas, issues and accomplishment trump money.

Going into elections there are always factors like sex, race, religion, ethnicity, incumbency, and party enrolment that affect outcomes. Campaigns must factor them into consideration, but each of those items becomes less important when voters have enough information about the candidate and the issues. Campaigns need enough money to communicate.

McCall had achievement and was the incumbent state Comptroller. And voters pulled his lever in large numbers in past elections. McCall also had more than a two million Democratic advantage in party enrolment. One could argue that in the last decade that advantage has eroded. Though voters are enrolled as Democrats, more of them are ticket splitters today.

Pataki had incumbency, including a huge government-funded media campaign triangulating Democratic ideas. (His government ads were more powerful and had more effect than his campaign's commercials). He also had an incumbent's fundraising capacity -- something McCall neglected for eight years. Plus he started the year with the glow from good work after 9/11.

And then came Golisano, who had enormous wealth, a few ideas and commendable achievement.

McCall's "vote for" number remained just above or below the 30-point level for the entire year. His campaign was arguably not as good as either of his opponents. And he should have used his incumbency better in fund raising before the campaign began.

Pataki's "vote for" number in April public polls was in the mid-60s. As good as his campaign was he declined about 20 points since then. As a result, his support today is a third smaller than in the spring. His vote was soft and easily eroded by his opponents.

Golisano changed the numbers but not the outcome. His candidacy prevented disgruntled upstate voters from moving to McCall and kept outer borough whites from coming home to the Democratic Party. By increasing his own vote he reduced each major party candidate's support, but he also reduced the number of votes needed to win. Pataki polled lower but needed fewer votes.