10 Election Facts That Turned Out To Be False

In 2004, George W. Bush defeated John Kerry, and a popular myth surrounding that result focuses on the issue of gay marriage. In 2004, gay marriage ban initiatives were on the ballot in 11 states. The story goes that conservative opposition to these initiatives energized the Republican base and led to a higher turn-out of "values voters" which proved crucial in Kerry's defeat, most particularly in the important swing state of Ohio.

However, President Bush's chief strategist, Matthew Dowd, has flatly denied that gay marriage was a crucial issue in energizing the conservative base. Voter opinion surveys on key issues conducted in 2003 and 2004 back his argument up — neither gay marriage nor any social issue ended up in the top eight ranking of importance to voters. Rather, issues related to national security, taxation, and the economy in general were more influential in bringing out the conservative vote.

Furthermore, the increased conservative turnout was evident across the entire country, not simply states with gay marriage ban initiatives. Bush did poll higher in states with those initiatives, but they were already generally conservative states anyway. In fact, the boost in support for Bush between the 2000 and 2004 elections was actually slightly less in states with gay marriage ban initiatives than the rest of the country. There is far more evidence voters chose Bush over Kerry on the basis of national security and economic concerns, rather than nebulous "moral values."

After George H.W. Bush was defeated in 1992 by an upstart from Arkansas named Bill Clinton, Republicans blamed the loss on the quixotic presidential campaign of eccentric Texas billionaire Ross Perot. The argument is that Perot stole conservative votes from Bush and ended up costing him the White House. Sound familiar, Gore apologists?

The idea that Perot stole conservative votes from Bush is dubious, as the policies espoused by Perot were a mix of liberal and conservative positions, meaning he held appeal to moderates of both political parties. This was also borne out in exit polls, where 38% of Perot voters chose Clinton as their second-most preferred candidate, while only 36% chose Bush.

Indeed, early in the campaign, Perot's entry into the race helped the Bush campaign by splitting the anti-Bush vote. With a sagging economic performance and high rate of unemployment, only a third of Americans believed Bush deserved a second term. While the Perot campaign flamed out, Clinton overcame strong doubts about his personal character and ability to lead, and acquire a commanding lead in the polls. When Perot unexpectedly re-entered the race in October, the gap between Bush and Clinton narrowed to 5.5. This wouldn't have happened if all that was happening was Bush losing conservative votes to Perot.

Overall, there is little evidence Bush would have achieved victory over Clinton if Perot had sat out the election. As seen in 2000, it's often psychologically easier to blame a third party, than admit one's own defeat.

It is popularly believed that Gerald Ford blew his chances for reelection in 1976 during the presidential debates. Ford claimed that, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration." While he meant to highlight the unbroken spirit of the people of Eastern Europe, his statements were taken literally by the media, and used to accuse Ford of being naive and ignorant on geopolitical issues. Scholars have pointed to the statement as a prime example of a damaging political gaffe ever since.

The problem is, there's no evidence whatsoever that the statement actually hurt Ford's chances. While he did sag in the polls taken immediately after the debate, he soon bounced back and, in some polls, even led Carter just before the election. Ford himself is said to believe the debates actually helped his chances. Though he started off at a major disadvantage, at 38 points behind Carter, after the debates, Ford very nearly won the election.

Quite a legend has formed around the first televised presidential debate in 1960, between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. The appearance of the two candidates were said to have played a major role in swinging public opinion. While Kennedy came across on television as handsome, charismatic, and presidential, Nixon was pale, hesitant, and sweaty. Polls and surveys taken after the fact are said to show those who viewed the debate on TV were more likely to dub Kennedy the winner, while those who listened to the debate on the radio preferred Nixon. This is used to argue the election was won on the basis of style over substance.

What this analysis fails to recognize, however, is the polls taken did not reflect the pre-debate posture or background of respondents. In 1960, 88% of US households had a television, and those who listened to the debate on the radio were much more likely to be in rural areas, of Protestant background, and reflexively anti-Kennedy to begin with. What the debate performance did show was that Kennedy was ready to be the President. The Senator had previously been heavily criticized for his relative lack of experience compared to the Vice President, but his performance convinced many wavering Democrats he was up to the task.

There was little evidence from print media at the time that the candidates' physical appearances had any major effect on the decision of the electorate. Surveys of television and radio observers were small and of dubious validity, and at any rate, the polls after the fact did not show a decisive swing to Kennedy. A week before the first debate he was 1 point behind Nixon, and a week later he was a mere 3 points up. While Kennedy was considered the winner of the first debate, Nixon was judged to have carried the third, and there was no clear winner for the second or fourth. By the time the election rolled around, the two candidates were virtually tied at 49% to 48%, in Kennedy's favor.

There were more important factors behind the results of the election, such as Nixon's ill-advised and arduous commitment to his promise to campaign in all 50 states, as well as Kennedy's crucial choice of naming influential Texas Senator Lyndon B. Johnson as his running mate. Even after all that, Nixon only lost by 0.2% of the vote, and could easily have carried the day. If that had happened, their first debate would likely be remembered merely as the first time two candidates debated on TV, Kennedy's prettiness would hardly be mentioned at all, and perhaps the third debate would be considered the true decisive factor.

By some accounts, in 1948 Harry Truman was in an unenviable position. He had lost both Houses to the Republicans in the 1946 midterm elections, and seemed unlikely to win reelection. However, legend says that Truman rallied by campaigning against the obstructionists in Congress and impressing the American voting public through sheer grit. He defeated his political opponents in a series of fiery speeches against the "do-nothing, good for nothing" Congress, delivered from the caboose of the a train carrying him throughout the country on his "Give 'Em Hell" whistlestop tour.

It's a romantic story, which appeals to an underdog narrative, except it's just that: a story. Truman most benefited from the strong performance of the US economy in late-1947 and early-1948. The correlation between the state of the economy and the re-election of an incumbent candidate is one of the strongest predictors in political science, so Truman really just reflects the usual pattern. Another major factor was Truman's response to the Berlin crisis, when he airlifted in troops to prevent the Soviets from swallowing the city whole. This proved to many voters that Truman was more than an accidental President, and he had the strength to stand up to the Soviet Union. The crisis also marginalized Progressive Party candidate Henry Wallace, who the Republicans hoped would pull votes away from Truman. After the Berlin crisis, Wallace came under heavy attack from the Democrats for his Communist ties, which pulled voters back into the Democratic ranks.

While the caboose tour happened, and while it was certainly magnificent theater, it was of secondary impact. If the economy had been weak and Truman not stood strong against Soviet aggression, it is very likely Dewey would have defeated Truman, and that one overzealous newspaper would never have wound up with egg on its ink-and-papered face.