By Charles Mahtesian

In the weeks following the September 11 terrorist attacks, as the American mood shifted from shock to anger and then to apprehension, political strategists huddled over polling data in a vain attempt to determine the effect on voting behavior.

Would one party gain an advantage? Would voters flock to the reassuring presence of experienced officials? Would terrorism emerge as the defining political issue for the foreseeable future? No one could be sure.

Since Tuesday’s local elections offered the first and broadest look at the post-September 11 electoral landscape, the view emerged that mayoral races in more than a dozen major cities might serve as harbingers of a new era in politics.

Now, that concern can be put to rest. The November 6 election results clearly indicate that little has changed in the way — or the reasons why — Americans choose their leaders. Popular incumbents, both Democrat and Republican, breezed to landslide victories in places like Boston, Pittsburgh and Charlotte. Troubled mayors went down in defeat in Miami and Minneapolis. Elsewhere, several politically wounded officeholders managed to eke out victories. In Cleveland and Hartford, a woman and a Hispanic broke artificial barriers to ascend to their cities’ highest office. A rising political star emerged in Detroit.

What these races reveal is that, despite the acute trauma inflicted on the body politic, voters continue to act the same way they always act on Election Day. No candidate or party is any better or worse off than they were before the terrorist attacks. All the mayoral candidates won and lost on the issues and themes that have always decided municipal elections — the city budget, corruption, crime, economic development, education, and the perennial conflict between downtown versus the neighborhoods. This year was no different than any other in that sense.

With the exception of the New York City mayoral race, terrorism and its fallout played a negligible role. Not a single contest hinged on terrorism-related emergency-management issues. Experience in office appeared to offer a slight advantage, though not enough to offset seriously flawed incumbencies. More than a few candidates — both elected officials and challengers — sought to cloak themselves in the flag and in the colors of the local police and fire departments, but the tactic backfired as frequently as not.

Consider that another constant in voting behavior: The public still recognizes a tactless opportunist when it sees one.

Charles Mahtesian is a former Governing staff writer.

Recently in View:

Where Is City Hall?: a small victory for the terrorists (posted October 31, 2001)

Governing in the Age of Bioterrorism: new challenges (posted October 21, 2001)

Allies in the Wake of Terror: a new relationship for law enforcement (posted October 8, 2001)

Stop Me Before I Vote: term limits and terrorism (posted October 1, 2001)

Red-Light ‘Rights’: saving lives, if not common sense (posted September 26, 2001)

Post-Terrorism Politics: the beneficiaries of the attacks (posted September 18, 2001)

Complete index of previous columns

 
Copyright © 2001, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are registered trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc.