"Got Your Message"

The desperate last-minute appeal somehow symbolized the whole tumultuous campaign year. There, in a 30-second television commercial, was the usually dapper and composed Senator Charles Percy of Illinois looking haggard and close to tears. Staring straight into the camera, the onetime presidential aspirant implored millions of unseen viewers: "I got your message and you're right. Washington has gone overboard, and I'm sure that I've made my share of mistakes, but your priorities are mine too. Stop the waste. Cut the spending. Cut the tax."

The voters got Percy's message too. He was saved from the brink of defeat and returned to the Senate. He had belatedly discovered what most candidates had learned much earlier in the campaign. If they wanted to get elected, they had better propose some kind of cut in taxes or spending or both. The American people had soured on costly government and demanded relief --now. That was, as much as any, the message of last week's off-year elections.

It was not, however, an easy election to decipher. Gone were the sharp, divisive ideological issues that had enlivened and embittered previous campaigns. Foreign or defense policies, for example, were seldom brought up. If there was a national consensus to do something to resist high taxes, spending and inflation, that could be called, in traditional terms, conservative. But the voters' antigovernment mood appeared more cautious than many prophets had predicted. The mood instead seemed quirky, dissatisfied, independent. While some notable liberals like Senator Dick Clark of Iowa were defeated, so were some right-wingers like Governor Meldrim Thomson of New Hampshire, and in a few states, like Massachusetts, people voted for both sides at once. Worries about widespread apathy also seemed to be exaggerated, though people turned out to vote in somewhat smaller numbers than usual (see chart page 35).

While there were many individual changes, last week's voting did not substantially alter the political lineup. The party in power usually suffers some reverses in off-year elections. But the Democrats, moving quickly and adroitly to exploit popular dissatisfaction with their own economic policies, kept losses to a minimum and remained in solid control of both houses of Congress. They stayed in command of 32 statehouses and both houses of at least 29 state legislatures. But the Republicans scored significant gains, showing that the endangered par ty can still make a comeback. When G.O.P. National Chairman Bill Brock was jokingly asked if the U.S. political system could be described as "a party and a quarters." half," he Brock replied, added: "It's "We one will and go three-into 1980 stronger than we were in 1976."

The G.O.P. achieved a net gain of three Senate seats, giving it 41 members to the Democrats' 59. In the House, the Republicans picked up twelve seats for a total of 159; the Democrats have 276. The Republicans did even better in state government. They won six additional governorships, giving them 18 out of the 50. Perhaps even more important, they gained 298 seats in the state legislatures, far more than the 200 they expected to win. They now have 2,699 seats out of a total 7,562. They achieved a majority in 13 additional chambers and increased from four to twelve the number of states where they control both houses. "This is the most profound change for us," said Brock. He was relieved because state legislatures will redistrict after the 1980 census. If the Republicans had not made considerable gains, they might have been gerrymandered to near oblivion. In 1976, it is estimated, the Republicans won 42% of the total congressional vote but captured only 33% of the seats in the House. Now Republicans figure that they are at the mercy of redistricting Democrats in only 20 states.

The Democrats, despite their many victories, were not pleased with the results. On election night, Jimmy Carter's White House aides cheerfully closeted themselves in Press Secretary Jody Powell's cluttered office to watch the returns. By midnight, their mood had changed. When Democratic National Committee Chairman

John White emerged, he looked harassed and talked dully. Hamilton Jordan slammed a door against TV cameras. The normally chatty Jerry Rafshoon had nothing to say. Political Coordinator Tim Kraft looked in need of an Alka-Seltzer. The President, who had been privately watching the returns with Rosalynn, did not even appear. At a press conference in Kansas City two days later, he remarked laconically: "I think the Democrats did fairly well on a nationwide basis. But we lost some very key races."

For the President, the numbers of party victories were less troubling than the particular winners and losers. Potentially strong Republicans had captured key governorships: Richard Thornburgh in Pennsylvania, William Clements in Texas, Lee Dreyfus in Wisconsin. Republican Jim Rhodes remained in control of the Ohio statehouse, and Bill Milliken was re-elected Governor of Michigan. Perhaps most threatening of all, Jim Thompson won re-election in Illinois by 600,000 votes-demonstrating that he is a moderate Republican with broad appeal in a big industrial state. He has not denied that he might run for President in 1980. Said Thompson: "The Republican Party has come alive again in its traditional seat of power, in the Midwest where it was born."

Nor could Carter take pleasure in all of his own party's winners. California Governor Jerry Brown, who defeated Carter in three primaries in 1976, was re-elected by a whopping 1.3 million votes, though the turnout was modest. The landslide gave him a strong boost toward a 1980 presidential bid.

Vice President Walter Mondale suffered a stunning slap in the face in his native state of Minnesota, which has long been considered a liberal stronghold. There, amid the fractious squabbling of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, the G.O.P. scored a major sweep. Despite numerous visits and pep talks by Mondale, despite two trips to the state by the President, the voters turned the Democrats out of the governorship and both Senate seats. In a rueful postmortem, a shellshocked Mondale concluded: "I shouldn't have told them to do it for Hubert Humphrey and me, but to do it for themselves."

Presidents are rarely the central issue in off-year elections, and Carter was no exception. He admitted at his televised press conference last week: "I doubt my presence had much of an impact on the outcome of those who won. I don't look on it as a referendum on whether I have done a good job or not." Until his success at Camp David, Carter was generally considered a liability, and there was little demand for his help in campaigns. In the 31 states he has visited, he turned out crowds, aroused some excitement and drummed up publicity for the candidates. But an ABC News/Harris analysis of 104 swing districts indicated that the President had no measurable influence in the districts he visited. But then neither did Ted Kennedy, Ronald Reagan or Gerald Ford. Coattails, which never mean too much in an off year, seemed especially threadbare.

Carter's problems with Congress will undoubtedly be increased by the rightward shift among the incoming legislators. Again, the numbers are less important than the individual changes. The President lost five key liberal supporters in the Senate: Clark of Iowa, Thomas Mclntyre of New Hampshire, William Hathaway of Maine, Floyd Haskell of Colorado, Wendell Anderson of Minnesota. As head of the African Affairs Subcommittee, Clark was a strong backer of the Administration's policy of pressuring the white powers in southern Africa to grant black majority rule. He was defeated by Conservative

Republican Roger Jepsen, who made a campaign issue of his opponent's foreign policy. Senator Mclntyre, a member of the Armed Services Committee and a provisional supporter of SALT II, will be replaced by former Airline Co-Pilot Gordon Humphrey, who opposes SALT and says he plans to be the "biggest skinflint" in Washington. Haskell and Hathaway were two of the most liberal members of the Senate Finance Committee. A few mainstream liberals were elected to the Senate: Bill Bradley in New Jersey, Paul Tsongas in Massachusetts, Carl Levin in Michigan, Donald Stewart in Alabama. But they do not have the experience or the seniority to replace the members who were defeated.

The conservative Republicans, on the other hand, have been strengthened in Congress, especially in the Senate. Some new right-wingers (Mississippi's Thad Cochran, Colorado's Bill Armstrong, Jepsen and Humphrey) have swelled the ranks of the old (North Carolina's Jesse Helms, Idaho's James McClure, Texas' John Tower and South Carolina's Strom Thurmond). With the defeat of Edward Brooke in Massachusetts, the Senate's only black, the waning power of the liberal Republicans has been reduced even further. Their only gain is Bill Cohen, who was elected in Maine. Led by Nevada's Paul Laxalt, the conservatives have become a formidable force in the Senate, one capable of blocking key Carter initiatives.

In the 95th Congress, Carter was able to count on the occasional, indispensable services of Minority Leader Howard Baker. Without Baker, the Panama Canal treaties would not have been ratified, the Turkish arms embargo lifted or the three-way Middle East weapons sale approved. But Baker may no longer be able to come to the aid of the President. No sooner were the election results apparent than conservative Republicans started plotting to take over at least some of the leadership positions in the Senate, including a challenge by Helms for on-floor leadership. Taking no chances, Baker dashed back to Washington to phone other victorious Republicans and ask for their support to continue as minority leader. He claims that he lined up 33 votes, far more than the 20 he needs to keep his post. But to maintain his leadership, he will undoubtedly be maneuvered to the right. "It's a new ball game," says a moderate Republican Senator. "It doesn't take much to change things around."

If the President chooses to concentrate on thrift and budget cutting during the second half of his term, he may have only minimal difficulties on Capitol Hill, and it could be argued that the disappearance of both liberals and some conservatives has put the Democrats more in line with Carter's personal position. But if Carter tries to push new spending programs or controversial foreign and defense policies, he is bound to face more flak from the 96th Congress than he did from the disruptive 95th. That applies particularly to the Strategic Arms Limitation treaty, for even Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd has misgivings about the pact.

The G.O.P. gains would probably have been greater if the party had exploited the economic issue more skillfully. A Republican issue of long standing, it was simply appropriated by the Democrats. "The Republicans set the agenda for the campaign," says Political Consultant Mark Shields. "The Democrats dominated the dialogue." Many Republicans campaigned on the Kemp-Roth plan to cut federal income taxes by 33% over three years; the measure is based on the theory that a sharp tax reduction would generate enough business activity to make up for the lower rates. Even though voters want tax reductions, they were skeptical of a scheme that sounded so much like a free lunch.

Some of the most prominent over-promisers went down to resounding defeat. In the New Jersey Senate race, Jeff Bell, perhaps the most avid proponent of Kemp-Roth, was beaten by former Basketball Star Bill Bradley, who proposed more modest tax cuts. Perry Duryea, the G.O.P. candidate for Governor of New York, promised to increase welfare grants and reduce taxes at the same time. The victorious incumbent, Hugh Carey, refrained from any such foolishness. In Arkansas, Bill Clinton, 32, was elected the nation's youngest Governor, even though he vowed to ask for a tax increase if a referendum reducing the state sales levy on food and drugs was approved. It was not.

Though 80% of the referendums imposing limits on taxes and spending in 16 states were approved by the voters, two that were modeled after California's celebrated Proposition 13 were rejected. In Michigan, voters said yes to a measure limiting state spending to the increase in state personal income, but they turned down a proposal to roll back property taxes roughly 50%. Moderation, even in tax cutting, seemed to be the voters' message. After surveying the results, Bill Brock started backing away from Kemp-Roth. As an alternative, he proposed "son of Kemp-Roth," a scheme devised by Democratic Senator Sam Nunn to tie tax reductions to cuts in spending.

The election marked the further erosion of the two-party system. Ticket splitting was rampant. Unpredictable, independent-minded voters gave Republican Milliken a third term in the Michigan statehouse but ejected G.O.P. Senator Robert Griffin. In Kansas, Republican Governor Robert Bennett was ousted by Democrat John Carlin, but Republican Nancy Kassebaum coasted to an easy victory over her Democratic opponent, Bill Roy, and thus became the only woman to serve in the Senate at the present time.

In general, candidates seemed to win on the basis of local issues and services they had or had not provided. For all the talk of an anti-incumbent year, not too many were turned out of office. Most Representatives who left Congress quit of their own accord. Of 377 incumbents running for re-election to the House, only 19 lost their seats.

Much more than before, candidates were financed from nonparty sources. Under the revised campaign finance law, a candidate can spend as much as he wants of his own money. Not surprisingly, a lot of millionaires ran for office, and most of them won. Otherwise, funds were supplied in abundance by the political action committees (PACS) that have proliferated under the campaign finance law. Formed by business, labor and a host of other special interest groups, PACs had contributed more than $60 million at the mid-point of the campaign, as compared with spending a total of $23 million in the last presidential election. There were some signs of a backlash against the growing influence of the PACs. Wisconsin Governor-elect Dreyfus singled them out for special obloquy in his rambunctious quasipopulist campaign against the special interests.

More money than ever was spent on television, and since the candidates' appearance on TV was a decisive factor, more political amateurs were encouraged to run. The new U.S. Senate has a large freshman class of 19, and seven of those have never before held any elective office. The concentration on television had the additional effect of drying up much traditional grass-roots activity and limiting get-out-the-vote efforts on Election Day. "Maybe some innovative candidate will dream up grass roots again," says Judy Baker, a Democratic activist in Fairfield, Calif. Indeed one has. Victor Atiyeh, Republican candidate for Governor of Oregon, proved that the old methods can still work their wonders. Considered an underdog in his race against Democratic Governor Bob Straub, he avoided television, logged 40,000 miles in a door-to-door campaign and won an upset victory.

Trying to assert their individuality and freedom from party ties, candidates resorted to a variety of gimmicks. For some of them, running for office meant literally that. Massachusetts Governor-elect Edward King ran several miles every day at dawn. Paul Tsongas had squads of campaign workers running for him; then, in red shorts, he joined them for the last two-mile lap to Faneuil Hall for the windup of the campaign. To show he is perfectly fit at 76, Strom Thurmond kept sliding down a pole in a firehouse in South Carolina. For the most part the carelessly tousled John F. Kennedy look was out; more formality was in. Frank Collazo Jr., who worked for 20 years in the oil refineries around Port Arthur, Texas, wore jeans when he successfully ran for the state's house of representatives two years ago. This year he donned pinstripe suits and conservative ties in his uncontested reelection campaign.

For all the new freedom of maneuvering, certain rules still applied. Though there were countless personal attacks in an election that lacked major issues, dirty tricks seemed to be at a minimum. In a radio ad, Democrat Alex Seith tried to associate his opponent, Charles Percy, with a scurrilous joke that former Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz once told about blacks; even members of Seith's own party told him he had gone too far. When Democratic Senator Hathaway tried to portray his opponent, Bill Cohen, as a contrivance of the media, the Republican responded with a TV ad showing his own slick self being splattered with mud by his opponent. The commercial is credited with giving Cohen a final boost to victory. Beneath all the showmanship, the confusing verbiage, the mounds of money, voters in their own instinctive way managed to discern the more creditable candidates. In all their variety, the freshly elected officeholders are undoubtedly an accurate reflection of the current American mood.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.