aasplogo.jpg (7152 bytes)      

Ad Campaign
Main Page

USA Today Ad

 

 

Final Presidential Debate
October 17, 2000


Bush and Gore Both Fail to Explain Why Single People Should Vote for Them


For single and unmarried voters, the final presidential debate must have been a great disappointment.  Bush and Gore were given a golden opportunity to speak directly to millions of single voters and to solicit their support.  Both candidates missed the mark by a long shot.

During the debate, undecided voters in the audience were selected to ask a question.  First came questions on education, then prescription drugs, then health care, and then on tax cuts.  And then a young woman stepped forward and asked each candidate to explain what he, as president, would do for her as a 34-year-old single person.

Gore responded first, focusing solely on potential income tax relief.  He said that if she were a middle income person, her taxes would be reduced by about $1,000 per year, if poor by some $1,500, and if higher income -- well . . . not too much.  The rest of his response seemed to be designed to fill space.

Gore did not acknowledge that she was one of millions of single voters.  He did not specifically invite single people to vote for him.  Nor did he attempt to discuss a variety of other issues which could benefit single voters. 

Gore could have explained that if she were a minimum-wage worker that she would benefit from his proposal to increase the minimum wage.  Statistics show that single people are the ones who benefit most from increases in the minimum wage.

Gore could have explained that he would vigorously defend her right to choose, would appoint Supreme Court justices who would uphold Roe v. Wade, and would make sure that the morning-after pill (RU486) remains available to those who need it.  After all, single women are the ones who benefit the most from Roe v. Wade and the freedom to use abortion services.

In his response to her question, Gore never once used the term "single people" as a chance to give some balance to his campaign message which uses the phrase "working families" ad nauseam.

When Bush had his turn to respond, he missed an opportunity to persuade single voters that they would benefit more from his proposals than from Gore's.

Bush, like Gore, could not bring himself to say the words "single people."  Bush failed to acknowledge that the questioner was single, instead turning her into a generic American voter.

Bush argued that all Americans would get tax relief under his plan.   He then strayed into a general discourse about how all Americans would benefit from this proposal or that plan and that she, as a generic person, would be better off with him as president.

Bush could have explained that a newspaper in Alabama compared his tax plan with Gore's plan and found that for a single woman making $39,000 a year, the Bush plan allows her to keep $466 more of her own money. The Gore plan? Zero. And if the Bush plan were enacted, the single woman making $78,000 would keep $1,277 more. Under Mr. Gore, she would get no break.  And so on and so forth at every income level.

He could have told her that younger single workers would do better under his personal retirement incentive plan than under Gore's government-subsidized plan.   With Bush's proposal she could invest one-sixth of her retirement funds in a personal plan that might grow by six percent per year rather than the two percent growth of a traditional social security fund.  And under the Bush plan, the remaining assets in the personal fund could be transferred to her heirs when she dies -- unlike remaining social security funds which are forfeited by a single person when she dies.   Surviving spouses, however, can dip into those remaining funds. 

Bush could have said that marital status discrimination inherent in the current "death tax" laws would be eliminated if he were president because he would eliminate the estate tax completely -- for everyone -- not just for "family" farmers and small "family" businesses.  Under current federal law, a person who dies can leave an unlimited amount of wealth to a surviving spouse without any tax being imposed whatsoever, but when a single person dies, the feds can take up to 60 percent of his or her estate.

Both Bush and Gore blew their chance to reach out to single and unmarried voters.  With 34 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of Democrats being single, one wonders why these candidates did not seize this moment by speaking directly to this constituency in no uncertain terms.

Apparently the candidates have chosen to follow the script written by their respective parties -- a script that single people have not been written into.

None of the political parties mentions single people in their platforms, although families, parents, children, seniors, and others are mentioned prominently in these guiding documents.  You won't find a word about single people or about marital status discrimination on the websites of the parties either. 

Millions of single voters were watching this final presidential debate.  They probably held their breath for a moment when they saw someone from the audience standing up and essentially saying "I'm one of you."  For a moment, one undecided voter in Missouri made this invisible minority very visible.

But whatever hopes she engendered in single people, even if only for a moment, were dashed when Al Gore and George Bush failed to acknowledge that she was speaking on behalf of millions of "single people" throughout the nation. 

This undecided single voter -- and millions like her -- are probably still undecided.  The biggest question they probably face at this point is whether they should even bother casting a vote in the presidential race since apparently none of the candidates seems to care that much about their vote.

 

Home Page What's New About AASP Contact AASP
Members Join AASP Guestbook Site Map