Time - Man of the Year/Time_Man_of_the_Year_Compact_Publishing_3YX-Disc-1_Compact_Publishing_1993.iso/moy/100592/10059958.000

Text File | 1993-04-08 | 10KB | 195 lines

                                                                                U.S. CAMPAIGN, Page 28

THREE'S A CROWD


As Bush struggles to catch up to Clinton, Perot's threat to
leap in from the sidelines complicates the race in its final
stretch

By LAURENCE I. BARRETT/WASHINGTON -- With reporting by Dan
Goodgame/Washington, Priscilla Painton/New York and Richard
Woodbury/Houston


    In the final weeks of a Presidential campaign, candidates
must confront two crucial questions -- how to win undecided
voters and which key swing states to focus on. Now George Bush
and Bill Clinton face a third and most unwelcome challenge: how
to cope with the latest mischiefmaking of Ross Perot. The
Dallas billionaire hinted broadly that he would be back in the
race this week, then fudged on the details. Perot has
orchestrated a showcase meeting of his centurions, who are to
hear from Bush and Clinton representatives this week, and has
scheduled yet another appearance on his favorite TV soapbox,
Larry King Live. Perot's stated price for staying out of the
race is for the other candidates to adopt his austere economic
program wholesale. Since neither Bush nor Clinton will do that
-- the drastic plan would throw the country into deep recession
-- the working assumption at both major camps is that Perot will
haunt the campaign's last five weeks.

    Though Perot did succeed in getting his name on all 50
state ballots, his latest incarnation as a candidate would be
only a shadow of his summer self, before he stunned his
supporters by quitting the field on July 16. Last June, a few
surveys showed him tied with Bush and ahead of Clinton. A new
TIME/CNN poll of likely voters last week put Perot a distant
third, pulling 13% if he remained inactive and 17% if he
announced his candidacy. Just as important, negative feelings
about him have risen significantly. Only 25% now view him
favorably, against 46% who have an unfavorable impression. It
is unlikely that a few weeks of TV advertising and talk-show
appearances would increase public affection for him much. And
even in a season when conventional politics and politicians are
unpopular, most voters do not wish to waste their ballots on a
sure loser.

    Still, Perot has the capacity to rattle the chessboard. He
could qualify to participate in a televised debate if Bush and
Clinton ever agree to hold one. In that and other public forums,
he would presumably attack the mushy economic proposals of both
opponents. As he said on CBS This Morning last week: "Is it too
much to expect presidential candidates to be able to add?"
Anticipating more of this, Clinton's advisers are considering
plans to refine their candidate's delivery to give more
emphasis to deficit reduction. But their main concern at the
moment is how a three-way debate on economic policy could
highlight the only line of attack against Clinton that has so
far proved effective: a classic "tax and spend liberal." Last
week's poll shows that 47% think that label accurately describes
Clinton, in contrast to 39% a month before.

    Yet the survey indicates that Perot would have little
impact on the competition for popular votes between Bush and
Clinton. In a two-way matchup, Clinton leads by 12 percentage
points among likely voters -- twice the margin he enjoyed a
month earlier, just after the Republican National Convention.
Adding Perot's name shaves just 1 percentage point from
Clinton's lead. But aggregate numbers can be deceptive. The
critical questions are where Perot would have the greatest
impact and whether he would attempt to act out his hostility
toward Bush by targeting states that the President must win.

    Clinton strategists profess to be sanguine. "The Perot
candidacy is a missile in directed flight against Bush," says
George Shipley, a Democratic consultant in Texas. "That's his
whole game." Bush's advisers do worry about losing Texas. But
they argue, perhaps wishfully, that Perot could diminish
Clinton's overpowering lead in California to the point where
Bush would be competitive there. If the numbers in the nation's
largest state begin to change, Bush would divert money and time
to the West Coast. That would force Clinton to do the same in
the final weeks. Clinton's pollster, Stan Greenberg, insists the
Democrat's hold on California is impregnable even if Perot
reduces the spread.

    The outcome in several other states might shift, possibly
taking Washington and one or two other Western states out of the
Clinton column. But on balance, Perot's vote potential seems
greatest in states that Bush must capture in order to reach the
magic number of 270 electoral votes. "We'll take that trade any
day," says a campaign adviser. While that analysis should make
Clintonians happy, they nonetheless fret about Perot. Their lead
has endured for 11 weeks, allowing them to firm up plans for the
climactic weeks while the Bush camp must improvise. For Clinton,
new elements add uncertainties that can be dangerous. He has
been cautious in recent days, reluctant to take unnecessary
risks.

    Neither side will know how to cope with Perot until his
strategy unfolds. Up to this week, they have maneuvered as if
Perot were just another heckler. By mid-September, the
Bush-Clinton contest had assumed an intimidating structure from
the President's viewpoint. Various lines of attack on Clinton
-- the "family values" theme, the Arkansan's draft record, his
performance as Governor -- failed to boost Bush's ratings. The
President's belated attempt to sell his "Agenda for American
Renewal" also had only a limited impact.

    In this environment, Republicans resembled a drowning man
willing to grasp even the sharp blade of a sword. "I'll be
thrilled if Perot gets back in," says a Bush adviser. "We're
losing this contest, and we need something dramatic to shake
things up." Because Clinton is so far ahead in the two most
populous states, New York and California, a few hopeful G.O.P.
analysts were whispering about the possibility of Bush's
carrying enough smaller states narrowly to gain an
electoral-college majority while Clinton won the popular vote.

    This is an updated twist on the "electoral-lock"
phenomenon, which worked to the G.O.P.'s advantage since Richard
Nixon's 1968 victory. Demographic trends and the distribution
of electoral votes gave each Republican ticket a head start in
amassing 270 electoral votes. With the Republicans dominating
the West and most of the South in every election except 1976,
Democratic candidates had the challenge of winning nearly all
the larger closely contested states elsewhere.

    This year the weak economy and Bush's feckless campaign
have jimmied the lock. The possibility of Bush's winning only
in the Electoral College is implausible. TIME's analysis shows
Clinton well positioned to carry states totaling 210 electoral
votes while Bush can depend on only 159. Much of the turf
nominally in no-man's land tilts slightly toward Clinton. Now
it is Bush who must sweep most of the battleground real estate
while Clinton can win by taking just a few additional strategic
states.

    Tactics on both sides have been heavily influenced by the
new geography. Bush's travel schedule symbolizes his defensive
mode. To protect his base, he has paid repeated visits to such
states as Texas, Oklahoma and Mississippi. This has reduced the
resources he could spend challenging Clinton on the Democrats'
turf. With so many states in play, Bush advisers waited until
last week to begin TV advertising aimed at selected local
markets. The first commercial sarcastically attacked Clinton's
record as Governor. The initial broadcast schedule omitted
California, a sign that the Republicans were giving up on the
largest state, at least until they could measure Perot's impact.

    Clinton's spot advertising began three weeks earlier with
a positive pitch for his economic program. Last week Clinton
switched to an attack ad ridiculing Bush's handling of the
recession. Spared the expense so far of heavy advertising in
California, the Democrats have bought TV time in traditional
Republican bastions like Montana and South Dakota that are now
in Clinton's reach. Last week Clinton also purchased ads on New
York City's expensive stations. They were aimed at viewers in
New Jersey, another state that used to be forbidding for
national Democrats.

    Clinton's travel schedule has also signaled an offensive
mentality, emphasizing toss-up states like Missouri, Georgia and
Michigan. He has launched a serious effort in Texas. At minimum,
Clinton forays in Bush's backyard will require the President to
devote resources to a state that should be safe for him.

    Like an avid amateur playing with professional athletes,
Perot has nothing at stake but his prodigious ego. As if his
threats and feints from the political sidelines did not attract
enough attention, Perot last week pulled another of the
grandstand stunts for which he has become famous.

    During a break in hearings of the Senate Select Committee
on POW/MIA affairs, Perot met with committee members John
Kerry, Bob Smith and John McCain and made an extraordinary
announcement: he claimed to know the whereabouts of 30 Americans
who are supposedly being held prisoner in Laos or Vietnam and
offered to bring out a live POW or a videotape to prove it. The
stunned Senators said that a live prisoner would probably be
preferable and Perot promised to get back to them. Smith, a New
Hampshire Republican, walked out of the room beaming, but Kerry
and McCain were deeply skeptical. Whatever else it might
produce, the bizarre meeting immediately achieved one of Perot's
most cherished goals: more news coverage.