Time - Man of the Year/Time_Man_of_the_Year_Compact_Publishing_3YX-Disc-1_Compact_Publishing_1993.iso/moy/110292/11029925.000

Text File | 1993-04-08 | 13KB | 256 lines

                                                                                COVER STORIES, Page 24

BILL CLINTON

The Fat Lady Hasn't Quite Sung


The race tightens in the final lap, as both Bush and Perot gain
ground on Clinton. But the Democrat's grip on an electoral-vote
majority will be hard to break.

By LAURENCE I. BARRETT/WASHINGTON -- With reporting by Michael
Duffy/Washington and Walter Shapiro with Clinton


    Nearly a month ago, when her candidate appeared to be
coasting to victory, Clinton adviser Susan Thomases walked into
a Little Rock strategy session with two charts. One showed Jimmy
Carter ahead of Ronald Reagan by four points late in the 1980
race, which the Republican challenger went on to win by a margin
of nine. The second display recalled the 1976 contest, in which
Carter's seemingly prohibitive advantage over Jerry Ford shrank
to two points by Election Day. Thomases' fear: complacency bred
by favorable numbers might lead to a November surprise. George
Bush's analysts, meanwhile, were also studying the 1976
figures. Their hope: Bush can duplicate Ford's comeback -- and
then some -- by painting a small-state Southern Governor as
unfit to run the nation.

    As the 1992 campaign headed into its final week, enlivened
by Ross Perot's late re-entry into the race and a nine-day,
four-debate marathon, the nation's pollsters were scrambling to
take the final readings of an electorate that seemed hungry for
change. The findings, while contradictory in some specifics,
pointed toward more suspense than Clinton might like -- but less
than Bush needs to score a historic upset on Nov. 3. Perot, by
contrast, continued to bedevil both the major-party candidates
and the pundits, who regularly discount him.

    Highlights of the electorate's mood:

    -- Bill Clinton's lead in the overall popular vote and in
some strategic states has diminished. The main reason is that
Bush's attacks on his character and credibility have reinforced
the existing impression of the Arkansan as a slick equivocator.
In a TIME/CNN survey taken last week, Clinton's advantage was
down to seven points among registered voters (38%, vs. 31% for
Bush and 17% for Perot). A month earlier, his margin had been 13
points. When "leaners" who have not quite made up their minds
are added to the mix, Clinton's margin rises to eight (41%,
compared with 33% for Bush and 19% for Perot). In a smaller
TIME/CNN sampling, designed to focus on those most likely to
vote, Clinton led by only three points, 38% to 35%. That was a
significantly smaller spread than other surveys showed, though
they also found the contest getting closer.

    -- Bush has benefited little from the shift as
independents moved, perhaps temporarily, to Perot. Voters still
see the President's economic policies as failed and have no
confidence in his ability to produce prosperity. Only 35%
approved of his performance as President; just 23% said he has
done well in dealing with the economy.

    -- Perot has restored the favorable image he himself
trashed by his abrupt departure from the race in mid-July. While
not competitive with Bush and Clinton, he has persuaded a large
majority (86%) that his candidacy has been good for the
country. If he loses, 54% said, he should try again.

    -- Voters found the televised debates informative:
two-thirds said they learned something about what kind of
President each candidate would be -- and Clinton was viewed as
the best performer, with Perot close behind. However, two-thirds
of respondents said the debates had no effect on their
preference.

    Confidential polling by the Clinton campaign also showed
slippage over several days, though their internal numbers were
more bullish for the Democrat than the TIME/CNN findings. While
the new stats caused some anxiety, they also had a positive
side. The impression that Clinton could not be beaten carried
with it the danger that some voters would stay home. Others,
yearning for change but hostile to politics as usual, might be
tempted to give their ballots to Perot as a symbolic protest
that would not affect the outcome. A sense of sharpening
competition lowers those risks. It is critical for the
Clinton-Gore ticket to get a large turnout of both Democrats and
sympathetic independents.

    Not inclined to sit on his lead, Clinton last week
combined offensive and defensive campaign strategies. He
revisited states like Wisconsin and Iowa, which had appeared
safe for him initially but which have become shaky. He went west
to Colorado, Montana, Wyoming and Nevada -- all traditional
Republican bastions -- continuing his in-your-face challenge to
Bush. The West, with its independent-minded electorate, was a
good setting for Clinton to counter the Bush claim that he is
an old-fashioned liberal in disguise -- a charge that is having
some resonance in the polls.

    In the latest TIME/CNN survey, half the likely voters
agreed with two statements: Clinton is a "tax-and-spend
liberal," and he "changes his mind too often on important issues
just to win votes." With Perot promising radical departures in
both policy and style, Clinton must also press the idea that he,
rather than the Dallas billionaire, is the reliable instrument
of change. Clinton tried to make those points last week by
urging supporters at a Cheyenne airport rally, "Tell the people
of Wyoming, `You may never have voted for a Democrat before, but
there's a new Democratic Party out there and a tired old
Republican Party.' "

    The words new and change will show up even more often in
Clinton's speeches, along with bows to private enterprise, as
the Governor literally talks himself hoarse at one appearance
after another. "We've got to change this country," he preached
in Seattle. "The change will revitalize the private sector and
restore the cities." Yet another problem spooking Clinton is the
notion that he is merely a career politician, while Perot is the
genuine outsider. Of those watching the debates, according to
the TIME/CNN survey, only 4% viewed Perot as "too political,"
while 34% put that label on Clinton, and 43% applied it to Bush.
That perception appears to have contributed to an increase in
Clinton's overall unfavorable rating. More voters found Bush
"honest and trustworthy" enough to be President (63%) than
applied that tag to Clinton (49%). That explains why Clinton
told an audience in Seattle, "Let me tell you folks -- of all
the choices you have in this election, only one has never been
part of the Washington insider establishment . . . Only one has
ever done anything to restrain the influence of lobbyists and
promote political reform."

    If the new numbers caused some flutters at Clinton
central, they revived traces of hope within the Bush camp. The
President had shown spunk in the final debate on Monday, and the
respectable reviews energized him. "Don't believe these crazy
polls," Bush warned, even as the numbers began to give his
advisers their first bit of solace in months. "Something is
happening in this country," Bush enthused. "We're moving up on
this guy." Aware that his attacks on Clinton had increased
doubts about the Democrat's trustworthiness, Bush played on that
theme relentlessly. He also pounded Clinton as too small for the
presidency. Electing Clinton, Bush said, would be "like taking
the manager of the Little League team that finished last and say
he ought to be managing the Braves. There's a big difference
between failing in Arkansas and leading the United States of
America."

    Tough words, but the fact that they were spoken in New
Jersey -- which Bush should own, but where he was battling
merely to be competitive -- was a sign of Bush's continuing
weakness. New Jersey, like many of the critical states, has been
suffering bad times and has become hospitable to Clinton. So
Bush had to return there, just as he spent precious time in the
Deep South last week, protecting what should be his base
instead of taking the fight to his opponent's turf. In expending
so much ammunition attacking Clinton, Bush has been unable to
increase respect for his own program. In the TIME/CNN poll, 59%
of those questioned felt that Bush "has no real program to help
the economy" -- up from 57% a month earlier. During that time
the President made no progress in persuading Americans that he
can bring back prosperity. When asked which candidate "can get
the economy moving," 66% named Perot, 53% picked Clinton, and
only 35% chose Bush.

    Perot is complicating the lives and strategies of both
major candidates, even though the independent's overall support
remains under 20%, and much of it seems soft. One-fourth of
those who preferred Perot last week said they might change their
mind -- more than twice the proportion of doubtful Bush and
Clinton fans. Still, Perot appeals to many independent-minded
Americans. By dropping out in July, he short-circuited critical
press coverage of his own background and ideas. By returning
late to the fray, he joined two bloodied combatants who were
unsure how to deal with him. Bush has tried to discredit Perot's
program by calling some of his proposals "nutty," but the
President, still hoping to attract some Perotista supporters,
hesitates to attack Perot frontally. Clinton operatives have
tried to encourage reporters to renew skeptical probing of the
independent. A few negative stories have appeared, one of which
challenged Perot's unsupported account of an assassination
attempt by terrorists. But these pieces have left Perot
unscathed and his adversaries still searching for ways to
undermine him.

    Adding to that uncertainty is the fact that Perot's appeal
is uneven, both in terms of demographics and geography. In the
aggregate, Perot seems to draw slightly more from Clinton than
from Bush. But in some normally Republican states, particularly
in the Southwest and West, he damages Bush grievously. G.O.P.
surveys last week indicated that Perot could finish ahead of
Bush in New Mexico, Arizona and California. Clinton's hold on
California appears unbreakable -- a large factor in his lead in
electoral-vote estimates -- but in some smaller states, it is
Perot rather than Clinton who is drowning Bush's prospects.

    With Perot pouring tens of millions of dollars into
unconventional network advertising, measuring his chances in the
end game can be tricky. But most analysts believe that by
Election Day many current Perot supporters will agree with his
rivals' admonitions against wasting votes on the independent
candidate.

    As the overall poll numbers continue to flutter, the
state-by-state map may also see some dramatic shifts in the
final week -- but probably not enough to shake Clinton's grip
on an electoral-vote majority. One Bush adviser conceded, "We
have to pull to an inside straight. But if we win everywhere
where we are now eight points back, it could actually happen."
More likely is the hope in the Clinton camp that a relatively
modest majority in the popular vote, or even a mere plurality
brought about because of Perot's share, will still translate
into an electoral-vote landslide. Clinton's hold on several of
the largest states seems secure, and he remains ahead in many
states -- such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri -- that
Democrats have failed to carry since 1976. TIME's analysis of
the electoral-vote map shows Clinton just 4 short of the 270
needed to win, meaning that a victory in almost any one of the
toss-up states would put him over the top.

    A geographically broad victory would not only hand Clinton
the presidency, it would help him claim a mandate for his
programs. The TIME/CNN poll asked voters if his election should
be interpreted as public support for his more controversial
proposals, including raising taxes on the wealthy, providing
college loans to all qualified students, starting a national
health-insurance scheme and making support of abortion rights
a test for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. By large
majorities, even voters who now prefer the other candidates said
Clinton's election would constitute popular support for those
ideas. After one of the toughest and most serpentine campaigns
in memory, Clinton would have a running start in setting the
country on a new course after 12 years of Republican rule.