Shifting Mist

By Laurence I. Barrett

Political polls, in general, should be presented to the public with more warnings than cigarette packs. Besides the standard notice about potential sampling error, surveys can be skewed by ephemeral news flurries. Further, they cannot predict election results; "horse-race" studies merely provide a snapshot of voter sentiment at one instant in a long campaign. But even that modest claim is shaky in the tumult of Campaign '88. The profusion of polls this summer resembles not so much an album of still photographs as a movie of Keystone Kops at their most kinetic. "Hardly an hour goes by without new figures coming out," says Pollster Peter Hart. "With so many numbers in play, we must be confusing voters a little."

One reason the digits have been hopping erratically is the interplay between the lack of deep commitment to either candidate and the combatants' response to that dearth. The Republicans set a pattern of pit-bull negativism earlier in the cycle than usual, and the Democrats have felt compelled to respond. When voters are relatively clear about their convictions, negative attacks are unlikely to produce large swings. But with the public still hazy about what George Bush and Michael Dukakis are really for, each candidate hopes to paint a dark image of the other. That, in turn, discourages positive loyalty.

As the candidates set out for the rallies that are the rite of Labor Day, it was clear that Bush in less than a month has erased the lead Dukakis had enjoyed since mid-spring. The Vice President was able to perform that difficult trick by cracking, with negative attacks, the thin ice of support upon which Dukakis had been gliding. Dukakis is answering in kind. Last week he also rehabilitated his wily Bismarckian strategist, John Sasso, who was banished after confessing complicity in an under-the-table video attack exposing Joseph Biden's borrowed phrases.

In a poll taken for TIME by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman last week, the Vice President had a modest five-point advantage among those likely to vote; other new samplings showed the race even closer. More significant, TIME's survey indicated why voters have refused to go steady with either suitor. Though both candidates secured their nominations months ago, many Americans still feel they know too little about what kind of President either would be. When asked if they knew "a lot of things, some things or not much at all" on that critical subject, exactly half the voters responded "not much" concerning Dukakis. More voters felt knowledgeable about Bush. But considering his long tenure in public office, he also suffers a familiarity gap: 29% said they knew very little about him as a potential President.

A traditional explanation for both the volatility of polls and the evident mood of disconnection is that most voters simply do not pay much attention to the campaign until Labor Day. This year, Democratic Pollster Paul Maslin points out, that effect is compounded because "no incumbent is running and because attitudes about Bush and Dukakis are so weakly held."

Neither Bush nor Dukakis has done much to sweeten the atmosphere or evoke enthusiasm. If a national campaign can educate the nation about the most relevant issues, the candidates have failed as teachers. Both won nomination without expending much energy on large themes or bold proposals that might pique interest or engender commitment. Rather, they relied on their large treasuries, adroit organizations and talents for playing it safe. Both have fudged on some difficult but basic issues, most notably candid, viable proposals for dealing with the deficit. When voters were asked if the candidates were addressing real issues or ducking them, both nominees came out poorly. For Bush, 49% answered "avoiding," vs. 43% who credited him with talking substance. For Dukakis, the ratio was only slightly better, 41% vs. 44%.

Economic questions, including the flood of federal debt, remain the public's biggest single concern, as last week's poll demonstrated. Voters seem to show more realism than the candidates. While Bush and Dukakis continue to blather and dissemble when taxes are discussed, a solid majority (59%) said they expected a hike, regardless of which party wins.

Dukakis has got by with generalities for months. He found himself in a happy position last spring: the nomination was safe, and his adversary seemed so obscured by Ronald Reagan's shadow that a Democratic advantage materialized. The Governor's confidence was boosted further by polls showing very high "negatives" for Bush -- based largely on the perception that Bush was a weak leader. Instead of using that period to etch a vivid profile of himself in voters' minds, Dukakis clung to his bland mantra, promising "good jobs at good pay." Recently, he added "in the good old U.S.A.," thus sounding just a bit protectionist while still warding off the hounds of jingoism sicced on him by the Republicans.

Bush's campaign was just as fallow, with one critical difference. He decided, as Pollster Hart put it, "that if he couldn't be the good guy, he'd make sure that both would wear black hats." As if he were the candidate of the out party challenging an incumbent, Bush began a series of harsh, dubious attacks. He depicted Dukakis as kind to murderers and drug dealers, mushy on defense policy and hostile to the Pledge of Allegiance. Last week Bush even went boating in Boston Harbor to point up the severe pollution in Dukakis' home waters, trying to finesse the fact that the Reagan Administration has repeatedly opposed water cleanup efforts.

By midsummer, even before the Republicans gathered in New Orleans, these attacks had effect. Dukakis' negatives began to rise, and his lead over Bush shrank. The Democrat had allowed his hold on voters to remain so frail that even trivial events damaged him. His standing slipped in early August, for instance, after Reagan called him an "invalid" while Republicans floated a rumor that Dukakis had once sought psychological counseling. Reagan retracted his remark, and the gossip proved unfounded, but it left a scar. Bush planted what might be a more durable brand; in TIME's poll, 40% of likely voters agreed with the statement that Dukakis is "too liberal." A successful Republican convention, during which Bush managed to sever the umbilical cord binding him to Reagan, put the race on an even footing. Even more remarkable, Bush managed his recovery, despite the controversy surrounding his choice of the callow Dan Quayle as his running mate.

After surrendering the initiative, Dukakis changed his tactics and began to strike back last week. He took advantage of the publication of a new book, Men of Zeal, by Maine's Senators, Democrat George Mitchell and Republican William Cohen, who were on the Iran-contra committee. It charges that Bush clearly supported the arms-for-hostages swap, which the Vice President has denied. With Mitchell at his side, Dukakis attacked Bush for his complicity in the scandal. Later he ridiculed Bush's proclaimed goal of becoming the "education President." Dukakis demanded to know "Where was George?" when the Administration cut funds for education programs: "He was playing hooky."

In the current atmosphere, negativism appears to have become ingrained. The attack mode, as Hart observes, "is the easy shortcut" for campaign strategists, particularly when their own candidate lacks heft. One large hazard, however, is that the trashing can boomerang. TIME's survey showed that the potential for movement remains large. When those surveyed were asked if they might change their minds before Election Day, one-fifth of those supporting each ticket said yes. Among those wavering, two groups are particularly important: those who describe themselves as independents, and Democrats who voted for Reagan in 1984. Dukakis has more trouble than Bush in holding the Reagan Democrats. At the moment, 49% of them support Dukakis, while 35% say they are voting for Bush. But 40% of the Reagan Democrats who prefer Dukakis say they might change their minds, while only 33% of those who support Bush feel the same way.

With the race likely to remain close for weeks to come, both the candidates and their spear carriers will be sorely tempted to invest more energy in stabbing the opposition than in defining themselves. So long as they avoid the serious issues, neither candidate will inspire much deep commitment. Volatile polls will be one symptom of that syndrome. A far more serious effect will be felt next January, when the new President discovers that his constituents don't know what he is all about.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: NO CREDIT

CAPTION: THE NEGATIVES

DESCRIPTION: Poll readings from March, April and August, 1988 showing percentage of voters who have unfavorable impression of George Bush and Michael Dukakis.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: TIME Chart by Holmes/Lertola

CAPTION: TIME'S POLL

DESCRIPTION: Results of various polls on preference for Michael Dukakis and for George Bush, July 8-August 24, 1988; preferences expressed in TIME/ Yankelovich Clancy Shulman poll, August 30, 1988.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: TIME POLL CONDUCTED BY YANKELOVICH CLANCY SHULMAN, CHARTS BY CYNTHIA DAVIS; CARTOON BY (C) 1988 PAT OLIPHANT -- UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE, WHITE HOUSE PHOTOGRAPH BY WARD -- BLACK STAR; QUAYLE PHOTOGRAPH BY CYNTHIA JOHNSON

CAPTION: Behind the Numbers

TIME's new poll shows how Bush regained the lead by improving his image

DESCRIPTION: Charts show circumstances under which voters favor higher taxes; characteristics and competence of George Bush and Michael Dukakis; attitudes toward Dan Quayle; desire for change from Reagan Administration policies, August, 1987-August, 1988; familiarity with candidates; negative voting results; black and white: two photographs: White House, Dan Quayle, both used as background for charts; color reproduction: cartoon of man sitting in chair, back view, and deciding how to vote.