A Poll's Harsh Verdict

By Laurence I. Barrett

What might have been, that most corrosive version of hindsight, should be the title of the Democrats' song of lamentation for this year's campaign. When George Bush and Michael Dukakis were struggling for the nominations of their parties a year ago, voters viewed the Democrats as more effective than the Republicans on some of the critical issues of peace and prosperity. But that advantage, according to a TIME poll last week, has all but dissipated. Even where the electorate still judges the Democrats favorably, Dukakis hardly benefits. The survey conducted by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman renders a harsh verdict on the Massachusetts Governor. Although the Democratic Party still commands more voter allegiance than the G.O.P. and although Bush remains weighed down with heavy negative baggage, Dukakis enters the campaign's final week struggling to prove himself plausible as President.

On the question of which party would better keep the country "strong and prosperous," a slight Republican advantage of 6 points among registered voters in October 1987 has doubled. A smaller but more critical group in the survey -- those likely to vote next Tuesday -- split almost evenly on the visceral question of "which party most often acts in your interest": 44% choose the Democrats vs. 41% for the G.O.P. Yet when the question shifts from the parties to the candidates, Bush gets a slight plurality (42% vs. 40%) as the one who would better "look out for people like yourself." Further, the Vice President enjoys a strong majority over Dukakis, 55% to 33%, as likely voters are asked which candidate would "keep the economy strong."

One reason for the disparity is that more voters still consider themselves Democrats than Republicans (41% vs. 31%). While Bush leads Dukakis by 10 points in the race for the White House, 44% of the voters say they will vote for Democratic congressional candidates, vs. 36% for Republicans.

Most of Dukakis' trouble comes from his inability to recapture Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984. A month ago, Dukakis was 8 points behind with this group; now his deficit is 17 (52% to 35%). Yet many of these swing voters were within his reach: among those now favoring Bush, 27% say they once considered going for Dukakis. He could not close the sale with these potential supporters because he could neither inspire them nor fend off Bush's relentless attacks on him as a marshmallow where crime and national defense are concerned.

Voters remain unenthusiastic, to say the least, about both candidates. The "aginner" faction -- those who say they are motivated by hostility to the other ticket -- has grown since TIME's September survey. Further, the electorate still yearns for other options: 43% of Republicans say they would prefer a different candidate; 65% of Democrats are dissatisfied with Dukakis. It comes as cold consolation to Dukakis that fewer voters consider him a negative campaigner (31% vs. 41% for Bush). Similarly, 62% disbelieve Bush's pledge not to raise taxes, and the same percentage think that as President he would favor the wealthy. Yet Dukakis has been unable to exploit those potential weaknesses.

Hearing no relevant, forceful debate about the future, voters seem to be ^ focusing on their relative contentment with the Reagan Administration: 71% said things are going very well or fairly well in the country, and 57% approve of Reagan's performance as President. Last week Bush was enjoying the front runner's perks, campaigning at a more leisurely pace than his rival and nibbling at Dukakis' base in New England. Dukakis was jetting across the country by day while giving a series of exhausting network interviews at night. By directing his newly sharpened populist message at mass audiences, Dukakis was making one last, game attempt to seize voters by the lapels and persuade them to think of him as a potential President.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: TIME Chart by Joe Lertola

CAPTION: Which party can do a better job:

DESCRIPTION: Results of telephone poll about presidential election.