Three's a Crowd

By LAURENCE I. BARRETT WASHINGTON

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.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: From a telephone poll of 848 likely voters taken for TIME/CNN on Sept. 22-24 by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman. Sampling error is plus or minus 3%.

CAPTION: Do you have a favorable impression of:

Bush has no real program to help the American economy.

Clinton is a tax-and-spend liberal.

Has too much attention been paid to Clinton's draft record?

Who will raise your taxes?

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: TIME Graphic

Based on recent polls, the voting history of each state and estimates of campaign analysts

CAPTION: Likely to vote for:

A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win

With reporting by Dan Goodgame/Washington, Priscilla Painton/New York and Richard Woodbury/Houston