The Fat Lady Hasn't Quite Sung

By LAURENCE I. BARRETT WASHINGTON

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.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: From a telephone poll of 891 likely voters taken for TIME/CNN on Oct. 20-22 by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman. Sampling error is plus or minus 3%.

CAPTION: What are your impressions of . . .

Do you feel certain that you will vote for your candidate?

Who can get the economy moving?

Who did best in the debates?

Who do you think is honest and trustworthy enough to be President?

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: From a telephone poll of 1,653 American adults taken for TIME/CNN on Oct. 20-22 by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman. Sampling error is plus or minus 2.5%.

CAPTION: Do you approve of the way Bush is handling his job as President?

With reporting by Michael Duffy/Washington and Walter Shapiro with Clinton