DON'T COUNT THAT VOTE!

By CALVIN TRILLIN

Bill Clinton is leading Bob Dole in Canada by about 50 points. I would have mentioned that sooner--I read about it in the Washington Post a month ago--but I've had difficulty trying to figure out its significance. Columnists are supposed to offer analysis, not just raw statistics and undigested facts. Everybody knows that.

I feel particularly responsible for analysis when the statistics and facts concern Canada; I have always prided myself on staying in touch with our neighbors to the north. Not to boast, but several years ago I set the American- columnist record for consecutive columns mentioning Canada (two). If Clinton had blowout numbers in Canada, it was up to me to say what they meant.

As I prepared for that task, my wife brought up the possibility that they didn't mean anything. "Canadians can't vote in American elections," she said.

Yes, there's that. Just because Canadians can't vote, though, doesn't mean that their poll results are not to be analyzed. In fact, given the reverse English now common to political spin, I can imagine the ineligibility of Canadians as being used to make a point.

For instance, some Dole campaign honcho like Nelson Warfield, who has often seen turning points that are not immediately apparent to others, might answer a question about the Canadian survey results by saying, "Canadians can't vote. So Senator Dole emerged from those surveys completely unscathed in terms of the Electoral College. So I think the 'downward spiral' that some in the press like to talk about has been checked. In that sense this can be seen as an indication that the Dole campaign is beginning to take hold."

At least that's what he might have said a month ago. Since then there seems to have been some change of emphasis in the campaign strategy. At this point Dole spinmeisters might ask if it could be coincidental that Bill Clinton has been overwhelmingly endorsed by a country that is known to be, compared with the United States of America, liberal--or, as Senator Dole pronounces that term these days, "liberal, liberal, liberal."

During the health-care debate, for instance, there was much discussion of Canada's "single-payer" approach. Some contended that it was nothing more than socialized medicine--the much dreaded system that Americans have always identified with such horrors as bureaucrats' having the power to deny treatments and patients' having no choice of doctors.

Bill Clinton would not be among those who've been pointing out that these are just the sorts of horrors now identified with American health-maintenance organizations. He doesn't want to be taken for a liberal, liberal, liberal. The difference between HMOs and socialized medicine, the Bill Clinton of this presidential campaign might say, is that an efficiently run hmo can produce a CEO who walks away with $4 million or $5 million a year without ever seeing a patient--proof that America remains the land of opportunity for all our citizens as we build a bridge to the 21st century.

Assuming that the President wins another term, the Canadian numbers could figure into his thinking for the year 2000. Will he really be able to call a halt to the "permanent campaign" that has occupied him all his adult life? Or will he be tempted by a nearby electorate that is likely to give him the affection he craves? Could it be that, 30 years after less nimble members of his generation had to make the journey, Bill Clinton will flee to Canada?