POLL RESULTS ARE THE SHEET MUSIC of politics; to hear the melody you have to listen to voters talking. The poll numbers have shown Bill Clinton far ahead of Bob Dole, with Ross Perot picking up some votes from both when he’s included. The polls tend to suggest the election is over.
Last week I went to swing suburbs in Michigan, the nation’s bellwether state in the last three presidential elections, and listened to what voters were saying. My conclusion is that voters are still tentative in their preferences, more tentative than voters I listened to a few months ago.
Sure, one does encounter voters strongly committed to Bill Clinton — but not very many, and their praise is usually vague and occasionally inaccurate. “I like his views on everything,” says baby-toting Michelle Metelic, 22, of Sterling Heights, “on schools, on abortion.” Another young mother likes his ” cutting taxes, raising up the minimum wage to $ 5.15, especially trying to end the war in Bosnia.” “I would like to keep the economy going as it’s going, ” says James Hopkins, 46, a roofer from Troy. But few others mention the economy one way or the other.
And much of the president’s support seems, as it did last spring, tenuous and contingent. “Probably Clinton again,” says Detroit data processor Kathleen Keebler, 44. “I’m not all that disappointed with what Clinton has done,” says Clinton-leaning Sharon Van Leaven, 54, Troy. But 1992 Clinton voter Nuri Ata, 60, a General Motors employee originally from Turkey, has soured: “I don’t think he’s truthful.” Some Clinton voters insist scandals don’t bother them, but they sound a bit defensive. “I don’t pay attention. Innocent till proven totally guilty,” says Olive Barnes, 53, a Warren engineering worker. But that sounds as defensive as Dole supporter Dorothy Frutig, 74, sounds plaintive: “I don’t understand how people don’t think morals are a criterion for the presidency.”
If Clinton support is often lukewarm, Dole support often isn’t support at all. “Definitely not Clinton,” insist half a dozen Michigan voters. And Dole? “Wishy-washy. I don’t see him taking stands he should take,” says engineer Mike Velasco, 39, Sterling Heights. “Older and behind the times,” says engineer Jeff Justice, 34, Oak Park. “He needs to be stronger, more decisive, to relate to people,” says truck-repairshop owner Mike Radlick, 43, Fraser. ” He’s a bungler; he has made so many errors,” says Sue Wilk, 27, a Dearborn Heights teacher. “My reservation is he might be too old,” says Leslie Geoghegan, 53, Dearborn Heights homemaker. Presumably Dole will eventually get the votes of these Clinton-haters. But he’ll have to work for them, and many — attention, Speaker Gingrich — may not turn out to vote at all.
Or may vote for Ross Perot. To a few he is the paladin of 1992. “I like Ross Perot. He’s a fiery, aggressive guy, and we need that right now,” says Jim McAlister, 25, Harriston Township electrician. “He can make changes everyone is looking for. He’s not the same old same old,” says Robert Fowler, 31, a floor coverer from Troy. But many more think he’s nuts. “The man’s got a loony streak,” says Mike Radlick. “He’s a lunatic,” says Kathy Overwater, 42, Dearborn nurse. “A little guy with a big mouth,” says Ed Watt, 77, General Motors retiree. Voters seem to know much more about Perot than Dole and to have more specific to say about him than Clinton. They attack him for leaving the 1992 race and then reentering (“If he was determined, he would have stuck to it the first time,” says Connie Robbins, 29, a Detroit sales clerk) and for taking the election away from George Bush. John Krakowiak, 24, a Ford engineer and a Perot voter in 1992, said he made a “mistake. I thought he was such a good businessman he could get done what he said. But business is different from government.” And Mark Harris, 60, a Ford retiree from Dearborn who joined the Perot movement, left because “he doesn’t delegate; he wants to make all the decisions.” Others, when Perot’s name comes up, roll their eyes and mutter “Get a life” or “Oh, God!”
The superficial meaning of the poll numbers is that Bill Clinton this year is like Richard Nixon in 1972 or Lyndon Johnson in 1964, a personally flawed and scandal-tarred incumbent voters are willing to settle for, because he is skilled, because things have been going pretty well, and because the opposition seems extreme. But the words I heard in Michigan suggest that most voters don’t embrace these propositions. Only a few praise Clinton’s skills, relatively few speak as if there were a relationship between a president’s actions and life on the ground, and Dole is seen more often as empty than extreme.
The more apt analogy may prove to be with Michigan governor Jim Blanchard in 1990 and New Jersey governor Jim Florio in 1993, both well-known incumbents with arguably worthy accomplishments, but one with shaky standing and the other in serious trouble. They were operating, as Bill Clinton will be starting in August, under publicfinancing schemes limiting both sides to about equal spending, and they chose, as Clinton has done, to spend heavily early on negative ads to disqualify their not-verywell-known opponents. It seemed to work; both Blanchard and Florio boasted 20-point leads in October, as Clinton has now. But Republican challengers Engler and Whitman stayed cool, saved their money, and then outspent the other side in the last weeks, reminding voters of what they didn’t like about the incumbents all along — and won narrowly.
Engler and Whitman both reached the threshold of acceptability for their offices, while it is not clear whether Dole will reach the higher threshold for the job he seeks. But what I heard this week suggests it’s possible, though very far from assured, that the numbers in this race could turn around, as they did in Michigan and New Jersey in the 1990s, and not stay solid, as they did nationally in 1972 and 1964.
Michael Barone is a senior writer at U.S. News and World Report. Sterling Heights, Mich.
