THE NATION : Ignore the Buzz, Clinton Far From a Sure Thing

In political campaigns, one can become euphoric when all attention is focused on the problems of your opposition.

With the Republican nominating process about to start, Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of running against either Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, whose long career in Washington allows him to be depicted as the ultimate artful dodger, or Steve Forbes, a multimillionaire who, at best, is subject to the charge that he is too inexperienced to be president and, at worst, is the epitome of all that Democrats say is evil about the GOP. Meanwhile, polls show a substantial Bill Clinton victory if the election were held today, with voters blaming the GOP for the unsolved budget dispute.

The perception, buttressed by the press, is that Clinton will win reelection easily in November. And he himself seems ready to claim that he will do anything and everything the Republicans might recommend--in a kinder and gentler way.

But the Democrats have serious cause for concern. In 1992, running against the most unpopular Republican incumbent since Herbert Hoover, Clinton received only 43% of the vote. Had Ross Perot not been in the race, most observers feel Clinton would have lost, or won very narrowly.

Obviously, 43% of the vote is not enough to win a two-man race, so the next question is whether Clinton has enlarged his personal base of support. There is absolutely no evidence that the number of hard-core Clintonites has increased; indeed, there is much evidence that it is now smaller than 43%.

As far as the voters are concerned, not much of consequence has happened during Clinton’s term. The economy has marginally improved--but polls do not detect any long-term economic confidence in the electorate, nor can people point to anything Clinton did to make the economy better. In one recent poll, those who said they would vote for Clinton over Dole were asked to name something they liked that the president had done. Close to 40% couldn’t name anything.

It is likely that Clinton’s base, his guaranteed support, is about 35%-38%--approximately the same as the Democratic Party base at the presidential level.

A successful presidential candidate must receive 270 of 539 electoral votes. Any Republican candidate running against Clinton should start the race with a far higher electoral base. The states west of a line drawn southward from North Dakota to Texas, together with the states generally regarded as “Southern,” give the GOP contender a minimum of 180 electoral votes, not including California--and the possibility of 230-240, if California can be carried.

What is Clinton’s electoral base? Well, I give him three electoral votes in the District of Columbia, and probably Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Arkansas and possibly Minnesota. That’s about 60 electoral votes, give or take.

Many people would concede the large Northeastern states to him as well, but I would not. As a Southerner, he has a language and cultural barrier to overcome in these states, and the GOP has won statewide elections in each of them since Clinton won in 1992.

If the Republicans are smart, they will run hard at Clinton in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If Clinton must fight to win in New York, for example, he will have to say the kinds of things necessary to appeal to the more liberal constituencies in New York City. Such statements will be out of tune with the kinder, gentler, Republican fellow traveler he hopes to be viewed as in the rest of the country.

This will be the first time in 48 years that the Democrats will enter a presidential election without control of either house of Congress. For the Republicans, it was always acknowledged that their presidential candidate had to distance himself from his party’s candidates for Congress in order to win. The Democrats, meanwhile, could run together, giving their message maximum impact as it resounded up and down the party ticket.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Can Clinton run as a closet Republican without suffering an erosion in the enthusiasm--and the turnout--of the Democratic Party’s hard-core, big-government constituencies? I doubt it.

For those who like simplicity, the 1996 election is often reduced to a matter of who can carry California. The other day, one Clinton aide said things were better in California than they were four years ago and, therefore, Clinton, who won there in 1992, would win again easily.

Well, any appraisal of what will happen in California begins with an analysis of what the Perot voters will do. According to studies, between 60%-67% had voted for Ronald Reagan and--now that voting Republican doesn’t mean voting for George Bush--the majority share of this vote could well return to the GOP candidate. Until 1992, California had voted Republican in every presidential race since 1948, except for 1964. This is a Republican tendency few other states can match.

Tomorrow, the Republican nominating process starts in Iowa. Within a few weeks, we will have a good idea of who will win. Whoever he is, he has a very good chance to win. Throw in an economic downturn, or a scandal, and it will be a landslide. That is the reality; don’t be fooled by the winter odds.