Bush, Gore Can’t Miss a Beat in Battle for Heartland

Until recently, Ed Kirby’s mind was made up: He was backing George W. Bush for president. He liked the Texas governor’s “strong morals” and valued the extensive Washington experience his running mate, Dick Cheney, brought to the Republican ticket.

But lately Kirby finds himself “teetering” toward Democrat Al Gore, who has struck a pleasing note with his promise to protect Social Security and efforts to distance himself from President Clinton.

“Before I was decided,” Kirby said. “Now I’m undecided.”

On this Labor Day weekend, at the traditional start of the fall campaign, the Ed Kirbys of America have made this the closest, most unpredictable presidential race in 20 years.

And it is undecided voters such as Kirby, living in Missouri and a handful of other Midwestern states, who may well choose the next president.

After trailing in polls for much of the last year--often by substantial margins--Vice President Gore has pulled even or ahead of Bush in national surveys, thanks to his selection of running mate Joseph I. Lieberman and a big boost from the Democratic convention.

Bush and Gore are also running neck and neck in several key states. And it is these individual contests that truly matter, as the candidates vie to garner, state by state, the 270 electoral college votes needed to win the White House.

Bush and Gore can each count on the support of certain regions. But their contest will almost surely be decided in the proverbial heartland, in the broad-shouldered states of Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin and Missouri. Here, industrial might and agricultural plenty built great cities, thousands of small towns and now hundreds of suburbs. Their competing interests prevent any one party from dominating.

“This is where presidential elections play out,” said Peter Hart, a veteran Democratic pollster in Washington, D.C. “When we’re watching [the returns] on election night, it’s going to be the Midwest that we turn to and say, ‘What happened in Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois?’ ”

He makes that prediction with good reason. Missouri has backed the winner in every presidential election of the 20th century, save 1956. Illinois went with the winner in all but two of those races, in 1916 and 1976. In the last few elections, Michigan and Ohio have not only gone with the winner but have come close to--and sometimes even matched--the vote each candidate received nationally.

“Tell me what happens in those four states,” said Hart, “plus New Jersey and Pennsylvania and I’ll tell you who wins the presidency.”

Starting out, Bush and Gore can rely on a base of support from their partisan redoubts. Bush is sure to sweep most of the South, much of the West and all the states on a straight line from Texas up through North Dakota. Gore has a near lock on the two biggest prizes, New York and California, and a strong foothold in New England.

There are exceptions, of course. New Hampshire and Oregon are tossups in regions that have tilted toward Democrats in recent presidential campaigns.

In the South, Bush will have to fight to carry Gore’s home state of Tennessee, Arkansas may go Democratic and Georgia could grow competitive. Florida, while leaning Republican, is still up for grabs.

But the bulk of the candidates’ time and resources will probably be spent here in the Midwest, a perennial battleground largely because its major industrial states so closely reflect the nation as a whole.

“The black-white split, the urban-rural-suburban split, the economic mix, all are pretty typical,” said Terry Jones, who teaches political science at the University of Missouri in St. Louis. “North and South, East and West, we’re all of them.”

Indeed, the Midwest is home to both the car- and hog-producing capitals of the nation, the corporate headquarters of Playboy Enterprises and the maker of John Deere tractors.

Some of the nation’s largest urban black communities--and most reliable Democratic precincts--flourish in Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis and other big cities. And yet vast stretches of the rural Midwest--”downstate” in Illinois and “outstate” in Michigan and Missouri--are virtually all-white and staunchly Republican.

Significantly, neither party has laid any lasting claim to the burgeoning suburbs, which are more typical of the socially moderate, fiscally conservative enclaves found along the two coasts.

“Both parties enjoy certain advantages they can build on” statewide, said Jeff Manza, a sociology professor and political analyst at Chicago’s Northwestern University. “That’s what makes these states more competitive than other parts of the country.”

There is little of the visceral anti-government sentiment that is so prevalent in the heavily Republican South and many of the Sun Belt suburbs. Here, government has been a helping hand to farmers, civil servants and the immigrants crowding the cities.

The region’s heavy industries produced powerful trade unions, which remain a large--if diminished--political force and a continued source of Democratic strength.

At the same time, many blue-collar and middle-class voters in this heavily Roman Catholic region are torn between Democratic impulses and attraction to the Republican Party’s opposition to abortion and gay rights.

The GOP’s Ronald Reagan enjoyed great success capturing these swing voters, peeling them away from the Democratic Party in the 1980s and bequeathing many of them to his successor, the elder George Bush.

Clinton managed to win back many of these lapsed party loyalists, thanks in no small part to the economic hard times of the early 1990s. Now, Gore’s challenge is to keep them in the Democratic fold as Bush promises continued prosperity along with a more conservative stance on social issues.

It is no easy task, as Gene Kappler will attest.

“I’m not happy with Gore’s stand on abortion,” Kappler said over a lunch of fried chicken strips. He is a leader of the painters’ union local in St. Louis, and many of his members, frankly, are also unhappy with Gore’s support for gun control.

“But I get back to one main theme: Who’s going to put food on the table?” Kappler said. “If we don’t have the right wages, to fight these side issues as I call them, then we’ve got nothing.”

Still, Kappler said, with times as good as they are, “complacency is one of the big problems” he faces rallying union members to Gore’s side. “A lot of people take the good times for granted.”

Sure enough, a series of random interviews with more than two dozen voters in St. Louis and its tree-lined suburbs found precious little credit for the boom times going to Clinton or, by extension, Gore. If anything, people seemed more inclined to pat themselves on the back for the prosperity of the last few years.

“I can’t say I’d give credit to any official,” said Kathy Bargiel, a 49-year-old insurance company representative. “I’m just watching what I’m doing and taking credit myself.”

For most, it makes little difference who gets elected in November, at least as far as the country’s economic well-being is concerned. Art Matia, a 52-year-old architect, spoke for many when he suggested, “It would take a real blunder to screw things up, because things are so good.”

While hardly a scientific sampling, the interviews found certain consistencies, among them somewhat softer support for Bush, long the front-runner, and heightened interest in Gore.

Kirby, a 54-year-old construction manager for a company that builds and modernizes schools, said the vice president initially “looked kind of weak.” But now that he has made it a race, Kirby is looking more closely at the Democrat. He likes Gore’s promise to invest more money in schools and his opposition to partial privatization of Social Security, which Bush favors. “He seems to get down to the issues more,” Kirby said.

In fact, Bush supporters rarely cited issues in explaining their support for the Texas governor. Most spoke of a desire to restore morality to the White House, or figured the son would take after his fondly remembered father.

“It seems it’s time for a change,” said Jim Helms, 66, a retired corporate executive, who considers Bush “practical and down-to-earth”--just like his dad.

Joan Baumann, 38, a waitress in the southwest suburb of Crestwood, was more blunt. “I don’t like Gore because I don’t like Clinton,” said Baumann, who voted for Clinton in 1992 and now regrets it.

Many voters lamented having to choose between two unpalatable options. Lazlo Kopetti, 51, an accountant in Webster Groves, called Bush “a puppet” manipulated by “big money, big oil, big business.” But he worries that Gore’s ambitious programs to expand health care and spend more on education “will be expensive and wind up saddled on the middle class.”

Several people said they would look to the debates not so much to evaluate the candidates’ platforms but to assess their honesty and sincerity.

“I’ll vote for the candidate who actually seems to mean what they say, and who won’t go back on his word,” said Scott Hippert, 49, a banker and undecided Republican.

Phillip Sand, 56, a fellow Republican, was also “more on the fence this election than I’ve ever been.” Failing any standout debate performance, he figured misfortune might tip things. “One of ‘em will screw up between now and November,” he said, smiling. “Somebody always does.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Playing Politics

In the game of presidential politics, the board is the 50 states and District of Columbia. The points are electoral votes, and the player who gets at least 270, out of 538, captures the White House. Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore each start with a set of states virtually certain to go their way. But neither candidate has a lock on the number needed to win in November. The state of the game so far:

*

THE ENVIRONMENTAL VOTE

Mainstream activists are finally lining up behind Democratic candidate Al Gore. A20