10/20/00 11:30 a.m.
Gore’s Dead in O-hi-o?
It may be too late for the veep in this state.

By Kevin Holtsberry, freelance writer based in Ohio

s Ohio still a battleground state? It's hard to say.

Gore has been unable to dent Bush's lead except for a brief period just after the Democratic convention. Bush has not been able to widen the margin a great deal either. The Gore campaign has been reallocating ad funds to other states and as a result has been outspent more than 2-1 this week.

The DNC has not purchased airtime for two weeks. Gore campaign officials point, however, to voter outreach programs, mailings, and new staffers as proof of their commitment to the state. DNC Chairman Ed Rendell asserted that Ohio was "very, very winnable." If the Gore campaign does in fact have a strategy to win Ohio, however, they might want to share that with the voters.

The continuing question for Gore is "Why?" Why, with economic good times, the lack of a large-scale international crisis, and a president with solid approval ratings, is Gore in trouble in a state that voted for Clinton-Gore twice? The answer lies in a unique mix of personality, policies, and circumstances.

The first reason is organization. Bush's power comes from his friends the governors — and Ohio's Gov. Taft is no exception. Throw in the Republican's dominance statewide, and this puts a fearsome party organization at Bush's disposal.

The second Bush advantage lies in the themes he has been emphasizing. With the exception of the urban areas, Ohio is largely center-right in its politics. Bush's themes play well to a large bloc of voters. The hard fought Ohio Republican primary gave the Bush campaign a jump-start on a series of important issues, and they used the period after the primary but before the convention to good use — generating good press and a favorable image with voters.

Bush also benefited from Gore's biggest weakness: his inability to get credit for the economic good times. In many ways, Bush simply outpositioned Gore. Early on, Gore was a candidate who would "say anything" to get elected. This reinforced Ohioans' doubts about Gore's character and prevented the vice president from taking credit for the economic bliss. While Gore searched for a theme, Bush hammered his issues: education, Social Security, strengthening the military, and tax cuts.

More recently Bush has folded this larger credibility and trust theme into his emphasis on limited government and personal responsibility. The more Gore panders and attacks, the more Bush emphasizes trust and the threat of an out-of-control federal bureaucracy.

Ohioans can relate to Bush's view of an energetic but limited federal government. They are tired of a heavy-handed federal government that takes their taxes and sends only a portion back with strings attached. To make matters worse, Gore must constantly shore up his base with issues that don't work here: gun control, hate crimes, Bush's Texas record etc. The New York Times may love these issues, but they mean little to most Ohioans.

At bottom, Gore has failed to find a theme that resonates with voters. His penchant for exaggeration and his grating personality have severely hampered his ability to get out his message in the state. It is increasingly difficult to see Gore win here without a major Bush mistake, or an event that drastically realigns the race.

Stay tuned.