11/01/00 9:50 a.m.
A Nation “Polled” Apart
Still up in the air.

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

his week's U.S. News & World Report column by the invaluable Michael Barone is simply must-reading. Barone addresses what seems to be the most unusual aspect of this current election: Even as George W. Bush has held to a fairly consistent popular vote lead in most polls, the major states can hardly be called "sewn up" for him. Some conservatives feel that in the last few days before the election, the states will all fall in line enough to create an electoral landslide for Bush. The astute Joel Rosenberg has in fact argued that fact twice recently on NRO.

However, most of the Electoral College maps, even though they show Bush ahead, also demonstrate something quite remarkable: Of the four big states, Texas is the only one solidly in Bush's corner. In fact, the Hotline's electoral map (as of October 31, 2:30 p.m.), gave Gore a bare 274-264 majority. Even John Zogby's tracking polls showed Gore coming on strong in several key states. Other maps disagree, but the larger point is that it is now entirely conceivable that George W. Bush may win next week (both popular and electoral vote) without winning New York, California, Florida or Illinois. To show what uncharted territory such a result represents, it should be noted that no candidate has ever won the presidency without winning California or New York.

The situation is puzzling until you read Barone's essay. He points to a division in the country between states with heavy metropolitan centers and those that are more rural or suburban enclaves. The former tend to lean Democratic, the latter Republican. However, the population has been moving from the former and toward the latter. Barone draws two observations from this shift: "This new political map is based not on economics but on cultural issues." That is why Al Gore has backtracked on gun control — the issue is popular in the metropolitan areas, not so elsewhere. Similarly, the pure pro-choice position on abortion is not the clear-cut winning issue that Democrats assumed early on. This also suggests another reason why "the economy" itself is not quite the strong issue that Gore and various pundits assumed it would be for the Democrats this year. Whether one points to religious conservatives or Naderite leftists, it seems clear that for many of the most committed individuals in the electoral process this year, "It's not the economy, stupid."

Barone's second observation, "The new political map puts Bush in a weaker position than his father was in 1988 in California, Illinois, New Jersey, Florida, and six other states, with 145 electoral votes. But it puts him in a stronger position in 19 states with 201 electoral votes." Long term, such a trend clearly favors Republican presidential candidates. Short-term — like the next few days — the question is: Could Al Gore squeeze one more win out of a weakening Democrat map?

Three of the four biggest states in hand gives him a fighting chance down to the last day. Now, this is all completely irrelevant if Bush pulls the upset of the year by winning California. But Democratic governor Gray Davis is waging a full war with the state GOP to keep the Golden State in the Gore column.

So, the question will have to be raised: What will the major media centers — New York, Los Angeles and Chicago — do if "their" candidate is repudiated by the rest of the country? Can Bush expect an even more intense cultural war as the "Dumb Guy" — as he is caricaturized by the elites — who made it to the White House? Will there be attempts to portray his victory as illegitimate because the "smart" states did not recognize him as a suitable president?

That's one possible scenario to think about for the next few days as America remains a nation polls apart.