USTIN - As Vice President Al Gore has struggled this spring and summer to regain his political stride and as Governor George W. Bush of Texas has mostly cruised above the fray, one of the settled principles of American presidential politics has been put at risk.
In times of peace and prosperity, history dictates that the party holding the White House stands to win the presidential election.
But on the eve of the national party conventions, state-by-state polling shows the vice president barely holding onto states that had been expected to be firmly in the Democratic column.
Bush has the edge in most key battleground states, including Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Gore, meanwhile, is making a strong run at Florida, polls suggest, pulling essentially even in a state where Bush's brother is governor.
Still, a tally of electoral college votes from states where Bush leads in the polls, would appear to give him more than enough to win the election if it were held today, although national surveys put Bush's lead at just 2 to 4 percentage points.
Experts have struggled to explain the electoral trend in the face of the enduring prosperity of the Clinton-Gore years.
''For Democrats, the downside of the new economy is the perception that it's largely independent of the government,'' said John J. Pitney Jr., a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California.
Others suggest that while Clinton might gain some credit for the economic boom, the same glow may not extend to his vice president. And some point to data suggesting that the American people do not feel as secure and optimistic about the economy as jobs and income data suggest they should.
The two candidates have responded to the climate by taking radically different strategic approaches to the campaign.
Bush officials say the race is all about leadership, with issues almost, but not quite, an afterthought. Gore has sought to take credit for the economic bloom, and to tar Bush as economically unsound. And, more generally, advisers to Gore say issues - prescription drugs, health care and the right to sue an HMO - are paramount, and that a measure of leadership flows from the positions a candidate takes and his ability to make his policy dreams come true.
On the campaign trail, Bush has taken a leisurely approach, with one public event and one message a day. He avoids reading newspaper articles about himself, or the campaign, to stay focused, he says. He talks about his opponent infrequently and, even then, indirectly. Finally, he keeps his speeches short and seems annoyed when others talk at length.
In a discussion of foster care and adoption last week in Michigan, a former lieutenant governor, Connie Binsfeld, enthusiastically told the governor she could talk about the subject ''for two days.''
Bush said he did not think he could listen for that long, then cut her off, moving the forum along.
Gore, on the other hand, has maintained a frenetic pace, moving from one issue to another as he skips from state to state. For the vice president, who relishes full immersion in policy detail, it was hardly out of the ordinary that a recent question-and-answer session with undecided voters in Saginaw went on for 31/2 hours.
As for the press, Gore keeps close tabs on what is said and written about him. A central aspect of his campaign is to attack Bush for his positions and ''the mess in Texas,'' as he puts it, and to promote his own plan for ''progress and prosperity.''
Long confronted by less-than-stellar polling numbers - though surveys this week suggested the race was essentially tied - officials in the Gore campaign argue that the numbers that have found him trailing were misleading, that the methodology in many of them was suspect, and that Bush's large lead in Texas skews many national surveys.
With conventions and debates still to come, voters basking in the sizzling economy have yet to focus on the election, said Tad Devine, the political consultant largely in charge of the Gore campaign's day-to-day operation.
''We think there's a lot of misunderstanding, rather than understanding, of the race out there,'' Devine said. ''It's a close race.''
Gore aides also voice a belief that voters overwhelmingly share the vice president's - not Bush's - positions on education, health care, the environment and retirement benefits.
''Those issues are good for Gore,'' said Donnie Fowler, the national field director. ''Voters generally trust Democrats on education more than Republicans. They generally trust Democrats more on health care than Republicans. And credit for the economy, whether right or wrong, goes to the incumbent party in the White House.''
Over at the Bush campaign, there was laughter for their opponents' view of the situation, and considerable confidence about the governor's performance and position.
''The reality is, we are up, no question about it,'' said Mark McKinnon, Bush's advertising consultant.
''We're winning!'' said Ron Kaufman, an informal adviser who served as former President Bush's White House political director.
Even some Democrats are questioning the fitness of the Gore campaign in the face of the Bush operation.
''At a gut level I do have some concerns,'' a Democratic official said. ''There seems to be a heavy dose of action, reaction and overreaction on the part of the campaign that should have been able to settle on a message and a plan long ago.''
Two national surveys conducted recently by Public Opinion Strategies found that 72 percent of Republicans say they will definitely vote for Bush, compared with 49 percent of Democrats who say they will definitely vote for Gore.
On top of that, 11 percent of voters who cast ballots for President Clinton in 1996 said they would not vote for Gore in 2000, according to a Republican pollster, Bill McInturff.
''They said he's a weak leader,'' McInturff said. ''They said he's too weak to be president. And second, they are fed up with Bill Clinton and what went on in the White House and they want to have a fresh start.''
With the Bush campaign eager to upend the ''peace and prosperity'' political axiom, both sides are vigorously picking through examples to explain the current state of the race.
At the Gore campaign, it's the 1988 election between then-Vice President George Bush and Massachusetts Governor Michael S. Dukakis.
Back then, the vice president was derided as a wimp and sitting low in the polls. Nevertheless, he went on to trounce Dukakis on Election Day.
The Texas governor, however, points out that during the 1988 election, most people said his father didn't stand a chance because the previous time a sitting vice president succeeded his boss in an election was in 1832, when Martin Van Buren followed Andrew Jackson.
''I haven't heard much about the Van Buren factor in this election, have you? That's because every race is different and every race defies history,'' Bush said. ''Of course they're trying to say that. But George H.W. and Al Gore are not the same people, and George W. and Michael Dukakis are not the same people.''
Bush's campaign manager, Karl Rove, says that the 1988 example is flawed for another reason. At this point in the election cycle, prior to the first convention in mid July, he said Vice President Bush had already surpassed Dukakis in the polls. Actually, Dukakis's lead had begun to shrink, but he was still ahead of the vice president, according to news reports from that period.
Of course, both sides are aware that campaigns frequently resemble roller coasters when it comes to polling data.
Mark Mellman, a Democratic strategist, pointed to the past once again: ''Historically, there is absolutely no relationship between how the campaign is in June and July and what happens in November.''
And even Kaufman remembers President Bush's high approval ratings from the Gulf War that evaporated into the low numbers of the hard economy.
''We all know it's a long way from here to there,'' Kaufman said.
Political advisers in both campaigns do agree on one thing - that the race will inevitably tighten by Labor Day.
Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist, said: ''When you have peace and prosperity, even a bad candidate can plan on doing reasonably well.''
