ationally, the polls are going George W. Bush's way. As always, Massachusetts offers a different perspective, not just because it's Clinton country, nor because the Bay State went for John McCain in the Republican primary. It is also home to a presidential loser, Michael S. Dukakis.
Remember? In 1988, Dukakis - a sitting governor, just like George W. Bush - lost to George H.W. Bush - a sitting vice president, just like Al Gore.
The elder Bush, derided by some in his own party as Ronald Reagan's lap dog, transformed himself into something quite different between the Republican convention and Election Day. In doing so, Bush became only the fourth vice president in American history to be voted immediately from second-in-command to president.
Gore, derided as Bill Clinton's apologist and worse, could become the fifth - at least in theory, which is what political campaigns are all about, aren't they?
For the moment, forget about personality or, if you are thinking about Gore, the lack of it.
The key to victory in 1988 was peace, prosperity, and a candidate who painted himself as the one who best represented the nation's mainstream. To do that, the winner took every advantage of his opponent's weaknesses, many of which related to his performance as governor of Massachusetts.
Governors are viewed as executives and leaders, a helpful image for any would-be president. But what is positive in one state or region may be subject to more negative interpretations elsewhere in the country. Just ask Roger Ailes.
In 1988, the Duke's support for universal health care and opposition to the death penalty were used as examples of alleged left-wing looniness, along with his proud assertion of being a ''card-carrying member'' of the American Civil Liberties Union.
In 2000, Bush is making every effort to position himself in the mainstream. Voters may forgive or forget his trip to Bob Jones University during primary season. He may squelch antiabortion demogoguery at the upcoming Republican National Convention. But he is stuck with his record as governor.
As syndicated columnist Molly Ivins writes in ''Shrub,'' a new book about ''the short but happy political life of George W. Bush'': ''The past is prologue in politics. If a politician is left, right, weak, strong, given to the waffle or to the flip-flop, or, as sometimes happens, an able soul who performs well under pressure, all that will be in the record.''
Just as in 1988, the key to victory in 2000 could be peace, prosperity, and a candidate who best represents mainstream thinking. But mainstream thinking is different today, particularly on issues like health care, education, and gun control. Tough scrutiny of the George W. Bush record on matters like that, plus the death penalty, the environment, and the role of the religious right, can hurt in the general election.
Take the death penalty. Texas accounts for more than one-third of the nation's executions since the US Supreme Court lifted its moratorium on executions in 1976 and, according to Ivins, has executed people who are ''hopelessly mentally ill, people who are profoundly retarded, and people who are innocent.'' When it comes to Bush's specific record, she says, ''at every single turn, where he could have done something to make the system less savagely punitive, he went out of his way to do the opposite.''
Granted, some voters still respond in a knee-jerk way to a tough-on-crime attitude, innocence be damned. But Bush's recent decision to grant a reprieve to a death row prisoner shows a pragmatic understanding of what is closer to the truth in America today.
In real life, voters see gray. Real people prefer reasonable compromise over unreasonable allegiance to extreme positions. For instance, somewhere between the most passionate gun control advocate and those who believe just as passionately in the right to bear arms are your neighbors and mine - people who just want to find a way to keep their children safe at home and at school. The right of Texans to carry concealed weapons, endorsed by Bush, hardly seems to promote that cause.
For Bush, the key to victory will be keeping the public focused on his words as a presidential candidate, not necessarily on his record as governor. But if the Democrats have half a brain or a strategy, the governor of Texas will be more vulnerable than conventional wisdom would have us believe today.
Gore's hope is to remind voters of the less-flattering aspects of the Bush record - and, oh yeah, to find a personality between now and November.
Come to think of it, that was the Duke's problem, too.
Joan Vennochi is a Globe columnist.
