By ANDREW KOHUT

              WASHINGTON -- If you are expecting to soon
              find out what the election will turn on now that
        the debates are over, you're going to be disappointed.
        In fact, you may be puzzled about the whys of the
        outcome even after we know the winner of campaign
        2000.

        This is a very different kind of election. Not only is it a
        close race, but it's one of the few elections in which the
        lead has gone back and forth. The presidential contests
        in 1960, 1968 and 1976 were all tight in the end, but
        they were not seesaw races. There were changes in the
        leader over the course of the 1980 campaign, but
        ultimately this was not a close election, and the
        message voters were sending was clear.

        Campaign 2000 is a difficult one for voters because
        this election is not about anything very much, even
        though we want it to be about something. Consider what
        the voters face. There are no overarching issues. Yes,
        people are concerned with health care, education,
        Social Security, Medicare and other issues, but they
        feel far less urgency than in past elections, when big
        foreign threats loomed or the economy was less robust.
        And the failure of health- care reform in 1994 and the
        Gingrich revolution in 1995 have soured the public's
        appetite for big changes from Washington.

        Voters generally judge this year's candidates favorably
        — in fact, they give the field a better rating than they
        did in 1992 and 1996. But there is not a lot of strong
        feeling one way or the other about Al Gore versus
        George W. Bush. Neither man has been more able than
        the other to make a compelling case for his candidacy.
        Add to this the fact that the central question of most
        elections is not being raised. Voters are not being
        offered a referendum on the administration in power;
        that question is being sidestepped by both camps.
        President Clinton's name was hardly mentioned in the
        third presidential debate.

        No wonder as many as one in four voters still might
        change their minds, and many could sit out the election
        altogether. Ordinary Americans have nothing to hold
        onto this year unless they are partisan or ideological.
        That is why all of the groups without strong political
        leanings have been, and continue to be, on the fence.
        Independents, middle-income voters, suburbanites,
        white Catholics and other swing groups have been
        evenly divided or just leaning one way or the other
        since the end of the primaries last spring.

        The swing groups are likely to have a variety of
        reasons for coming to their final decisions. Some
        strongly favor Mr. Gore on health care and other
        high-anxiety issues, but have trouble with his
        personality. Others think Mr. Bush might provide a
        refreshing change in tone in Washington, but worry
        about his qualifications and some of his positions on
        issues.

        While the choices that different groups of swing voters
        make won't be based on whim, they might be highly
        idiosyncratic and may not provide the tight thematic
        narrative that analysts look for. That probably won't
        slow down the pundits. These days the meanings of
        elections are often overread, if not misread, in a rush to
        blather. (Think about the hard time today's pundits
        might have had in 1960: Was Kennedy's win about
        Quemoy and Matsu or the missile gap — or was the
        election a personal showdown between Kennedy's style
        and Nixon's downbeat persona?)

        There is a striking disconnect here. With Supreme
        Court nominations on the line, and control of Congress
        as well as the White House up for grabs, voters could
        be remaking Washington this Election Day. But if that
        happens, they will have ambled in the new direction,
        rather than striding there purposefully.

        Andrew Kohut is director of the Pew Research Center
        for People and the Press.