Iraq is emerging as the wild-card issue of the 2002 election, with Democrats nervously watching a growing debate over whether the United States should launch a war to oust President Saddam Hussein, fearful that it could shift attention away from the economic issues that now dominate their agenda.

History suggests that the issue of possible war with Iraq will have little influence in the outcome of November's midterm elections -- particularly if there is no military action before the election. But in a post-Sept. 11 environment, history may not be a reliable guide. As Democratic pollster Peter Hart puts it, the "push-pull of American politics in 2002 has been between patriotism and pocketbook."

If patriotism is dominant in November, Democrats have reason to worry. With public concern over pocketbook issues rising, Democrats have been optimistic about their chances of gaining House and Senate seats in November. Now they are assessing what impact possible military action -- or even an intensified debate about it -- might have on voters' attitudes.

Democratic candidates say they have begun to hear more about Iraq from voters in the past few weeks. "I get the question all the time now," said House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.). "People are worried."

Maryland state Sen. Christopher Van Hollen Jr. (D), who is running for the U.S. House in Maryland's 8th District, said Iraq has become a regular topic of discussion at informal gatherings with voters the past two weeks. "It's been one of the first two questions I've been asked in the last two coffees," he said after one Montgomery County voter expressed her concerns to him as he knocked on doors Thursday evening.

This apparent interest in Iraq, which Van Hollen and Gephardt said comes from Democratic voters skeptical about what President Bush may be planning, has not yet made it a front-and-center issue in the 2002 debate. Other Democrats said that, in their discussions with voters this month, the economy and corporate accountability remain far more significant.

But the concern expressed by some voters coincides with recent Senate hearings, chaired by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), at which a wide range of experts testified on the implications of trying to oust Hussein. It also coincides with cautionary rhetoric from some Republicans and Democrats about the administration's planning.

Democrats face a dilemma on Iraq, arguing that a public debate about whether to go to war is in the national interest while knowing that the issue could work more to the benefit of Republicans. The call for more debate comes mainly from Democratic leaders and those with an eye on running for president in 2004. Rank-and-file candidates appear more interested in keeping voters focused on the economy.

Gephardt, whose support for military action to oust Hussein sounds more tempered today than it was a few months ago, acknowledged that the kind of full-scale debate he favors may overshadow the economic issues that Democrats believe have turned the election in their direction. But he said it is essential for the administration to make the case for going to war, rather than endure constant discussion through leaks about how such a war would be fought.

"Right now we've got 'how' before 'why,' " Gephardt said. "It is a security issue and a terrorism issue and so it's an important issue, and we've got to deal with those issues as well." But he added, "Right now the focus is on unemployment and investors' rights and all the problems you see in the business community."

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), among the most hawkish of Democrats on trying to get rid of Hussein, said, "I honestly haven't thought about" the campaign implications of a national debate on going to war. But he said he doubts that economic issues will be supplanted "unless there's actual military action taken before the election."

Republican and Democratic strategists point to the experience 12 years ago as one guide to interpreting the current dynamics. In the fall of 1990, the administration of Bush's father had begun a major buildup of forces in the Persian Gulf after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. At the time, two-thirds of Americans supported the administration's policy.

But Republicans lost nine House seats and one Senate seat in that midterm election, as growing pessimism about the economy and the direction of the country dominated public attitudes. Exit polls from 1990 showed that Iraq was eighth on a list of nine issues that influenced voters, with just 6 percent saying it was the most important reason for their vote.

Republican pollster Bill McInturff called 1990 "the best evidence we have that Iraq is not likely to be a key issue" in this year's congressional elections. "We didn't have campaigns in 1990 talking about what we ought to be doing with that many troops in the Middle East," he said. "It was an important environmental factor in 1990. It was helpful and stabilizing in terms of focusing the nation on presidential leadership. But it sure was not a big part of the 1990 debate."

That gives Democrats only modest consolation as they look to the final 80 days of the campaign. They know that for the first half of this year, patriotism and security trumped the economy as an issue, to the apparent benefit of Republicans. Only in the past two months has the focus shifted toward domestic issues more favorable to the Democrats.

Two weeks ago, reporters asked Jim Jordan, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, how Iraq might affect the elections. "You mean when General Rove calls in the airstrikes in October?" he responded.

He was referring to Karl Rove, White House senior adviser and chief political strategist for the president.

Jordan said last week he doubts Iraq will be a factor in November "unless there's a full-scale invasion before the election" and added that it is "extraordinarily unlikely that American troops would be committed to battle for political reasons." Nonetheless, he said the issue of Iraq "is in the back of every Democrat's mind."

Matthew Dowd, the Republican National Committee's polling director, agreed that voters will not engage on the issue of Iraq "until there is an action or a very impending action." He called Jordan's remarks two weeks ago "ludicrous."

Democrats, he said, were trying to lay the groundwork, in the event of action against Iraq, to argue that it was done for political reasons. But he said the midterm elections "will not be on the calendar of things" Bush and his national security team look at when making decisions about possible war to oust Hussein.

Jordan, however, said the White House might be tempted at least to rattle sabers on Iraq. "This is an election cycle trending away from them," he said. "The high ground they thought they brought into the cycle doesn't seem to matter much. The temptation to change the subject is obvious."

Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center offered a counterview, arguing that it may not be in Bush's interest to focus voters' attention on Iraq this fall. "A protracted discussion about Iraq at a time when the economy is not getting better might reinforce the view that Bush is not doing enough on the economy," he said.

Kohut said Bush will have to make a case on Iraq at some point, if the administration plans military action. "The American public wants him to be in two places at once -- taking care of the economy and domestic concerns and taking care of the bad guys," he said. "This is a difficult situation for him."

If Iraq rises on the public agenda, Bush likely has considerable latitude, given public confidence in his handling of the response to the terrorist attacks after Sept. 11 and his generally high ratings on the war on terrorism.

That confidence in the president may not transfer to Republican candidates when voters evaluate candidates in November, however. More likely, said Republican and Democratic strategists, voters will continue to see national security as a presidential responsibility, and they will cast their votes for Congress based mainly on domestic issues.

Democrats like the lay of the land they see now, sensing opportunities that did not exist a few months ago. But they know things could change quickly.

"What will make 2002 so interesting," pollster Hart said, "is that it is a year that started out on a very flat plain and then got twisted upside down and came into this period of the summer with a clear dynamic. The question is will we go into the last 100 days with a brand new dynamic -- and that we don't know."

Assistant polling director Claudia Deane contributed to this report.

Copyright 2002 Washington Post Company

###