Bob Kolasky is the former managing editor of IntellectualCapital.com. E-mail him at bkolasky@yahoo.com.

As USA Today recently reported, counter to conventional wisdom, surveys have found an interesting thing: Americans are actually paying more attention to the presidential election than the Summer Olympics. Perhaps that is because U.S. gymnasts are having a down year. But there also may be a slightly less cynical reason: People are actually more interested in this year's election than the media thinks. A novel thought, eh?

Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush are not the two most dynamic candidates on the block. Nor is either particularly likely to arise high levels of passion. Still, people care about the race for president. In its Vanishing Voter Project Harvard's Shorenstein Center found that 44% of those surveyed Sept. 17 had thought about the presidential race the day before -- not an overwhelming number but enough to prove that the campaign is on the radar screen of many Americans.

A party in control

If people are tuning in more than expected, there is a simple explanation: The race is extremely close and, again contrary to conventional wisdom, there is much stake. Bush and Gore have offered starkly different versions of their America. And depending on who wins, the U.S. systems of public education, health care and retirement benefits could be dramatically different.

There is also a lot at stake politically. Right now -- as it has been since 1996 -- the Republican and Democratic parties are in rough parity. Democrats have held the executive branch and electoral momentum, while Republicans have held the legislative branch and dominated the governorships. But that parity hides another fact: The party that loses this election is in for some particularly lean years.

This is one of those elections where winning will do more than put one party into the Oval Office. It actually will give one party a clear mandate to govern, in that it will send the other party into the rudderless wilderness. If either Bush or Gore wins, they can expect a clear period where they will be able to enact much of their agenda.

I say this after analyzing what happens if Bush and Gore lose. The next president's power will come less from his own message and more from the refutation of his opponent's message -- and the party that shapes it.

Think about it. If Gore loses because Bush recaptures his momentum and convinces voters that Gore is too much of a hypocrite, and that his vision of government is lacking, the Democratic Party is in for some lean years. This assumption is based on the belief that there is so small a gap between who controls the House that the winning presidential candidate actually will have enough coattails -- barely -- to allow his party to control the chamber.

It is hard to imagine Democrats regaining the House in a year where a Republican is elected president. And barring an electoral shock, Republicans are going to control the Senate no matter what happens in November.

Therefore, in the first scenario, the Democratic Party is out of power in both branches of government for the first time in George W. Bush's lifetime. Add to that the fact that Bush likely will appoint two to three justices to a Supreme Court that would then be quite conservative, and effectively the GOP will have the most power it has in more than 100 years to set the government agenda. The Democrats would be left wondering why they have been so roundly rejected and be relegated to a defensive strategy.

Chaos theory

The Republican Party would be thrown in more chaos with a loss. In that scenario, Gore grows his lead by proving that he would be the more competent president, and convincing voters that eight years of good times would be at risk under Bush.

It would be the third straight victory for the Democrats in a presidential race. And it would come close to causing the implosion of the Republican Party.

If Gore were elected, he likely would bring with him a Democratic House, and although the GOP probably still would have a majority in the Senate and governor's mansions, it essentially would be out of messages. The anti-government conservatism of House Republicans long ago was refuted, and a Bush loss would signify a defeat for the practical reform and devolution that is in vogue among Republican governors.

The most powerful Republicans in the country once again would be Texans Tom Delay and Dick Armey, among the top GOP House leaders, and Senate GOP leader Trent Lott -- three men whose messages long ago were shown to have limited popularity. There would be articles wondering if the Democrats have a "permanent majority" in presidential elections.

Even more damaging, Republicans would have no easy way to turn to reverse positions. A Bush loss would be so devastating to the GOP because the motivating principle behind his nomination in the first place was his electability. If the man the party thought was its brightest light, and best chance, is not good enough, where do you turn next?

Sen. John McCain is a logical answer, but with his age, health problems and, more significantly,unpopularity among the Republican base, that would be no sure thing. You can bet it would not be Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; one Bush would have been enough. And the rest of the Republican governors would be seen as imitations of Bush.

A more likely scenario would be that a majority of the party would argue that Bush lost because he was not conservative enough and urge a move rightward. If so, the Democrats would have a clear shot at marginalizing the GOP for a long time.

Where to next?

This race often has been compared to 1988 when then-Vice President George Bush, the father of the current GOP candidate, defeated Michael Dukakis. The effects of Bush's landslide for the Democrats led to the rapid ascent of New Democrats and a refutation of the party's base. That enabled Bill Clinton to bring the party to the center.

The comparison is valid, but I would argue that the effects of a Bush loss in 2000 on the Republican Party would be more like what would have happened to the Democrats if Clinton had lost in 1992. The party will have lost when it compromised and turned center (Bush); it will have lost when it chose the safe choice (Dole); and it will have lost when it chose the solid right (Newt Gingrich).

Where to next? The battle for control of the party under that scenario would be epic.