Tuesday will bring the end of eight years of the Bill Clinton era, but Americans are finding it hard to know how to replace it.
That is why Vice-President Al Gore and Governor George Bush are running so close - neither candidate is making the country sit up with a clear message of what he stands for, and half the electorate will not bother to vote.
The revelation this week that Bush was convicted of drunk driving in 1976, when he was 30, has come so late in the campaign that it is hard to assess its impact on voters. He had referred frequently to his drinking problems in the past and that he gave up alcohol 14 years ago, but people will question his judgment in not coming clean about the conviction early in his campaign.
It is an important election, for the US and for the world. The choice Americans will make, while their country enjoys unparalleled prosperity and without a rival on the world scene, affects the rest of the world as well.
Take Ireland. It is about to commit troops to a European army at a time when the next president will, if it is Bush, seek to run down US involvement in the Balkans and NATO, leaving peacekeeping solely to Europeans.
On the economic side, a continuing American boom will see more US capital flowing towards Europe and creating jobs in Ireland.
But could Gore's populist rhetoric of taking on the "big interests", shoring up social security, spending billions on new social programmes and hedging future trade agreements around with conditions on labour and the environment, lead to an economic slowdown with the accompanying fallout for world economies?
Americans, however, are scarcely interested in what their choice means for the world as they puzzle over which of two uninspiring candidates would better lead the country after eight turbulent years of Bill Clinton. Both Gore and Bush have the luxury of basing their policies on a notional budgetary surplus over the next decade of trillions of dollars. It has been unreal to watch billions being thrown around as if the money was already safely in the bank. There are differences in the Bush and Gore policies, but not huge if the election rhetoric is left out. They both want to cut taxes, save social security from running out of cash, improve educational standards, make healthcare more widely available.
There are differences in the details, especially in the size of tax cuts, but these are so complex the electorate cannot grasp them. This gives Bush an advantage because, with a poor grasp of detail himself, he tries to rise above the nitty-gritty and offer some kind of vision to Americans. He stumbles in articulating it but is doing what a leader is supposed to do.
Bush promises to "end the partisan bickering in Washington" and get Republicans and Democrats working together to spend the surplus wisely, while giving more decisions back to the states. His "compassionate conservatism" claims that "no child will be left behind", even if the richest 1 per cent get 40 per cent of his tax cut.
And he will "restore integrity and dignity" to the office of President, a coded reference to the Monica Lewinsky affair.
For Gore, vision means "fighting for the people against the big interests", a long list of complicated tax credits, and warning Americans that their pensions are not safe under Bush's "risky" plan to let workers use some of their contributions for private investment accounts. He would introduce an insurance scheme to cover the cost of prescription drugs for seniors, a promise made eight years ago when he campaigned with Bill Clinton.
Political columnist Richard Cohen will vote for Gore but regrets this lack of what Bush senior used to disparage as "the vision thing". Cohen writes: "There is a programme for this group or that group, prescription drugs for you, insurance for me, but no sense of the whole. "He [Gore] is all prose, no poetry, and he leaves me feeling empty, unsure of where - in his search for one last vote - he will draw the line."
Then there is the "likeability" factor in a country devoted to image over reality. The pedestrian Gore is a turn-off for a lot of people who find Bush, with his mangling of the English language and cocky grin, more attractive. Should this count?
As Tipper Gore put it, in between kissing her husband on the platform, an election is "not the `dating game'. You don't have to fall in love with Al Gore. I did that."
But it seems to count for Americans. Gore is far more experienced than Bush, knows more about foreign affairs and environmental dangers, and how to run a huge federal government. He would be the safer choice for president, especially if you are towards the bottom of the economic pile.
Yet Americans may be on the point of rejecting him for a Governor of Texas, who before that helped run a baseball team and dabbled in some failed oil exploration projects.
For outsiders, a rejection of the experienced Gore seems a risky decision with the economy doing so well. Perhaps it is the "Clinton fatigue" factor.
From the time his name was first floated two years ago, Bush shot up in the polls way ahead of Gore, even though most Americans had only a hazy idea who he was. But there was instant name recognition.
Is there a lingering sense of guilt among voters for having thrown Bush senior out of the White House in 1992? Certainly Republicans are more energised in this election and Democrats more questioning.
Gore has tried to keep Clinton at a distance as he battles to win the presidency "as my own man." But his own probity began to be challenged as the media focused on his far-fetched claims. The Bush camp called him a "serial exaggerator".
For some reason, Bush's howlers were not treated as harshly. It looks as if Americans saw a connection between Clinton's lying over the Monica Lewinsky affair and Gore's evasions over fundraising and his "embellishments" about his own achievements. As one commentator put it: "Because of the Clinton factor, Gore's exaggerations are seen as a moral problem."
This is tough on Gore, and lucky for Bush, whose lack of experience and fumblings to spell out what his policies mean would otherwise have got greater scrutiny.
The Irish Times website, www.ireland.com, will carry live coverage of the US presidential and congressional elections over the coming days. The US Election 2000 site will have the latest from the campaign trail up until voting begins on Tuesday.