Advancing State’s Primary Would Reshape Presidential Campaigning : Politics: Major impact on nominating process is seen. The shift could benefit both insider and lesser known candidates.

While California legislators debate the local implications of advancing the date of the state’s presidential primary, national political strategists say that the shift could significantly influence the nature of presidential campaigning and even the outcome of the nominating process.

But not necessarily in the ways its sponsors expect.

The shift, which was accepted by a Democratic National Committee panel Wednesday, awaits final approval by the California Legislature, which must resolve differences over the timing of primaries for state offices.

If the legislation is enacted, the nation’s largest state would hold its primary on the first Tuesday in March instead of June--near the beginning of the nominating season instead of at the end.

That should generally favor “insider” candidates--those who are already well-established and have raised the kind of money necessary to campaign in California’s expensive media markets.

But at the same time, at least on the Democratic side, the DNC has barred primaries that award bonus delegates to the winner. States must now allocate delegates strictly according to the proportion of the popular vote won by candidates.

That change, negotiated by Jesse Jackson and Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, should help outsiders such as Jackson who manage to finish second or third in some crucial primaries.

It appears to some Democrats that the party is now racing in two directions at once. With the compression of the primary schedule, the winner of the nominating process could emerge earlier and have more time to cement his support within the party. But the so-called “proportional representation” rules are likely to delay a resolution.

“The pattern,” acknowledged one top DNC official, “is conflicting.”

The DNC’s acceptance of an early California primary marks just the latest twist in the party’s two-decade search for a selection process that will produce an electable nominee.

The move would affect Republicans as well as Democrats. But as with most changes in the presidential nominating process, it has been largely driven by Democrats.

Ever since critics of the Vietnam War complained that party regulars forced through the nomination of Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey in 1968, the Democrats have struggled to find a balance between a nomination process that favors candidates acceptable to the party Establishment--men such as Humphrey and Walter F. Mondale--and one that allows the emergence of insurgents such as George S. McGovern and Jimmy Carter.

Those two decades of rewriting the nominating rules have shown that the outcome of reforms often inverts the intention. “Historically, the unintended consequences of any kind of reform dwarf the anticipated consequences in significance,” Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said.

Opening the party to outsiders with fresh ideas after 1968 smoothed the way for McGovern to win the 1972 nomination, but he was crushed in November after many Democratic barons turned their backs on him. When the rules swung back toward insiders after Carter’s defeat in 1980, the nominating process yielded Mondale, but it also reinforced Mondale’s image as the tool of an entrenched Establishment.

More recently, Southern states in quest of greater influence banded together in 1988 to create a 20-state showdown that selected nearly one-third of the convention delegates on a single frantic day in early March.

Although Sen. Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee--the kind of moderate Southerner that Super Tuesday was designed for--did well in the Deep South, liberals Dukakis and Jackson were also able to score victories that blurred the outcome.

Now several Super Tuesday states are looking toward breaking away from the pack. Arkansas has already moved its primary to late May. Earlier this week, Kentucky’s House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation to also move to May. Virginia appears likely to bail out, according to state Senate Majority Leader Hunter B. Andrews. Missouri, Alabama and Maryland also may leave Super Tuesday, according to Democratic officials.

In 1992, Super Tuesday is likely to be overshadowed by California’s early primary.

Boosters believe that an early California primary will force the candidates to play down the initial contests in Iowa and New Hampshire and spend time addressing a diverse electorate in the single most important electoral state.

The California primary would come as little as one week after New Hampshire’s February primary and only a week before Super Tuesday. Some analysts believe that the ability to raise the early money required to blanket this vast sweep of states with television advertisements will become decisive.

“The combination of an early California and Super Tuesday means . . . you can predict the winner very simply,” said Elaine C. Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington, a Democratic think tank. “In October or November of 1991, whoever has got $20 million in the bank is going to win. Ideology and positioning is going to matter but nothing is going to matter as much as who can raise the big bucks.”

For 1992, the list of potential Democratic candidates with such fund-raising strength might include New York Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley and Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen.

But the rule of unanticipated consequences cautions other Democrats against Kamarck’s certainty. Because Californians could go to the polls soon after New Hampshire, a little-known, under-financed candidate who scores an upset in New Hampshire could be propelled by a wave of media adulation to a potentially conclusive victory in the nation’s largest state.

An advanced California primary would increase “the chance that someone who wins New Hampshire could rocket to the nomination without any scrutiny from the press, the public and the party,” contended Democratic strategist Thomas E. Donilon, a Washington attorney. “The best California strategy would be to win in New Hampshire. The best Southern strategy would be to win in California.”

One consequence seems certain if California moves forward: Other major states will feel pressure to advance their own primaries. “There is a possibility we might move,” said Robert Slagle, the Democratic chairman in Texas, whose primary now falls on Super Tuesday.

The urge by states to vote near the beginning of the primary season seems to be inexorably drawing both parties toward a national primary day for all states that have primaries.

California’s move to advance its primary is “the logical response to an illogical situation,” said Democratic pollster Patrick H. Caddell, who led an unsuccessful effort in 1986 to prevent the Southern states from advancing their primaries. “The national primary is the worst of all systems. But the fact is, with so many states moving up, we have a de facto national primary.”