Debating Debates: No ‘Big Mo’ : MEDIA, MESSAGE AND MONEY WILL DETERMINE THE VICTOR : Politics: Because few voters see the debates, their ultimate significance depends on how the press plays them. Watch out for ‘pack journalism.’

Before last Sunday’s “debate” between California Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein, the two major Democratic candidates for governor, neither candidate had clear momentum.

And neither captured the “the big mo” coming out of it. Van de Kamp had to prove that he had some style. Feinstein had to prove that she had some substance. Both candidates did what they had to do. The result was a draw.

What does it all mean? It certainly doesn’t relieve the anxiety of Californians who may prefer their political fate preordained. That appears to include the media, which searched for a winner with the fanaticism of Diogenes seeking an honest man. But placing the first debate (the second is set for today in Los Angeles, 4:30-5:30 p.m.) in the context of the gubernatorial campaign can help us understand what’s going on and what lies ahead.

Let’s put things into historical perspective. After the 1974 Democratic gubernatorial primary campaign, media consultant Robert Squier explained then- Assembly Speaker Bob Moretti’s unsuccessful bid. “A campaign,” he said, “is a transaction between three forces--the media, the candidate and the polls.” Not much has changed in 16 years.

The media continues to play a major role in anointing candidates and issues. That was underscored in the press fallout after the Mother’s Day debate, which prompted one reporter to conclude, with more than a hint of discomfort, “The issues are what we say they are.”

Because relatively few voters view or hear the actual debate, their ultimate significance depends on how the press plays them. Watch out for the effects of “pack journalism” here. The press may swoop in for the kill if one candidate is perceived to have stumbled or been wounded. That’s why candidates move to seize control of the airwaves, relying on their own paid media to protect against someone else’s image interpretation.

The name of the game is media spin. And whoever the spinner, things aren’t always what they seem. (Do you sometimes get the impression that “Twin Peaks” co-creator David Lynch is staging the California gubernatorial primary?)

The disparities between the findings of recent polls have been chewed over enough. Looking beyond the horse-race aspect of polling (“Who’s winning? Who’s right?”), the numbers suggest more important questions.

The polls reflect a significant percentage of undecided voters, who might be expected to be swayed by a debate. But are these “undecided” really “undecided” or are they actually non-voters--Californians who are indifferent to or who have opted out of the process? How many of them can be found in the minuscule audience who will watch essentially local public-affairs programming, up against Mother’s Day, prime-time, May-sweeps blockbusters or the pleasures of a Sunday afternoon?

What do the poll numbers tell us about turnout? How many of those undecided--or California Democrats in general--will actually go to the polls? Observed I. A. Lewis, the director of the Los Angeles Times Poll, “A lot of the undecided just never come out to vote.”

At this writing Feinstein appears to have the lead among “most likely voters.” Lewis’ figures show that women make up two-thirds of those Democrats most likely to vote and who remain undecided.

That brings up “the gender thing.” Will these women simply cast their vote for another woman? Not necessarily. Other forces intervene--media, ideology, image education and a multitude of demographic and political factors.

But it’s also true that, when a rights issue is on the political agenda, it is the group whose rights are most threatened that mobilizes. This year the issue is reproductive choice, and women are the threatened group.

Looking at poll results over time, it appears that gender becomes less important as voters focus on the candidates and their issue stances. In California that is just beginning to occur. The airwaves should soon be flooded with all the political advertising the candidates can muster or afford.

As voters gain familiarity with the candidates and their stands, the images and expectations voters have of them become set. Once that happens, to remain viable, candidates have to meet those expectations or exceed them. Voters are likely to turn on a candidate who doesn’t.

Expectations appeared to be met in the first debate, despite Van de Kamp’s attempt to muddy the waters on choice by bringing into play the arcane debate over the use of abortion for sex selection.

Although he tried to undermine Feinstein’s carefully crafted pro-choice image, he succeeded in aligning her more closely with the majority of voters, who generally support choice but reject the notion of gender selection by abortion. At the same time he underscored voter confusion with his own image--appearing to be personally pro-life while supporting abortion in the most unpopular case.

There’s little evidence that two carefully programmed “robo-candidates” can waste their opposition within the structured confines of a pseudo-debate, composed mostly of strung-together 30- and 60-second radio spots. More likely, the real hits will come from the candidate-controlled and paid-for television ads.

What can we expect?

Advertising has been generally positive, with issue attacks measured. But the lesson of recent campaigns--like the Texas gubernatorial primary--remains: When it doubt, bash your opponent. There’s been no indication that negative campaigning doesn’t work. Don’t look for it to be ignored in California.

There’s precedent for it here. In 1982, then-Lt. Gov. Mike Curb and Atty. Gen. George Deukmejian jockeyed throughout the spring for front-runner status in the Republican gubernatorial primary. In April of that year, Curb, who had seen momentum and money flow from him to Deukmejian, pulled 10 points ahead of the attorney general on the strength of an aggressive, pro-Curb TV blitz and a strong stand against the Peripheral Canal, coupled with attacks on Deukmejian’s conservative purity.

Deukmejian slugged back, nailing Curb with the charge that Curb didn’t register to vote until he was 29. Curb’s lead disappeared.

The last weeks of the 1990 primary campaign may herald heightened attacks on the finances of Feinstein’s investment-banker husband, Richard Blum, and Van de Kamp’s handling of sensitive cases, such as the Hillside Strangler and the Charles H. Keating Jr.-Lincoln Savings & Loan fiasco. The battle over candidate purity on “litmus test” issues already out there--abortion, the death penalty, ethics and the environment--is likely to get hotter and nastier. And the battle will rage in any available forum.

Sixteen years ago, media guru Tony Schwartz argued against the belief “that a politician can more easily lie in 10 seconds than in five minutes or one hour. Time has nothing to do with clarity, truthfulness or honesty. One can be clear or unclear, truthful or dishonest, in 20 seconds or two hours.” And, he added, “believability is more important than reality.”

In June, as in November, it is safe to say, the winner will be that candidate who fits the voters’ image of the next governor. And who can best construct and sell that image. Media, message and money will determine the victor.

That pretty much sums up where we are as this primary race moves into its final phase. And now that we’ve ended that suspense, let’s get on to the really significant debate: So, who killed Laura Palmer?