Memo to Pete Wilson: The ‘Bergeson Factor’ and Other Conundrums : Politics: There doesn’t appear to be a gender gap among Democrats--they all love Dianne. It’s the GOP gap Wilson has to worry about.

Well, Pete, your worst nightmare has come true. Polling data, pundits--and your own instincts--tell you that. You face the toughest possible Democrat in November.

What are you up against? Let’s read the tea leaves of Tuesday’s election.

John K. Van de Kamp’s campaign is history and you should look at it as a case study of what not to do against Dianne Feinstein.

You are not going to take Feinstein on the issues of crime and the death penalty. You are not going to take Feinstein on the issue of reproductive choice.

Why weren’t you talking about the environment on election night? It is a significant issue in the minds of voters-- particularly among Democrats who will have to be wooed away from their party’s ticket. And polls indicate that environment was critical to Van de Kamp voters.

If you have an image at all, it is one of quiet competence and a strong environmental record. The bad news is that Feinstein has already beaten that image once.

But, despite your long public career and twice being elected U.S. senator, you are essentially a tabula rasa; most voters don’t have a clear picture of who you are and what you stand for.

Take note: There doesn’t appear to be much of a gender gap among Democrats--they all seem to love Dianne. At this point, it’s the Republican gender gap you have to worry about.

The U.S. Supreme Court gave Feinstein a boost with the Webster decision, which put abortion high on the political agenda. There is a growing realization that women will cross party lines to vote for an abortion-rights candidate and that women candidates reap the benefit.

That brings up the “Bergeson factor.” Just exactly what does the selection of state Sen. Marian Bergeson of Newport Beach--a conservative, anti-abortion candidate--as the GOP nominee for lieutenant governor portend for your future?

With a woman heading the Democratic ticket, does Bergeson help? Or will her anti-abortion stance hurt?

An exit poll taken for KCAL, Channel 9, in Los Angeles indicated a more pronounced gender gap in the Republican race for lieutenant governor than in the Feinstein-Van de Kamp matchup. Among women, Bergeson ran 22 percentage points ahead of her male, pro-abortion - rights opponent. And her voters were more supportive of abortion rights than his.

The poll also indicated that 20% of Republican voters who chose Bergeson as their candidate for lieutenant governor would vote for Feinstein for governor in November.

What’s going on here?

Were women voting for women regardless of their abortion-rights stand? Or did voters in this low-visibility race make their decisions with little knowledge of either candidate--and simply assume that the woman was a supporter of legal abortion?

In the heat of battle, Bergeson’s stand will be made clear. She is much closer to the picture of the hard-core Republican voter: conservative, anti-tax, anti-abortion. Will she bring unenthusiastic conservatives out to vote for the GOP ticket in the general election?

Will being a woman be enough to hold Republican pro-abortion-rights votes?

Bergeson, says one GOP analyst, is “a wild card.” What her victory does underscore is the continued, anti-abortion slant of the Republican Party. On the day after the election, one moderate Republican concluded that the party was “more pro-life than it was 24 hours ago.” That could create some annoying, internal problems for you, Pete.

The conservative GOP Assembly caucus won almost all of its legislative primary fights--and with anti-abortion rights candidates. As the voting majority becomes more pro-abortion rights, hard-core ideologues may sit out the general election or attempt to push you further toward an unpopular anti-abortion stance.

Now, about that “early strategic advantage” people say you have--emerging ready and rested from a sleepy GOP primary and sitting on a campaign nest-egg of more than $3 million.

Feinstein and her investment-banker husband, Richard Blum, have bailed out her campaign before. (In fact, the pivotal event of the 1990 primary campaign may have been their underwriting the media campaign that put Feinstein on the air in February and brought Van de Kamp’s momentum to a screeching halt.) But another major infusion may not be necessary.

The Feinstein campaign is a national campaign. She is already the darling of the national media. Democratic contributors will be falling over each other to invest in history and a potential national figure. And Democratic legislators in Sacramento and Washington will be working overtime to raise money for a gubernatorial candidate who will sign their reapportionment plan.

That frightening prospect will shake loose national Republican money for you, too, Pete. But with California looking at a possible gain of eight seats, the stakes in congressional reapportionment for Democrats couldn’t be higher.

There is some good news. You can learn from Van de Kamp’s mistakes. And, as an added bonus, you have no initiatives floating around to eat up your time, money and energy before November.

You have hours of videotaped “opposition research” to draw upon--thoughtfully compiled by the Democratic primary challengers during two “debate” encounters and their aftermath:

See Dianne stumble over hiring quotas (that could be a sleeper issue for you in the general). See Dianne waffle on abortion and cost-of-living increases for social-welfare programs (that one has the potential of alienating both liberals who want to see them protected and conservatives who don’t.) See Dianne declare Rose Bird “qualified” to be considered for a judicial appointment (that could mobilize apathetic conservatives--in both parties).

But what if Feinstein proves to be a “Teflon candidate”?

A 1986 poll on then-President Ronald Reagan showed that 65% of the electorate approved of the way he was doing his job, even though large numbers of Americans disagreed with his stands on issues such as poverty, the environment and foreign policy.

Feinstein may well be this year’s Ronald Reagan. Exit polls indicate that voters may not have been exactly clear on her stands on issues, but they knew what they liked: Dianne Feinstein.

Your technical competence is stronger, Pete. You may be able to persuade voters that you would better lead the nation-state of California into the 21st Century. But Tuesday’s results showed competence is not enough.

You need to persuade voters to trust you--even though you are part of the political Establishment.

You need to persuade voters to like you--although your image is far from warm and cuddly.

Watch out for falling rocks. You might spot one in this fantasized Feinstein campaign commercial:

( Fade in ) A bucolic morning scene. Clean-cut family seated at breakfast table. Parents in power business suits, children scrubbed, neat and well-behaved.

( Voice over, as strings play, up-beat but softly, in background ): “It’s morning . . . in California.”