Dianne or Pete: Who Will Win the Big Race?

The California governor’s race between Democrat Dianne Feinstein and Republican Pete Wilson is down to the wire. The Times asked nine political observers, none connected with the campaigns: Who’s going to win? By how much? And why?

* Mary Ellen Leary, California correspondent, the Economist:

Final pre-election days are critical, not because of TV ads, candidate attacks or presidential visits, but for an unseen strategy engineered by party organization. This state considers voters indifferent to party. Yet suddenly it is party that seems to be making the difference.

My expectation is that Wilson will take the governorship by about a 2% edge, due to a strongly financed and intensely organized precinct-level Republican Party campaign to cinch loyal GOP votes by getting the faithful to cast absentee ballots. Sure, Democrats are doing it, too, but less and later. “Votes by mail” are pouring in at levels topping all prior records, registrars in major counties say.

The national Republican Party is aware of its enormous stake in making sure Republican veto power is available over reapportionment lines drawn by Democratic legislators. The Feinstein campaign has been better, stronger, livelier than was Tom Bradley’s in 1982. But the GOP commitment to capturing the governorship dominates Wilson’s fate. Unless, of course, environmentalists prove themselves the new political force--stronger than party--they claim to be and tip the scales for Feinstein.

* Bud Lembke, editor and publisher, Political Pulse newsletter:

Wilson will win by a few percentage points. I thought it was Feinstein’s to win when she had momentum coming out of the June primary. She has apparently failed, however, to win the women’s vote.

I say “apparently,” because it is possible women could have second thoughts from what they are telling pollsters. They could remain true to their gender when they vote. Polling of those women casting absentee ballots, however, doesn’t show any second thoughts, so I think the candidate who has the best campaign will win--and that is Wilson.

* Joe Scott,editor of the California Eye and the Political Animal newsletters:

Wilson will beat Feinstein by a minimum of 7%--at least 500,000 votes--in a race sadly lacking real clarity about how either would govern California into the 1990s.

A lucky Wilson--after beating more polarizing Democratic Senate foes Jerry Brown and Leo McCarthy--drew in Feinstein another dream opponent whose negatives far exceed his own. Feinstein’s positive “star quality” image faded fast over the summer when her negative TV ads outmatched Wilson’s.

. . . Nor did Feinstein overcome her weak appeal to men voters, key to the famous “grabber” ad, which won her the primary, showing that a woman can lead in a time of crisis. Feinstein made a major strategic mistake in their only debate. By failing to link Wilson to the unpopular regime of lame-duck Gov. George Deukmejian, she forfeited the hot-button “outsider” theme of running against Sacramento.

By default, Wilson’s best issues--crime, drugs, taxes and fiscal management--have resonated far better with a cautious electorate than Feinstein’s clear edge on environmental and social concerns.

* Dick Rosengarten, co-publisher, California Political Week:

The winner will be Wilson by four to five points. He’s made the fewest critical mistakes. Feinstein waited too long before attacking Wilson on his absenteeism, and she should have debated Wilson a second time. She needed the exposure and boost going into the final weeks of the campaign.

* Mari Goldman, editor and publisher, Women’s Alert newsletter:

Who: Wilson. How much: At least 6 points. Why: Feinstein has not convinced women to put women’s issues first.

Women’s Alert is bipartisan; we do not advocate nor do we prognosticate, but we do talk to women. For Feinstein to win, she has to convince women of both parties to be loyal to their own interests. There are significant numbers of men who would never vote for a woman. Feinstein has to convince enough women that she should be elected to balance the male gender shift in Wilson’s favor. She has not done so yet.

Women have traditionally voted against their own interest. Women told us that they were extremely upset with Wilson for missing a key vote on abortion funding and for voting against the 1990 Civil Rights Act. Many of those same women will forgive Wilson and will allow themselves to become convinced that discrimination does not affect them.

California Republicans for Choice is concerned about saving the Republican Party from the “far religious right.” That group will forgive Wilson straying from the fold by voting against abortion funding because he is pro-choice and a moderate Republican.

. . . White women feel too threatened to ally themselves with minority groups generally. Politically, California’s African-American women have been phenomenally more successful than white women. African-American women know they are discriminated against and act accordingly.

Wilson is the safe vote for the average white woman voter. At least, she will not risk losing what she has now. Feinstein may arouse the angry beast and all women will be out in the cold. Dianne has not allayed these fears yet.

* Jeff Raimundo, former government and political reporter in Sacramento and Washington:

My prediction: Wilson, 53%; Feinstein, 45%; other, 2%.

Voters are unlikely to experiment with a woman governor when they’re feeling distress--with the national economy, their pocketbooks, government leaders, the Middle East.

In that atmosphere, Feinstein hasn’t given voters a reason to select her over Wilson, with whom they are more familiar. She has squandered her opportunity to cast herself as an energetic new alternative to the discredited political Establishment in Sacramento. Her major effort to distance herself from Willie Brown--a TV ad where Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole jokingly chides Wilson--is an offensive bomb.

He’s been more successful in exploiting her liabilities than she has been in taking advantage of his.

* Richard Zeiger, editor, California Journal

Wilson by 7%.

Several signs point to this. First, although the polls remain close when voters are asked for their own preference, the split widens in Wilson’s favor when these same voters are asked who they think will actually win the election. In some elections--particularly where minority group members or women are on the ballot--the second question may give a better indication of how people will actually vote on Election Day. They give the answer they think the pollster wants to hear, but when they get to the ballot box, they do something else. Second, the Democrats have done a very poor job of registering voters or securing absentee ballots.

In some respects, Wilson wears the mantle of incumbency in this contest. He started out better known to voters, and his stance during the campaign has remained consistent with his history in office. Feinstein squandered the excitement she created during the primary. In uncertain times, voters will go with a candidate who seems safer.

* Bill Bradley, publisher of New West Notes:

Never say never, of course, but it’s Wilson by six. Positioning, message and gender are the keys. Wilson’s non-Reaganite positioning offered change with stability. Meanwhile, DiFi lost much of her outsider status. Her refusal to back one of the term-limit initiatives gave Wilson a populist edge with a deeply dissatisfied electorate. The excessive particularism of her attacks on Wilson--absenteeism and the like--was easily refutable with the help of his early, massive war chest.

Most strikingly, Wilson succeeded in decoupling his persona from his position as a Washington pol, crucial to his success in the End of Politics era.

Finally, the gender gap proved to be male rather than female oriented. The Persian Gulf crisis and resultant economic uncertainty blunted DiFi’s bid.

* Arnold Steinberg, Arnold Steinberg and Associates polling firm:

The single debate was irrelevant, except that it was Feinstein’s lost opportunity. Wilson’s campaign was better planned and executed. Feinstein’s attacks were unfocused and not credible; she should have attacked Wilson on absenteeism earlier. Although Wilson had a funding edge, Feinstein came across as the money candidate, saddled with husband Richard Blum, possible conflicts of interest, skirting Proposition 73 limits.

Feinstein lost her novelty early, was on the defensive and pandered to women. She failed to expand her liberal base.

Unless the gender gap is very much larger than we see and minority voter turnout is very high, Feinstein loses. She will be far down in absentee votes, recover with Northern California and end the night no higher than 47%--losing badly in Southern California. Other candidates will hold Wilson’s lead down to a bare majority.