National Perspective : POLITICS : Some Democrats See ’92 as 1st Step in ’96 White House Race

A subtle shift in attitude that is under way should begin to fill out the roster of Democratic presidential contenders over the next few months.

Calculations that President Bush is a prohibitive favorite to win reelection in 1992 have not changed, but Democratic strategists increasingly are viewing 1992 as the platform for 1996--when most expect the Democrats’ presidential prospects to be much brighter. With senior Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell of Maine already circling the opportunity to run against Dan Quayle or a GOP divided by his overthrow, many party leaders expect to see a crowded field four years from now.

For some lesser-known candidates, the only way to compete meaningfully in 1996 may be to create a nationwide identity first, with a bid in 1992. “If you’re part of that younger group,” said Los Angeles attorney Mickey Kantor, a veteran Democratic operative, “you’ve got to establish yourself prior to 1996, or else you’re going to be left at the gate by better known, better financed candidates.”

Using one race to build for the next--as Gary Hart established himself as the 1988 front-runner with a strong showing in 1984--is even more attractive than usual because the dearth of candidates has left such an enormous vacuum. “People are looking at one of the weakest fields we’ve had in a long time,” said one Democratic strategist close to several potential candidates, “and saying ‘Why not me?’ ”

Younger Democrats now seeing potential nominees in their mirrors include West Virginia Sen. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, 53, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, 51, and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, 44.

More than the long-shot recent entry of former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas, 50, or the likely candidacy of Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, 60, the rumblings from Rockefeller, Harkin and Clinton are pressuring two other potential contenders: House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, 50, and Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr., 43.

Both have been uncertain about entering a 1992 race that offers, at this point, so little prospect of ultimate success; but now, advisers to both men are openly wondering whether either can afford to stay out.

These advisers worry that if Gore or Gephardt sits it out next year, either may find himself eclipsed in 1996 by another talented young contender burnished and seasoned in 1992. “The second tier of candidates is putting pressure on the first tier,” said one Democrat close to Gore.

Sources close to Gephardt say he is again actively contemplating the race after appearing to back away earlier this year. Gore is not expected to decide whether to run until later this summer.

The calculations Gore and Gephardt face are much more complex than those for Harkin, Rockefeller and Clinton. Conventional wisdom holds that, barring a disaster, a candidate is not diminished by failing in a first try for the nomination. But if Gore or Gephardt runs and loses in 1992, either would be tagged a two-time loser.

Even more acute than the risk of failure may be the risk of success. Most Democratic strategists believe that either Gore or Gephardt, with one race already to his credit, could actually win the nomination next year--and then face the possibility of a one-sided loss to a popular incumbent crippling his national career.

In recent history, the Democrats haven’t been kind to their losing presidential nominees. Though the Republicans allowed 1960 loser Richard M. Nixon another chance in 1968, not since Adlai E. Stevenson in the 1950s has a losing Democrat been nominated a second time. More often in recent years, the loser hasn’t even been given a second look.

Some Democrats believe 1992 could be different, especially for a younger nominee who likely would be running with a very low expectation of victory. But that proposition remains untested--enough so to make one Democratic consultant say flatly: “Ideally, what you want to do this year is come in second for the nomination.”