Clinton Follows Winning Playbook From ’91 Pennsylvania Senate Upset : Campaign: Democratic candidate hopes Wofford’s populist strategy against Thornburgh will hit pay dirt again in this bellwether state.

Fighting to shore up his long-range presidential prospects, Democrat Bill Clinton has adopted a strategy in the key swing state of Pennsylvania that is modeled after one used to stage 1991’s biggest political upset.

In a special election in the state last November, Democratic Sen. Harris Wofford relied on a hard-hitting, populist message to rally from a 40-percentage-point deficit in the polls and defeat a far better known Republican--former U.S. Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh.

Now, as Clinton campaigns for votes in Pennsylvania’s presidential primary Tuesday, he is stressing a message that “is very similar to Wofford’s and strikes some of the same themes,” said Pennsylvania State University political analyst Michael Young.

This should come as no surprise. Two of Clinton’s top lieutenants--James Carville and Paul Begala--helped engineer Wofford’s victory. And because Wofford managed to turn his campaign into a referendum on President Bush’s economic policies, Clinton’s advisers have come to view it as what Begala terms a “test run” for this year’s presidential race.

The real measurement of Clinton’s success in carrying out this strategy probably won’t come in the primary, which his aides expect him to win with relative ease, but in the November general election, assuming he emerges as his party’s nominee.

With its 23 electoral votes--the fifth-largest prize in the nation--Pennsylvania long has been a state Democrats had to carry to win close presidential elections. It was crucial, for instance, to John F. Kennedy’s victory in 1960 and Jimmy Carter’s triumph in 1976.

Pennsylvania also is one of the largest of the dozen or so states that the 1988 Democratic nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, lost by a relatively narrow margin and where the party is counting on a comeback to reverse its presidential fortunes. Bush’s margin over Dukakis in ’88 was just three percentage points in Pennsylvania.

Here are some of the lessons from Wofford’s victory, cited by Begala, that Clinton’s staff is attempting to apply in the Pennsylvania primary campaign:

* Bash Bush.

Wofford believes he helped himself by focusing much of his fire on the President instead of his actual opponent, Thornburgh.

Following suit, Clinton so far has ignored his sole remaining challenger in the Democratic race, former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr., and instead has hammered away at Bush in his Pennsylvania appearances. A prime example occurred last week when an economic policy address Clinton delivered at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business was laced with criticisms of Bush’s record.

The President’s low approval rating in Pennsylvania--down to 48% from 64% last fall, according to a recent poll conducted by the Millersville University Center of Politics--makes Bush a tempting target.

And Clinton advisers hope that by attacking Bush, their candidate will start building support for the fall and elevate himself above the tedium and trivia of the primary contest with Brown.

But some analysts thought Clinton outsmarted himself in his Wharton speech when, after berating Bush for shifting ground on policy, he quipped: “And they say I’m slick.”

The wisecrack was widely shown on television news shows. The problem, said Dean Kathleen Jamieson of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School of Communication, is that the remark “mainly served to heighten awareness of Clinton’s own failings.”

* Champion change.

Although he was an incumbent, having been appointed to fill a Senate vacancy, Wofford ran as a challenger against Thornburgh, who served as a perfect foil by boasting of his familiarity with Washington’s “corridors of power.”

If anything, throw-the-rascals-out fever now is at an even higher pitch in Pennsylvania, fueled by reports of the congressional check-overdraft binge and continued economic sluggishness.

“Being an incumbent in general is bad,” Republican state lawmaker John Perzel recently told the Philadelphia Inquirer. “I took reelect off my literature at home.”

Clinton, seeking to turn this mood to his advantage, is running as a Washington outsider and promoting the idea of change for all it’s worth. His Wharton address was strewn with calls for change, from the Oval Office to the classroom to the workplace. In one seven-paragraph section, he used the word change six times.

* Reach for the middle class.

Wofford’s call for a national health care system got a lot of attention and undoubtedly won him a lot of votes. But some analysts believe that even more fundamentally, the issue identified Wofford as an advocate of government help for the middle class, whose members have long since grown weary of paying taxes that many perceive as largely benefiting the poor.

Clinton caught on to that notion early. Begala says one reason he was eager to sign on with Clinton’s campaign was the emphasis Clinton put on aiding “the forgotten middle class” when he announced his candidacy in September.

Clinton has been hitting that point harder than ever in Pennsylvania. His Wharton speech included a litany of programs he is pushing with the middle class in mind, including universal access to college loans and a nationwide apprenticeship program for high school students who don’t go to college.

After being hounded by the character issue during a bitterly fought campaign leading up to New York’s April 7 primary, Clinton’s bid to concentrate on his message has been aided by a friendlier political climate in Pennsylvania.

By and large, analysts say, Pennsylvania’s electorate derives from a culture more closely resembling the Midwest, where Clinton has done well, than the Northeast, where he has had tougher going.

“This is more of a Bubba state than a yuppie state,” said Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics at Millersville University.

Added Neil Oxman, a state political consultant: “The press here is fair and reasonable, not like the New York press, where every time (Clinton) had a thread loose on his jacket it was on the front page.”

Clinton aides also believe the fact that Pennsylvanians are about two years older than the national average works in his favor.

“Voters here are older and more serious,” said Celia Fisher, state coordinator of the Clinton campaign. “They want to hear his economic message, not the character stuff, which is old news.”

Clinton’s Pennsylvania strategy also has been helped by Brown’s fading prospects. The former California governor clearly was stung by his showing in New York, where he finished behind Clinton and former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas, who had ceased active campaigning. Since then, Brown has refrained from attacking Clinton in his speeches.

But even if Brown seems to have been defanged, Clinton’s effort to make a fresh beginning for the fall drive against the GOP faces substantial problems. One is the lingering damage done to Clinton’s reputation by the personal controversies that have clouded his campaign, such as allegations of marital infidelity and steps he took to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War.

“I don’t trust him to do anything,” says Cynthia Butler, whose name is on the Pennsylvania ballot as a delegate pledged to Tsongas’ suspended candidacy. She has volunteered to help the Brown campaign in hopes that Clinton’s nomination still can be blocked.

Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey, a Democrat who is remaining neutral in the presidential race, said in an interview that the character issue “is not some figment of someone’s imagination.”

Citing exit polling of New York voters that reflected widespread misgivings about Clinton, Casey said: “If you can’t understand that message, you’re in the wrong business; you ought to be selling storm doors.”

Casey added: “I think Bill Clinton has to define himself in broader terms. He has to talk about who he is, where he came from, what his roots are, what his dreams are, what his values are.”