Win the West by Moonlight, and Other Clinton Strategies : Campaign: An 11th-hour boost on the Pacific Coast is the clear hope. But Plan B figures on a House fight.

There is only one way for Bill Clinton, the Democrats’ newly minted standard-bearer, to win title to the White House free and clear on election night, his senior strategists have concluded.

But in this bizarre political year, they are also working on a backup plan to prevent anyone else from winning on Nov. 3 and give Clinton enough states to hold the favorite’s position if the issue has to be settled in the House of Representatives.

The sole way to pull off a clean victory in the current three-man race, aides to the Arkansas governor now think, would be through a late evening victory in California, with Washington and Oregon dropping neatly into his column beside it. Together, the three states on the Pacific have more than a quarter of the votes needed for an Electoral College majority.

Such a sweep of the West would do it, if combined with a demonstration of the reviving strength of a more centrist Democratic Party that brought victories in such industrial heartland states as Illinois, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania, as well as the upper South.

That is the best-case strategy being mapped out by the Democratic nominee and his tacticians as they approach what all concede will probably be one of the most hard-fought and bruising presidential campaigns in modern times.

But they are not betting everything on clear victory on election night. Instead, even as delegates were formalizing their candidate’s nomination Wednesday night, aides were planning fallback tactics that would leave Clinton well-positioned for a struggle in the House.

To do that, they will spare no effort in the industrial heartland, the Northeast and upper South, even if that means delaying the start of Clinton’s drive in the West.

Signaling the importance he attaches to the industrial heartland and the upper South, Clinton called off initial plans to fly directly from New York to California after his nomination. Instead, he will make his first post-convention campaign swing through New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois and Missouri.

Hanging like a dark cloud over their calculations is the uncertainty created by the three-way contest with President Bush and independent Ross Perot, and the volatile mood of the voters.

“I’ve never seen so many voters up for grabs at this point in a campaign,” says Clinton campaign senior adviser James Carville. “This is probably the most dynamic presidential campaign in anyone’s memory.”

Reflecting that fluidity, a national poll conducted jointly this week by The Tarrance Group, a GOP firm, and Greenberg-Lake, a Democratic pollster, showed that only 50% of the voters who picked one of the three candidates said they were definitely committed to their choice.

In a sense, as with every presidential campaign, Democratic planning for 1992 began with the 1988 election results. The bad news, of course, was that Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis carried the Democrats down to resounding defeat four years ago--the fifth loss the Democrats have suffered in the last six presidential elections.

But the more encouraging news was that, in addition to carrying 10 states and the District of Columbia, with a total of 112 electoral votes, Dukakis got at least 45% of the vote in 11 other states, with a total of 165 electoral votes. Combining those two groups of states yields 277 electoral votes--seven more than needed for a majority.

For planning purposes at least, these states represent the potential Democratic base for 1992. “By and large, where Dukakis did better than average in 1988 are the places of greatest opportunity for Clinton,” says Paul Tully, political director of the Democratic National Committee and the national party’s chief liaison to the Clinton campaign.

Though Democrats are unwilling to concede any state at this early stage, carrying two of the biggest states--Texas, which Bush and Perot both claim as home, and Florida, which Bush carried with more than 60% of the vote in 1988--would require an unusually fortunate series of breaks over the next three months.

States in the Northeast and Midwest where Dukakis did well include New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois.

Democrats will also be aiming at the border and mid-South states--principally Arkansas, Kentucky and North Carolina, along with Tennessee. Here they are hoping the “double Bubba” ticket of Clinton and Tennessee Sen. Al Gore will win back some of the white votes that helped carry Jimmy Carter to the White House in 1976, the last time their party won the presidency.

Then there is the West.

“We know we have to carry California,” says Carville, referring to the biggest jewel in the Electoral College diadem with its 54 votes.

But for Clinton to take the state and make the other conquests in the West he needs for victory, his advisers concede, support must continue to fade for Perot, who now rules the Western roost.

And the political cards must fall in such a way that most of Perot’s Western support goes to Democrat Clinton, not Republican Bush.

As some in the Clinton camp see it, even if Perot blocks him in the West, their candidate could win enough states in the Midwest, Northeast and South to force the election into the House with a Clinton lead in electoral votes.

But Democratic plans to build on the 1988 base are complicated by the special characteristics of the 1992 campaign. In some ways, those factors could hinder their candidate and in other ways help him.

Here are the principal factors at work:

* The Perot candidacy. In one way, if Perot pulls his now-faltering campaign together and remains a viable contender, he helps Clinton by threatening to undermine the long-term advantage Republicans have enjoyed in electoral votes. This Electoral College “lock,” as many analysts call it, exists because the Republican vote is more or less evenly distributed around the country, while the Democratic vote is concentrated in the biggest and most competitive states.

As a result, the Republicans usually have more ways to win the presidency than the Democrats do. And this is one reason why the Republicans have won 21 states with a total of 183 electoral votes in the last six elections and 13 other states with another 145 electoral votes in five out of the last six elections.

Perot’s candidacy, by attracting normally Republican votes, puts more states into play. “The main difference this time is the Electoral College lock has vanished,” says David Wilhelm, Clinton’s campaign manager. “There’s pretty much of a level playing field” in most states.

But if Perot’s candidacy threatens Bush, it also creates problems for Clinton. The Texas independent, despite his current spate of problems, has the potential to attract many anti-Bush voters who would otherwise go to Clinton.

* Public alienation. Widespread discontent with the economy and with the political system is Clinton’s strongest potential asset. John Sasso, manager of the 1988 Dukakis campaign, points out that in 1988, only 45% of the voters thought the country was headed in the wrong direction, and Dukakis got the votes of 75% of those who felt that way.

A Times Poll released last week showed that 76% of those surveyed believe the country is on the wrong track. If Clinton could get 75% of this group on Election Day, he would have a substantial majority.

But it is this same pervasive sense of alienation that has fostered the as-yet-undeclared candidacy of Perot, who has the chance to take the issue of change away from Clinton and help Bush win back the White House, or win it himself. “I think if he could define himself pretty quick, he could definitely win the race,” Carville says.

- The Democratic ticket. No Democratic presidential candidate since Carter has carried a single Southern state. Democratic expectations are high that Bill Clinton’s Arkansas roots, combined with Gore’s Tennessee heritage, will improve on that record. The minimum hope is that each will win his own state, along with neighboring Kentucky and North Carolina.

And if Perot maintains a significant level of strength in the South, taking white votes away from Bush, Democrats also see the chance to penetrate deeper into Dixie.

But while Clinton may have gained from his choice of Gore in the South, he faces problems in other regions that another vice presidential candidate might have helped him solve. For example, one trouble spot has been New England. Clinton pollster Stanley Greenberg refers to it as “the killing fields” for Clinton because he lost most of the delegate contests there during the primaries.

Still Greenberg believes New England should be the first region to “come back” to the Democratic ticket. Voters there are angry at Bush over the dismal condition of the economy, and they are skeptical about Perot as well.

In the Midwest, progress for Clinton seems to be slower. “Michigan and Ohio are usually tougher for a Democrat than Illinois and Wisconsin, but the Clinton experience so far has been that all the Midwest is equally tough,” says one senior party strategist.

Times staff writers Douglas Jehl and David Lauter contributed to this story.