Democratic Strategists Fear Gains of 1992 Could Turn Into Staggering Losses in 1994 : Politics: Clinton’s unpopularity could exacerbate normal off-year setbacks by the party in power. Leaders assess downside of winning.

Democratic leaders gathered here for a two-day strategy session sought to cope with the vexing reality that their success in 1992 spells potential trouble ahead in 1994.

For the first time since 1980, Democrats will have nobody but themselves to blame for the country’s problems. And given the current economic difficulties, President Clinton’s stumbles in the White House and the tendency for the party in power to lose ground in off-year elections, some analysts think that the 1994 elections could turn into a debacle for the Democrats.

Although party officials sought to put the best face on their situation, those attending the meeting of state party chairs and national party executive committee members said they recognized the risks.

“Like it or not, we have responsibility for government,” Stanley B. Greenberg, Clinton’s chief pollster, said at the meeting that concluded Saturday. “It would be easier to be outside, easier not to take responsibility, easier not to be held accountable.

“I think what we will find, hopefully, is that taking responsibility is a good message,” he added.

With George Bush and the Republicans gone from the White House, “the economy is now the Democrats’ problem,” says Walter Dean Burnham, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. “And the party has yet to define a position on the economy that has the support of a clear-cut majority of the middle class.”

Unless the President can define such a position soon, Burnham warns, “there is an awful lot of very fickle support that came to Clinton . . . that is likely to turn away from him. In 1994 you might see a Republican upheaval, you might see them bursting forth all over the place.”

Democratic strategists contend that it is far too early to make such dire predictions. But mindful of Clinton’s low standings in the polls and the drop in public support for his economic program, they concede that improvement is needed.

“Wait until the fourth quarter of this year,” says a senior adviser to one Democratic House leader. “If Clinton’s numbers stay where they are now, the members up here will be nervous.”

But the current adversity and the threat of even darker days ahead appear to be having a beneficial impact on the normally fractious Democrats--seeming to unite them in support of their President.

Most attending the meeting here realize they have no choice but to support Clinton and do what they can to help him achieve success.

“It’s called ‘circle the wagons,’ ” said Catherine Moore, national committee communications director.

Chris Spirou, the New Hampshire party chairman, said: “We have to perform, and we have to make this economy function once again. The American people understand the problem, and the President is trying his darndest to provide a solution. That is what we are going to be judged on. If he fails, we all fail.”

Whatever reservations they may privately hold about Clinton’s performance, state party leaders made a point of showing support for him and his team.

Democratic National Party Chairman David Wilhelm, who managed Clinton’s presidential campaign, has been criticized by Democratic lawmakers for not doing enough to rally public support behind the President’s economic program. But Wilhelm was given a rousing introduction at the meeting from Louisiana Chairman James Brady, the head of the state chairs’ association, and received a standing ovation from the membership.

Wilhelm pointed to the Senate’s approval of its version of Clinton’s economic plan, declaring: “Change is on the way, and gridlock is breaking.”

He vowed to transform the party into a “grass-roots energized army to back Clinton’s program.” The Democrats are hoping to create a nationwide network of activists, up to 1 million strong, built on the model of former presidential candidate Ross Perot’s United We Stand, America, Inc. organization.

One of its first objectives, Wilhelm said, will be a massive effort involving communication specialists, researchers and field organizers to promote Clinton’s long-awaited health care proposal, now due for release in September.

Also on Wilhelm’s agenda, a “youth outreach initiative” to take advantage of Democratic gains among presidential election voters younger than 30.

Ohio party chairman Harry Meshel said that Democratic officeholders in his state were troubled by the failure to build public backing for Clinton’s program.

“We are not showing the strength of the issues that we are trying to promote,” he said.

But when asked if this was the White House’s fault, Meshel said: “I’d like to see everyone share in that responsibility. That means the White House and the national committee and us at the state level. It’s everybody’s job.”

But Meshel conceded that for all the talk of a unified effort, Clinton’s problems have been aggravated by opposition from within his own party on Capitol Hill.

“We have to understand that members of the House and Senate are still going to fight to protect their own interests in their own districts,” Meshel said. “Everyone is worried about preserving what they’ve got.”

His answer to getting cooperation from lawmakers: “Get them all deeply involved in the programs from the outset and get them to share in the losses and gains.”

Former Jimmy Carter White House aide Tim Kraft, an Albuquerque-based political consultant, took a harsher view of the rebelliousness on Capitol Hill.

“Congress is one of the great stumbling blocks,” said Kraft, who was there the last time Democrats controlled the Congress and the White House. “Between the House and Senate, you have 535 different egos that can cut the President up every week.”

Clinton needs to respond in kind, Kraft said. “He has to take some tough stands and make Congress respect him. He has to wheel and deal and bully and manipulate.”