Voters May Be Giving Wilson Another Look

There’s something about this gubernatorial contest that doesn’t make sense. Based on common logic, Gov. Pete Wilson should be dead meat. Yet, many pros are rating him an even bet for reelection.

It defies wisdom accrued from the ages.

And it probably says less about the Republican governor than it does the appeal of his two principal Democratic challengers, Treasurer Kathleen Brown and Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi.

The most devastating sign for Wilson is that Californians, as a lot, are discouraged, disappointed and frustrated over all the state’s familiar maladies--the economy, crime, schools, congestion, natural disasters, a deteriorating lifestyle.

Pollster Mark Mellman recently asked likely voters the barometer question: “Do you feel things in California are going in the right direction, or do you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?” Only 21% answered “right direction;” 66% said “wrong track.”

There is ample evidence to corroborate this voter malaise. The Field Poll recently found that only 41% of Californians consider their state to be “one of the best places to live,” down from 51% in 1991--when Wilson took office--and 78% in 1985. One-third said they would move to another state if they could.

When voters are in such despair, they usually kick out the highest-ranking officeholder--a George Bush, a Jimmy Carter or a Pat Brown.

*

Another bad sign for Wilson is more personal: People don’t particularly like him. The governor’s job rating was boosted by his high profile response to the Northridge earthquake, but it’s still very low for a first-termer seeking reelection.

A post-quake poll by Field found that the governor’s job rating remained negative: 30% good, 34% poor. These are the marks of a loser.

Brown or Garamendi should be running away with this thing. But Wilson is closing ground.

A pre-quake Field Poll had Wilson trailing Brown by only eight percentage points, compared with 17 points in October and 23 last May. And the race now is even tighter, based on more recent surveys by the Wilson and Brown camps.

Wilson is within five points of Brown, according to the governor’s pollster. Brown’s pollster won’t disclose her numbers, but acknowledges that the Democratic front-runner is down to a mid-range, single-digit lead.

Garamendi has been running slightly better against Wilson than has Brown, but his prospects of winning the nomination seem dim. His campaign has little money--hers is loaded--and Brown has a significant gender advantage within the Democratic electorate.

Beyond that, the health care issue Garamendi had counted on--because he can claim some co-authorship of President Clinton’s plan--isn’t jelling for him. There also isn’t a lot for him to brag about concerning auto insurance rebates from Proposition 103.

So it’s looking like a Brown-Wilson race in the fall. And neither candidate is getting a big cheer from the voters.

*

Brown’s campaign just isn’t clicking. She has multi-point plans for public policy, but her message seems scattered and unfocused. It’s as if she were painting her image by the numbers--be nice to this party constituency here while appeasing these voter concerns there.

Wilson and Garamendi advisers have been saying Brown’s “too nice” in a year when voters want “tough.” That’s political spin, but she does need to work on her indignation. She needs to convince others she wants to be governor for reasons other than just inheriting the family business.

Brown had planned to hire a new chief strategist: Bill Carrick, Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s top political adviser. She had a handshake and a contract ready to sign. But Feinstein blocked the move after getting nervous about her own race. Now, Carrick is an unpaid member of Brown’s strategy team, along with Los Angeles attorney Bill Wardlaw, a key adviser in Mayor Richard Riordan’s race last year.

Meanwhile, Wilson has been camped in Los Angeles in front of the television camera--any camera--talking incessantly about the voters’ main concerns: Crime and jobs. He is a candidate focused.

“Three strikes” will cost too much, you say. He says, “What price do you put upon preventing the rape of your wife or daughter, upon preventing the molestation of your grandchild?”

As for the voter malaise, the Wilson camp has a poll showing that most voters believe the governor has “done the best he could with a bad situation.”

Wilson had a good year as governor in 1993 after a disastrous 1992. Now he’s into the campaign and voters not only are looking at him, but the alternatives. And apparently they’re not that impressed.