NEWS ANALYSIS : Scorecard on the Debates: Brown Won by Not Losing : Politics: Both she and Garamendi at times seemed stiff or stagy. Outsider Hayden shone as the conciliator.

The consensus of political insiders Wednesday was that Treasurer Kathleen Brown won by not losing, Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi lost by not winning and state Sen. Tom Hayden won by having little to lose and by being, well, Tom Hayden.

Another winner in this week’s Democratic gubernatorial debate-a-thon was an onlooker, Republican Gov. Pete Wilson. The debates gave Wilson a pretty good idea of the sort of challenge he will face from the Democratic nominee--and debate opponent--this fall.

But did the debates change the dynamics of the Democratic primary on June 7? Probably not, said Mervin Field, founding director of the Field Poll.

Still, there were lively exchanges on a wide range of issues--nearly 20 sharply phrased questions asked on Tuesday night, plus rebuttals. Given the format restrictions imposed by the campaigns, these debates were as good as they could be.

For five hours of television and radio time over three consecutive days, Californians got a pretty good idea of what the Democratic contest for governor is all about:

* Brown, the front-runner, came across as cool, self-confident and, to many, capable. But her vague, stiff answers--often couched in technocratic lingo such as “bond-out plan”--did not contain much detail about what she would do as governor.

The one time she did not come across as “canned,” a reporter told Brown in a post-debate news conference in San Francisco on Tuesday, was when she finally got mad about attacks from Garamendi and lashed back. Brown said it “seemed like the right time” to retaliate but did not bother to refute the observation that she otherwise seemed canned.

Political experts agreed that Brown had to make a serious mistake, or fail to appear gubernatorial, for Garamendi to score a victory. That did not happen. In the wake of the debates, however, she remains an enigma because of her refusal to explain her personal opposition to the death penalty. The Wilson camp is sure to exploit that issue in the fall if Brown is the nominee.

* Garamendi, who has trailed Brown in opinion polls all year, was hot, aggressive and hyperbolic, all of which are characteristic of him at times. But some observers thought his attacks on Brown’s record and ethics in office seemed too staged and that he came across as something of a bully.

In the process, Garamendi missed the opportunity to show the more positive side of his political persona, that of a former legislator and state administrator with a record of taking tough stands and developing serious public policy positions--if not always popular ones.

In particular, Garamendi did not use the first two televised sessions to talk about his experiences working with Californians throughout the state. Garamendi used that tactic successfully in campaign speeches, but they were heard by a handful of people compared with the broadcast audiences of the debates.

* Hayden entered the contest late and with limited goals, primarily to promote his crusade for reform of the political process by ridding it of the influence of special-interest contributions. He often bemoaned the fact that he was typed by two labels: 1960s radical student leader and former husband of Jane Fonda.

By the end of the day Wednesday, Hayden had achieved more than he could have imagined three months ago. First, he was treated as an equal of Brown and Garamendi. With his dry wit and relaxed manner, the 54-year-old Hayden emerged as something of an elder statesman of the Democratic Party in California, an avuncular conciliator and the candidate who actually seemed to have a coherent vision about what he wanted to achieve.

Perhaps the most quoted line from the San Francisco debate Tuesday night, the one that was seen on television in the major California population centers, came from Hayden. With Hayden standing between them, Brown and Garamendi exchanged sharp attacks on each other’s allegedly unethical fund-raising tactics. When it was Hayden’s turn to talk, he said: “John and Kathleen should not attack each other. These are good people in a bad system. The system has to be changed.”

In his news conference later, Hayden quipped: “I felt like I was in the middle of an intense electromagnetic field. . . . That was wild.”

Furthermore, Hayden managed to gently goad Brown and Garamendi into supporting some of his campaign reform proposals and to discuss how they would deal with the state budget deficit, a subject both had largely avoided.

* Wilson watched a videotape of the first debate and saw part of the second one on live television. Campaign manager George Gorton predicted that Brown would find a debate with the governor far more challenging. When Brown, for instance, mentioned casually Tuesday that she would raise taxes by closing tax loopholes, no one asked her to specify which loopholes. Gorton said Wilson mentioned Brown’s new position when he called to chat about the debate before boarding a plane for Washington.

“The governor is not going to let her get away with that stuff,” Gorton said. “He’s not going to allow it.”

Wilson has acquitted himself well in past debates, most political observers agree. In 1982, the conventional wisdom was that the articulate, quick-thinking Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. would whip the dull, plodding Wilson, then the mayor of San Diego, when they squared off in their campaigns for the U.S. Senate.

But Wilson got generally good reviews and scored a coup when he quickly answered Brown’s obscure question about a United Nations resolution concerning the African nation of Namibia. Brown’s gambit--to show that Wilson was a small-time mayor not ready for the big-time issues facing the U.S. Senate--backfired.

Eight years later, when he ran for governor, Wilson stole the headlines in a debate with Dianne Feinstein by endorsing Proposition 140, the measure that slapped term limits on legislators and statewide officers.

The potential for impact in this week’s debates was limited when the Brown campaign insisted that the first debate Monday night be televised only in the Sacramento area. Brown aides argued that she wanted to regionalize issues in each debate.

In fact, Brown did not discuss any issue of a regional nature in the debates. Critics claimed that Brown really wanted to minimize exposure given to her opponents and to limit any political damage caused by a possible blunder.

There were no big blunders. But there are some lingering questions about Brown’s performances, such as her failure to respond directly to many questions and to appear pious at times.

When Brown told reporters she would continue to rebuff questions about the death penalty, she said, “I do not intend to change personal views that I have just to get elected governor. Other politicians have. Other politicians undoubtedly will in the future. But I am not going to.”

No one had asked her to change her views, just explain them.