Doubts on Feinstein’s Support Rewrite Odds : Politics: Once listed as sure bet, she faces a tough race. Democratic Party’s hold on Senate could be threatened.

Just a few weeks after Republican Michael Huffington emerged as a major challenger to her, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein got more bad news in the results of Tuesday’s primary, which showed that her support among Democrats was unusually soft.

On Wednesday, her prospects for reelection were being reassessed by political strategists in Washington and California who had, until recently, considered Feinstein one of the nation’s surest bets for reelection to the Senate in 1994.

But now, with Feinstein facing an unexpectedly tough race that could threaten the Democrats’ hold on the Senate and send an ominous sign to the Clinton White House, the fall campaign will probably be the most expensive U.S. Senate race in history.

“These infamous lists that people carry around Washington have had Dianne Feinstein in the safe seats category--she’s not anymore,” said Bob Beckel, a Democratic analyst in Washington. “This is one seat we cannot afford to lose. . . . If Feinstein goes down, all bets are off for Democrats holding on to the Senate.”

In Tuesday’s primary, more than a quarter of the Democratic voters cast ballots against Feinstein, a higher defection rate than is common for statewide incumbents. The disaffection was also reflected in a Times exit poll of primary voters that found Republicans more loyal to political newcomer Huffington, a freshman congressman from Santa Barbara, than Democrats were to the veteran Feinstein.

Feinstein reacted quickly Wednesday by challenging Huffington to three debates. The 60-year-old senator said she would relish an opportunity to compare her record of accomplishment in Washington with Huffington’s.

“I think the race will shape up like this: my record versus his record,” she said in Washington, where she watched election returns Tuesday night. “We both came to the Congress at the same time. Who has produced for the state and who hasn’t? . . . If you compare records, I have produced much more for California than Michael Huffington has.”

Huffington, who kicked off a three-day bus trip through the Central Valley on Wednesday, said he would be delighted to debate Feinstein when details can be worked out. He also said Feinstein is under an illusion about her image, contending that the comparison would be “my record versus her record as a tax-and-spend liberal.”

Feinstein’s campaign team downplayed the primary results Wednesday. For one thing, they said, Huffington has had the political stage pretty much to himself so far.

“This election was after a barrage of $5 million of negative ads,” Feinstein said. “That is their tactic . . . to destroy. This is a guy who was an empty suit as far as legislative accomplishment was concerned.”

Feinstein has spent most of the spring in Washington and broadcast her first television commercial last week. In contrast, Huffington, 46, a former executive in his family’s Texas petroleum company, spent several million dollars from his personal fortune for weeks of television commercials that attacked Feinstein.

“There may be some sense that she is a little more vulnerable than insiders or I would have thought, but she’s been on the receiving end of millions of dollars of negative advertising,” said Darry Sragow, campaign manager for Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Garamendi. “I think it’s important to not read too much into this. The only way to determine whether there is some exploitable softness would be to do some opinion research.”

Feinstein adviser Bill Carrick also said the primary was not an accurate reflection of the electorate because the turnout was at an all-time low and, as a result, there was a disproportionate number of older voters who are usually less supportive of women candidates.

“Traditionally, Dianne, in all of her races, has had more difficulty with older men and women than any other block,” Carrick said. “This was basically an older, more conservative Democratic vote . . . and it was a little rougher on women.”

Los Angeles Times Poll Director John Brennan said the newspaper’s exit survey Tuesday supported that contention. About 51% of the Democratic voters were 50 or older and they were less supportive of Feinstein than younger voters. But Brennan said age was only part of the reason for Feinstein’s soft showing because her support among younger voters, although better, was still not impressive.

The survey also found that about 66% of the Democratic voters said they will back Feinstein in November, but Huffington did better in his party with 72% of the Republican voters planning to support him. At the same time, Feinstein lost 17% of the Democratic voters to Huffington while only 10% of the Republican voters would cross over.

For Democratic observers, especially in Washington, there was also reason to be surprised that Feinstein would be in such a close race so soon. They had seen plenty of reasons Feinstein should be a formidable reelection candidate--she struck a moderate political profile that seemed to be in sync with California’s 1994 voters, she was a tested campaigner who had won big in 1992 and she had a productive record of accomplishments since her arrival in Washington.

Feinstein’s assets led insiders to feel that her only weaknesses might be the state’s anti-incumbent mood and unhappiness with the Democratic leadership in Washington. That possibility triggered alarms in the White House, where officials said recently that the President’s 1996 reelection hinges on California and the defeat of Feinstein would be an ominous signal.

“The only reason she would lose is this anti-incumbent, anti-Washington tide going around that faces even the best politicians,” Beckel said.

In the exit poll, Feinstein’s connection to President Clinton seemed to be a wash among voters. Almost as many said they liked her because of Clinton’s support as said they were driven to Huffington by Feinstein’s White House connection.

Huffington also benefited from voters who thought Feinstein was a big spender and who liked his profile as a businessman. Feinstein scored well with voters who liked her key role in passing an assault weapons ban in the Senate.

Feinstein’s supporters still sounded confident that she will win the election in November after voters get to know Huffington. They have sought to describe Huffington as a wealthy Texan who recently moved to California.

They are also likely to point to the fact that Republicans in Huffington’s home county of Santa Barbara rejected him in Tuesday’s primary. Huffington had sparked controversy at home by entering the Senate race only months after winning a House seat in 1992.

Huffington, on the other hand, has tried to exploit Feinstein’s connection to Clinton with television commercials through the spring that criticized her support for the President’s 1993 economic package. The ads blamed California’s economic problems on the package’s higher taxes.

At a Republican unity breakfast in Los Angeles on Wednesday morning, Huffington underscored his theme that the two candidates represent a contrast between a big spender with a long service in government versus a businessman and economic conservative.

“Mrs. Feinstein and I are about as different as you can find two people,” he said. “Mrs. Feinstein believes in the power of the federal government. Therefore, she would like to raise taxes and raise federal spending. I don’t. I believe in the power of the individual.”

Huffington’s television commercials took about three months to shrink Feinstein’s huge lead to a competitive level. In a series of statewide polls during the last three weeks, Feinstein was ahead of Huffington by 1 to 14 points.

So far, the candidates are estimated to have spent at least $12 million, about halfway to a new U.S. record for a Senate race. In such a contest, political experts believe, money may become the decisive factor in the race.

“What we learned again in this primary is a very simple rule in this business--that candidates and supporters and consultants sometimes tend to overlook more than we should,” Sragow said. “The basic rule is that whoever has the most money wins, and there are very few exceptions to that.”