CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS : NEWS ANALYSIS : GOVERNOR : Was Brown’s Strong Debate Pivotal?

“Punched his lights out!” a pumped up Kathleen Brown exclaimed Saturday of her debate with Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, but it was uncertain whether her performance--considered by experts as strong, but not really a knockout--could significantly boost her chances of winning the governorship Nov. 8.

The one-hour Friday night television encounter came at a potentially critical juncture in the campaign, with a little more than three weeks to Election Day and just as Wilson had appeared to pull into a dominant position in the public opinion polls.

Political experts generally agreed that Brown had put on one of the best performances of her career while Wilson was surprisingly tentative and indecisive. But they could only guess about the possible effects the debate might have on the electorate.

The conventional wisdom going into the debate was that Brown, the state treasurer and Democratic challenger to Wilson’s bid for a second term, needed a very strong showing and Wilson probably had to make a serious mistake for the impact to be significant.

Trying to put the best light on what took place, the Wilson camp argued: “Kathleen Brown needed a knockout in order to get back into the race, and it didn’t happen.”

Nor did Wilson commit any fatal gaffe. But his lackluster performance, in contrast to his sharpness in his one debate in the 1990 campaign, was striking.

Even the governor’s supporters acknowledged privately that Brown was the far more aggressive candidate and that Wilson, particularly during the first half of the event, was forced into a defensive role that was unusual for him.

Richard Brody, political science professor emeritus at Stanford University, said the outcome probably was not dramatic enough to “change that many minds” of voters.

“I don’t think this will be that pivotal,” he said. “But all of this is predicated on something we don’t know: the strength of commitment of voters.”

Brown campaign sources were generally hesitant to claim major debate benefits, but said they thought the showing would combine with other forces to enhance Brown’s chances of victory. Those forces include what one Brown intimate described as a successful Democratic voter registration campaign and improving prospects for a vigorous vote-by-mail and Election Day turnout program.

The source also noted that the Wilson campaign had outspent Brown by $1.3 million in television advertising during the three weeks leading up to the publication Thursday of the Los Angeles Times Poll, which showed Wilson ahead by 8 percentage points among registered voters and 13 percentage points among those who said they were likely to vote.

One veteran Republican campaign strategist, speaking on condition he not be named, said the debate reminded him of the first meeting of Ronald Reagan and Walter F. Mondale in the 1984 presidential campaign. Reagan appeared weak and halting and Mondale strong. Reagan triumphed in subsequent meetings, however.

The GOP expert said Wilson “seemed drawn and tired.” At the same time, however, he thought Brown might have been hurt by looking “too youthful, a little overanimated, a little theatrical.” Such impressions could lead undecided voters to think that “she was not ready for the big leagues,” the campaign strategist said.

Benefits for Brown certainly would include the psychological boost of “going toe to toe with the governor,” he said. “And it may energize her supporters to open their checkbooks a little bit more.”

There was no suppressing the effect on the candidate, however. Appearing at a women’s rally in Canoga Park, Brown delighted in relaying the unsolicited verdict of a Los Angeles cabdriver to Brown aides: “She punched his lights out.”

Brown then told the audience of about 200 that she challenged Wilson to more debates immediately after the first was over, but Wilson refused.

“But you know what?” she said. “It’s OK, because the people of California now know that Kathleen Brown has a plan to rebuild California and Pete Wilson doesn’t have a clue.”

Brown then sounded a populist note by trying to make an issue, as she did Friday night, of Wilson’s rent-free use of a “luxury” condominium in Century City that is financed by a foundation supported by wealthy friends and backers.

“How many residences does the governor of California need?” asked Brown, whose joint gross income with her husband, television executive Van Gordon Sauter, last year was $658,286.

From Canoga Park, Brown drove to Century City, where she stood at a lectern in front of the condominium complex and repeated the allegation.

“The incumbent governor is out of touch and hasn’t delivered for the university students and college students, hasn’t delivered for education, hasn’t delivered for middle-class families. But when he wants to deliver for his special interest friends, he has delivered,” she said.

Campaigning in Sacramento, Wilson warned Brown not to get in a war over ethics with him or he would resurrect questions about her billing the state for travel to and from the family vacation home in Idaho and about her soliciting funds from New York bonding firms with which her office did business.

Asked about the condo, the governor said that none of the contributors had given “an inordinate amount” to the foundation.

“Now, I don’t think the voters care about this kind of cheap shot, but if we’re going to get into ethical violations, I would warn her, she shouldn’t,” said Wilson, visiting a GOP get-out-the-vote project in Sacramento with his wife, Gayle.