Wilson Dodges the Season’s Silver Bullets

SACRAMENTO — It really does seem quite amazing that an unpopular, uncharismatic governor is on the verge of reelection when voters all across America are in a mood to boot incumbents.

Then again, most of the well-known incumbents being threatened are Democrats: Govs. Mario Cuomo in New York, Ann Richards in Texas and Lawton Chiles in Florida; Sens. Edward M. Kennedy in Massachusetts, Charles Robb in Virginia, Jim Sasser in Tennessee--and Dianne Feinstein in California. Plus House Speaker Tom Foley in Washington.

It’s something about Democrats controlling the federal government at a time when Americans are becoming increasingly fearful for their futures and distrustful of institutions; also President Clinton promising change two years ago and not delivering.

Gov. Pete Wilson is fortunate this year to be a Republican.

Still, Californians consistently have given Wilson the worst job performance ratings of any first-term governor since the advent of polling. Two-thirds of the voters believe the state is “seriously off on the wrong track,” according to The Times Poll. Wilson’s marks recently have improved, but it’s an axiom that any incumbent with negative numbers like his is sliding toward oblivion. Especially when the state’s economy lags behind the nation’s.

But look at the other politicians. Suddenly they’ve all got negative numbers, at least the ones being smeared with negative TV ads.

Voters say they’re sick of mudslinging and want candidates to tell them what they stand for. But positive ads don’t work, campaign strategists say. The only thing voters believe these days is that the other candidate’s a bum. Negative ads do work.

Wilson’s ads have proven it by leveling the playing field. Voters now have as poor an impression of Treasurer Kathleen Brown as they do of him. They have even worse impressions of Feinstein and her opponent, Rep. Mike Huffington.

Negatives have become the norm.

*

Why do voters who think the incumbent has done a lousy job intend nevertheless to vote for him? Clearly, many are disappointed in Brown and don’t accept her as an alternative. But beyond that, these voters trust Wilson to handle the problems they deem most important: crime, illegal immigration and the economy.

Chalk it up to gender and party stereotyping, plus Wilson’s emphasis. The governor surely must talk about crime and illegal immigration in his sleep.

I telephoned some of the likely voters The Times Poll surveyed recently when it found that Wilson had surged ahead of Brown by 13 percentage points. I asked people who disapprove of the governor’s job performance why they plan to vote for him.

The most common explanation was the all-too-familiar lament: “He’s the lesser of two evils.” There also was some devil you know versus the devil you don’t philosophy. And paradoxically in this era of anti-incumbency, there was comfort in his experience.

“At least I kind of have an idea of what he’s going to do, although he may not have been doing it real well,” said Democrat Loyce Tobler, a San Luis Obispo County probation officer. “The other’s an unknown. At least with him, I know I’m not going to be getting raises for five years. With Kathleen Brown, I could be taking pay cuts.”

Said Democrat Lewis Latka, a Thousand Palms construction superintendent: “I know what cards he’s holding, know what tricks are up his sleeve. I don’t know what she might throw in the fire.”

Retired business executive Cecil Fleener of Palos Verdes, a Republican, said he still has “high hopes for Wilson. He’s had so damn many problems.”

Brown also suffers from familial stereotyping, as indicated by another Fleener comment: “I didn’t like her father and detested her brother.”

*

Republican Jeff Reese, a Mission Viejo attorney, said he’s a ticket-splitter who will vote for Wilson because “governing California is next to impossible, and he’s probably done as good a job as he could. Kathleen Brown is very charismatic, but do you want someone running the state who has only been on the L.A. school board and been treasurer for four years?”

The governor couldn’t have said it any better. In fact, perhaps he couldn’t have said it as well, given his awkward debate performance.

Intimates say Wilson was frustrated by a format--a format he proposed--that allowed Brown four minutes to answer questions before he got a minute to rebut, was taken aback by her aggressiveness and tried to cram in too many points. He may have been overprepared. He may also have been overly cocky.

But he dodged Brown’s silver bullet. This is not a campaign about popularity or personality. It’s a little about party. It’s definitely a lot about issues--Wilson’s issues.