Pro-Incumbent Thoughts to Chew Over : For all their surface similarities, Riordan obviously has something Huffington lacks. What is it?

“Ladies and gentlemen,” the caterer announced, “your dessert is almond amaretto mousse cake.”

Little did I suspect that the grub would be so fancy. When colleagues invited me to dine with “The Angry Undecided,” what I expected was a spirited political discussion. The seafood crepes and the dessert were an unexpected bonus.

“The Angry Undecided--15 Swing Voters Give Views.” That was the headline over Daniel M. Weintraub’s front page article in The Times on Oct. 10. This was the first dispatch inspired by a journalistic experiment: To identify 15 likely voters from the San Fernando Valley who are undecided about the governor’s race and study how they reach their decisions.

It sounded intriguing, so I accepted. Besides, I had a pet question: I wanted them to compare two multimillionaire Republicans who used their personal fortunes to advance their political ambitions.

One, of course, is U.S. Senate hopeful Mike Huffington. The other is Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan.

*

Hardly a scientific sampling, the group of 15 includes eight men and seven women; 10 are Democrats, four are Republicans and one is Independent. This time, 13 showed up. If anger was the theme of the first dinner at The Times’ Chatsworth office, frustration dominated this discussion. Had you been there, it probably would have all sounded familiar, only more intense. The attitudes ranged from skeptical to cynical.

Weintraub began his first story with the anger expressed by Marvin Hershman, a Litton Industries contracts manager who senses that California is deteriorating and that politicians care more about getting elected than the problems of constituents. Fourteen of the 15 said that things were getting worse in California. And yet, when pressed about who they would vote for if they were to decide immediately, they leaned overwhelmingly toward the incumbents, Gov. Pete Wilson and Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

For his second dispatch, Weintraub found his lead in the words of Mary Kranz, a college librarian who is fed up with negative political ads and wants to hear a positive message. The story appeared Monday, under the apt headline: “Voters Ask for Vision, Not Venom.” When pressed about the candidates this time, there was a softening of support for Wilson and Feinstein, with more voters saying they were undecided.

This time, the group was leaning 3-2 for Wilson over challenger Kathleen Brown, with the remainder declining to say. They leaned 8-1 for Feinstein over Huffington, with the others undecided. Still a big margin for Feinstein, but at the first dinner, she was favored 13-1.

Why? Brown earned both criticism and praise for her debate performance and the issuance of her 62-page economic plan. She stirred things up. As for Huffington, one voter here said she was giving him a second look because the media seemed to be ganging up on him. In “Doonesbury,” for example, Huffington’s been portrayed as an empty suit.

The stage was set for my question: Who did you vote for in the last mayoral election?

There were seven hands for Riordan, one for Michael Woo. Another said he would have voted for Riordan, but didn’t live within city limits. The remaining few either declined to say or perhaps didn’t vote.

Riordan’s popularity wasn’t surprising; the Valley elected Riordan. And the mayor will be happy to know that, in this group, his approval rating remains high.

My next question concerned the difference between Riordan and Huffington. For all their surface similarities, Riordan obviously has something Huffington lacks. What is it?

“Riordan was positive, as opposed to negative. And he had a track record,” said Rhoda Glassman, a Northridge businesswoman.

“He was an outstanding businessman,” added Hershman. “. . .He didn’t say vote for me because the other guy’s an S.O.B.”

*

Perhaps I’ll be penalized for piling on, but let’s add a few more key differences. Riordan is a self-made millionaire; Huffington bought into Dad’s company. Riordan, though a novice as a candidate, has been active in Los Angeles civic affairs much longer than Huffington has lived in Santa Barbara. And though this may seem trivial, it bugs me that the Huffington campaign has made an issue of insisting the media refer to the candidate as Mike, not Michael. Why do they care? Riordan doesn’t care if people call him Richard or Dick.

Here’s another: Huffington recently jumped on the Proposition 187 bandwagon in a transparent effort to bolster his campaign. If it’s such a swell idea, why didn’t he stand up for the anti-illegal immigration measure earlier? Riordan, meanwhile, has consistently spoken out against the scapegoating of immigrants. Critics would have a tough time drawing him as an empty suit.

And the dessert, incidentally, was sublime.

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Readers may write Harris at The Times Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth, Ca . 91311.