NEWS ANALYSIS : Wilson’s Political Appeal: Unglamorous but Enduring : Elections: His mastery of campaign basics outweighs plodding image, experts in both parties say.

What is it that Pete Wilson has going for him?

Certainly not his charisma. In public, the 61-year-old Republican governor and career politician comes across as a pale, dour and humorless man. He is a plodder and a nitty-gritty detail guy. Ask him about a policy and he will draw you plans for a think tank.

Yet, in a state with a reputation for glitzy politics and star-power politicians, this bland Illinois native has become one of the most successful California campaigners and officeholders in history.

Today, Wilson is the front-runner in the polls for reelection on Nov. 8 and if he does win he will become only the second person to be elected twice to the U.S. Senate from California and twice as the state’s governor. The other was Hiram Johnson, considered one of the giants of California political history, first elected governor in 1910.

In fact, if Wilson survives this election--the consummate career politician in a year of citizen hostility toward career pols--he will have won 10 general election campaigns without a loss, including three for the state Assembly and three for mayor of San Diego. Wilson’s only defeat came in 1978, when he lost an ill-timed Republican primary bid for governor.

How does he do it? A special breakfast cereal? An elixir?

“He tends to underwhelm you,” one political analyst said.

Indeed, a broad cross-section of political experts say that through his long career, Pete Wilson has won elections the old-fashioned way: one dollar and one vote at a time. It’s not glamorous, but it works for him.

When the Los Angeles Times Poll asked Californians to volunteer what they liked about the Republican chief executive, the most frequent response was: “He’s doing his best,” or, “He’s trying.”

Even his friends seem to grope for words when trying to put the best possible spin on Wilson’s personality and political luster. “He’s earnest,” one said. “He’s tough. He is very, very resilient,” commented another. Others call him stubborn.

Wilson’s style often has been compared to that of the late Richard Nixon, who was something of a mentor to the governor.

“He has that same kind of dogged determination,” said Ken Khachigian, a onetime Nixon speech writer and longtime Wilson friend.

And he keeps winning.

Wilson labors through speeches notable for their monotonous delivery and absence of soaring rhetoric or vision. His head bobs disconnectedly. His voice catches and words get lost. He sometimes has trouble coordinating his hand gestures with punch lines, as in a Bob Newhart comedy sketch.

But he keeps winning.

Wilson does not even have a strong ideological appeal of the sort that engenders passion in supporters. He manages to anger fellow Republicans nearly as often as he does the opposition Democrats in Sacramento.

Two years ago, Wilson’s lack of image seemed to be catching up with him. He was saddled with the worst job-rating levels of any modern California governor and trailed his telegenic, personality-rich Democratic foe, Kathleen Brown, by more than 20%. The Pete Wilson political obituaries were in final drafts.

But less than three weeks before the election, most political experts believe he will win.

How does he do it? What is Wilson’s silver political bullet that enables him to win elections--an ability that is being viewed within the Washington Beltway this fall as nothing short of a political miracle.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, there is no magic formula, indeed no real secret at all, according to political consultants who have worked for and against Wilson.

The experts are almost universal--and admiring--in assessing the qualities that make Wilson a formidable candidate. These qualities are grounded in the basic, mundane elements of politics:

* A team of capable campaign managers and aides, and assistants in office, who have worked loyally together on Wilson’s behalf for years.

* A simple, clear agenda. The Wilson forces develop a long-range strategy and stick with it as long as it is working. This year the focus has been on crime and illegal immigration.

* Skillful campaign tactics and strategy. Losing campaigns are plagued by mistakes large and small. Wilson rarely makes mistakes.

* Wilson’s ability to attune his program to the changing public mood.

* A take-no-prisoners attitude toward political foes, marked by a quickness to pounce on opposition mistakes.

* A formidable financial campaign base born out of Wilson’s first run for office in San Diego in 1966. This reservoir of money minimizes the organizational effort required to raise the millions needed for each new campaign.

* And finally, luck. As colorless as Wilson’s persona may be, he has been able to present himself consistently as a better choice than his Democratic opponents.

Democratic campaign consultant Darry Sragow, who has battled Wilson three times, said: “He always winds up being an acceptable, if not ideal, choice.”

Larry Thomas, one of Wilson’s oldest friends and aides, said a clue to Wilson’s success is his consistency. Some of those around him wish at times that Wilson was a more charismatic speaker, or painted a grander vision with lofty goals, he said.

But Thomas added: “I do think the pundits and experts tend to overemphasize the popularity quotient. The enduring thing about him, from virtually the beginning of his political career, is that he has been hugely successful by any traditional standard.

“He has done it not by trying to remake himself . . . not trying to be something that he’s not. He’s not a pretender. He’s not by nature a person who is in this business to be a performer,” Thomas said.

Longtime political analyst Mervin Field commented: “He’s very sure-footed. He may not be taking giant steps, but he’s very sure-footed.”

And in California, governors tend to get reelected unless they have committed some overriding error, added Field, founder of the Field Poll. The last governor who failed in a bid for a second term was Democrat Culbert L. Olsen, who lost to Earl Warren in 1942.

If Wilson does win this November, the seeming political miracle may not be all that miraculous, after the contest is carefully analyzed.

First, Brown’s early poll margins--based largely on Brown’s name recognition and Wilson’s low approval ratings--clearly were inflated beyond what anyone could expect them to be by November.

Wilson’s pollster, Dick Dresner, founder and president of Dresner and Wickers, said he believes that Wilson’s dismal job ratings in the days after the budget stalemate with the Legislature in 1992 did not accurately reflect Wilson’s ability to win votes once the campaign got under way.

Dresner said that his polls indicated all along that many of the people who were giving Wilson “poor” or “fair” job ratings still were willing to vote for him. Although the poll respondents may have despaired of the state’s economic situation, they would not necessarily hold Wilson to blame.

“The attitude is, ‘OK, given this monstrous situation, the guy’s done as well as could be expected.’ The voters have put Pete Wilson squarely in context. They don’t blame him for the Cold War and defense cuts,” Dresner said.

Bill Carrick, a Democrat who advised Dianne Feinstein’s 1990 gubernatorial campaign against Wilson, said the governor manages to define the issues on his terms, using “an almost radar-like ability to hone in on the middle class of California . . . their attitude about government at any given moment.”

Carrick further argues that Wilson has been able to turn his lack of charisma into an advantage. Wilson’s gray, “Midwestern droll” personality is familiar, even comforting, to many California voters, Carrick said.

The older voters are those who immigrated to California in the Depression and during World War II, largely from the Midwest. The younger ones are their children. They are a critical part of the California voting pool--predominantly white, middle-class and conservative.

In Carrick’s scenario, the bland Wilsonian political figure is not the exception in California politics, but the norm. The stereotype of California as the place where movie actors such as Ronald Reagan transform their stardom into instant political success tends to originate with Eastern political pundits.

“All of those things we know and see in Wilson that we see as deficiencies in a candidate--somehow, he’s managed to turn them into strengths,” Carrick said.

Khachigian, a veteran Republican strategist, calls Wilson “an unlikely pol.”

“The Yale literature major comes out in him when he talks. . . . He still dresses like a Yalie at the reunion,” said Khachigian, who argues that Wilson’s speaking ability is better than his reputation.

Khachigian also emphasized the importance of Wilson’s financial base and its benefits.

“Pete has created an enormously broad, loyal spectrum of givers. . . . Whatever he’s wanted to do, he’s had the resources to do it,” he said.

Wilson’s combative side reminds some of his mentor, former President Nixon.

“He has something that’s very necessary in politics, and which is by no means bad in my judgment,” Khachigian added. “You sometimes have to demonize the opposition. For a pol, that’s a very positive virtue. You do have to win battles. But like Nixon, Pete seems to have a way of kissing and making up with sworn enemies after a long battle.”

But a critical factor in Wilson’s success also has been a combination of luck and timing--primarily the events that determined his Democratic opponents in the general elections.

“Sometimes it’s better to be lucky than be good,” said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster based in Washington. “Pete Wilson is a person who always seems to be lucky.”

Wilson’s Democratic foes in the 1982 and 1988 Senate races were then-Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown and Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy. Brown was relatively unpopular at that time, and McCarthy was perhaps the only major politician in California who was less exciting than Wilson.

Wilson won each contest by a margin of 7%, comfortable but not landslides.

In 1990, Wilson faced a far more formidable challenge when he ran for a first term as governor against former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein. Wilson won by just 3.5% of the vote.

The Wilson luck seemed to be running thin this year.

Hart noted: “In 1990 and 1994, Wilson runs against women and 1992 was the Year of the Woman. He’s fortunate. He misses both of those waves. . . . He seems to always survive.”

Political Scorecard

19 days to go before Californians go to the polls

THE GOVERNOR’S RACE

* What Happened Wednesday: Democratic nominee Kathleen Brown spoke at Pasadena High School, lashing out at Gov. Pete Wilson for his support of Proposition 187. Wilson held events in Long Beach, Santa Clara, Sacramento and Red Bluff, visiting “success story” businesses.

* What’s Ahead: Wilson is taping a television public affairs show in Burbank this morning and addressing a newspaper editorial board this afternoon. Brown has no public events scheduled.

THE SENATE RACE

* What Happened Wednesday: Rep. Mike Huffington’s bus tour stopped in South El Monte, Covina, Claremont and Alta Loma. Sen. Dianne Feinstein attended a luncheon in Stockton.

* What’s Ahead: Feinstein plans today to take part in a forum on gun violence in Los Angeles, address a Chamber of Commerce luncheon and attend a fund-raiser with Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich. Huffington continues his bus trip with stops in Montclair, Palm Springs and Cathedral City.

NOTABLE QUOTES

“Now I know what it’s like to be a rock star: Lights! Great crowd! And a beautiful wife!”

--Mike Huffington at a fund-raising party at the House of Blues in Los Angeles

LIGHTER NOTE

In radio ads airing for Tom McClintock, the underfinanced Republican candidate for state controller, a narrator says of McClintock: “He’s tighter than a bullfrog’s behind. And that, my friends, is watertight.”