DOLE CAMPAIGN : SOME FEAR GOP TO GIVE UP ON STATE LIKE BUSH.

Byline: Doug Willis Associated Press 

By this time four years ago, President Bush had already conceded defeat in California, and some Republicans see eerie similarities today in the choices facing Bob Dole's presidential campaign.

The bottom-line question for Republicans is simple: Will Dole wage a vigorous campaign for California's 54 electoral votes, or will he focus his time and money elsewhere, as Bush did, depressing the GOP turnout and undermining Republican candidates further down the California ballot?

The new GOP majority in the state Assembly is especially at risk, along with 1994 congressional gains which gave Republicans parity with Democrats in the California delegation for the first time since the 1950s.

Bush's pullout from California was a ``tragic mistake'' which caused GOP losses in congressional and legislative races across the state, says Gov. Pete Wilson. He promises Dole's 1996 campaign, for which he is state chairman, is absolutely committed to an all-out California effort.

That promise has been backed so far by at least $1.7 million in television ads, plus a half-dozen personal appearances by Dole in California since the Republican National Convention last month.

But the doubts among GOP activists continue.

``People keep bringing it up, but I don't think it's a legitimate question,'' said California Republican Party Chairman John Herrington.

``There has been what I would call almost a disinformation campaign, or certainly a concerted effort, by Democratic consultants in particular, to try to persuade the world that the Dole campaign has already left California,'' Wilson added.

In fact, Clinton's campaign staff and other Democrats are regularly mocking ``the incredible shrinking commitment'' of the Dole campaign in California, and their barbs gain some credibility from the parallels between the Bush and Dole campaigns here.

After an early September poll in 1992 reported Clinton leading Bush in California by 21 percentage points, 49-28, Bush canceled California television ads and never stepped foot in the state again for the rest of the campaign.

Earlier this month, a Field Poll of California voters reported Clinton leading Dole by 22 percentage points, 55-33, renewing both the alarm among GOP activists and the predictions by Democrats of Clinton coattails sweeping out GOP majorities both in the state Capitol and Congress.

Most vulnerable is 1994's eight-seat Republican gain in the Assembly, which gave them a 41-vote majority in that 80-member body to end a quarter-century of Democratic control.

Assembly Democratic leader Richard Katz of Panorama City says fewer than 10,000 total votes gave Republicans five of those seats. His top targets in November include Republicans Peter Frusetta of Hollister, Bill Hoge of South Pasadena, Steve Kuykendall of Long Beach, Steve Baldwin of La Mesa and Jim Battin of Palm Desert.

In Congress, Republican Frank Riggs of Napa was swept out of office by the Clinton-led Democratic tide of 1992 and swept back in with the Republican rebound of 1994. Both races were so close that a relatively small difference in Democratic and Republican turnout probably determined the winner. The same is likely again this year.

Republican incumbents Steve Horn of Lakewood, Andrea Seastrand of Santa Barbara and Bill Baker of Walnut Creek are also regarded as especially vulnerable to minor fluctuations in voter turnout.

Despite the similarity between Dole's standing today and Bush's four years ago, political consultants say there are also important differences.

One is the presence of California native Jack Kemp on the Dole ticket. Even though Kemp hasn't been a California resident for three decades, he is an asset which Bush didn't have to try to close the gap in California.

In the last half-century, Republicans have carried the state seven of eight times they've had a Californian on their ticket, but only one in four times they haven't.

The 1992 election was also different in that there were two U.S. Senate races in California, giving both parties an extra layer of campaign structure absent this year between the presidential and local level.

``There are similarities, but this isn't 1992,'' said GOP campaign consultant Sal Russo.

``California Republicans hated it, but I think Bush made the right decision in 1992,'' Russo said, because there were other states where Bush had better chances of putting together the needed 270 Electoral College votes.

``But I don't think Bob Dole can be elected president unless he is competitive in California. He doesn't necessarily have to win California, but he has to be competitive to draw Clinton's attention here. That forces him to invest heavily. Otherwise, Clinton's resources can be used in other states,'' added Russo, who is not affiliated with the Dole campaign.

Clinton's actions appear to validate Russo's analysis. Despite his 22-point lead, Clinton made the 27th visit of his presidency to California last week, and the state continues to be a frequent stop for Vice President Al Gore, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and other administration officials.

Democratic political consultant Jeff Raimundo agrees that Dole must fight for California despite the long odds, but he puts on a different partisan twist.

``If Dole were to write off every state he's weak in, he'd have to write off every state,'' Raimundo said. ``His campaign may make the judgment he can't write off California, no matter how bad the numbers.''

Russo and Raimundo also agree that a vigorous presidential campaign can make a difference of several percentage points in other races.

``It has a tremendous impact on down-ticket races. That's especially important in legislative races, where a few seats tip the balance of the entire house,'' Raimundo said.

``It not just rallying the troops. You lose the registration and get-out-the-vote money'' without an active presidential campaign, Russo said. ``It's losing that money that really hurts you in other races.''

CAPTION(S):

Photo

Photo: Bob Dole

Stumping in California