Michigan Vote Heralds Turmoil for Democrats : Strategists’ Actions Could Prove Divisive After Jackson’s Big Victory Disrupts Dukakis’ Drive

MILWAUKEE —  The Rev. Jesse Jackson’s dramatic victory in the Michigan caucuses has reshaped the 1988 Democratic presidential race, escalating conflicting pressures which seem likely to assure that the contest will be marred by confusion and controversy to its bitter end.

What appears most evident is that Jackson’s surging candidacy, having capped Super Tuesday victories in five Deep South states with successes from Alaska to Puerto Rico even before Saturday’s triumph in Michigan, is currently the most dynamic force in the Democratic competition.

Equally evident is that the longtime front-runner status of Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis has been badly shaken. The Michigan results underlined the New Englander’s previous failure in the March 17 Illinois primary to win blue-collar support in the sort of Northern industrial state the Democrats must carry in November to have a chance to regain the White House.

Two Currents at Work

But interviews with party leaders and opposing strategists here in Wisconsin, the next major battleground after Tuesday’s contest in Connecticut, also made clear that at least two other political currents are at work. And they tend to pull the party in opposite directions.

One has the objective of stopping Jackson, by rallying behind Dukakis as still the most likely nominee. The other scenario contemplates discarding Dukakis and finding another alternative to Jackson, perhaps Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr. or perhaps someone not yet in the field.

Here is a brief look at both possible courses of action:

--Stop Jackson. In a sense this effort was already under way before the Michigan results Saturday extended Jackson’s lead in the popular vote and brought him almost into a flatfooted tie with Dukakis in the contest for national convention delegates. It was signaled by the flurry of endorsements Dukakis received last week from such prominent party leaders as Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd and Gov. William A. O’Neill, both of Connecticut.

To be sure, some of these endorsements may have been motivated more by a general concern with avoiding a long and divisive struggle for the nomination rather than by a specific animus toward Jackson. But one Connecticut party leader close to O’Neill and Dodd said that to some extent, at least, their support for Dukakis was spurred by what he called a desire to “avoid having to deal with Jesse at the convention.”

One problem with carrying out this scenario is that it is bound to stir intense antagonism among Jackson’s supporters. And the argument that the rush to Dukakis was mainly a unity move, rather than an anti-Jackson move, would be less persuasive now that the vote in Michigan will force many who had scoffed at Jackson’s candidacy to take him more seriously as a contender for the nomination.

“It would be too transparent,” said Ed Garvey, a Milwaukee labor lawyer and candidate for the Democratic Senate nomination in this state, who supports Illinois Sen. Paul Simon.

--Dump Dukakis. This approach is much more problematical than the other, because its success would depend on the finding of a willing candidate who could defeat both Dukakis and Jackson in the remaining primaries and would also stand a better chance than the governor of winning in November.

Limits of Dukakis’ Appeal

That it is even being considered at all by party leaders at this late date, despite Dukakis’ string of successes and his substantial financial and organizational resources, is a reflection of what many in the party point to as the limitations of Dukakis’ appeal.

“Dukakis just doesn’t sell,” said Peter Kelly, former Democratic Party treasurer and now senior political adviser to the Gore campaign. Kelly’s view also is held by a number of party leaders who are still neutral. “He’s so damn flat,” Kelly said. “He doesn’t get inside you.”

But the evidence is so far lacking that Kelly’s man, Gore, does much to stir the emotions of voters outside the South, where he scored his biggest successes. And New York Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, still viewed by many as the party’s most potent candidate, less than two weeks ago reiterated his refusal to enter the race.

Jackson Outlook Bright

Meanwhile, the near-term outlook for Jackson appears bright. While most analysts regard Dukakis as a shoo-in in Connecticut, next door to his own state of Massachusetts, here on the more neutral ground of Wisconsin many give Jackson a good chance to come in first in the April 5 primary.

A poll being published by the Milwaukee Sentinel today shows him getting support from about 25% of Democrats who said they were likely voters, compared to 28% for Dukakis.

The survey, taken from March 17 to 22 before the Michigan caucuses were held, has a sampling error of plus or minus 8 points. But because blacks represented only about 2% of those interviewed, the survey results suggest that Jackson has the potential for getting about 20% of the white vote in Wisconsin.

The importance of such a demonstration of white support would be at least as significant as the 81 convention delegates at stake in this primary because it would help offset the argument that racial prejudice would make the election of a black candidate impossible.

The point is clearly a sensitive one for Jackson and his supporters. When reporters asked Jackson at a press conference here over the weekend if he was concerned that as the Democratic campaign increasingly developed into a two-man race between him and Dukakis racial feelings would heighten, Jackson’s partisans booed and jeered.

Jackson himself sidestepped the question though he managed in response to make a slighting reference to Dukakis’ short stature. “Our color, our height, our background is self-evident,” he said. “We should choose a President based on the boldness of leadership, the soundness of ideas, the length of service.”

Reject Race Issue

Actually, many white critics of Jackson reject the notion that their opposition to his candidacy is based on race and cite instead personal and policy grounds. “There is something about Jesse that scares people,” says Austin Ranney, UC Berkeley political scientist and a longtime Democratic activist. “His charisma makes his blackness more threatening.”

Ranney like others also says that Jackson’s positions on issues, particularly on foreign policy, make him an “ideological extremist.” Says Ranney: “I think he is truly out in left field.”

But whatever they think of his views, friend and foe alike now agree that Jackson will be a major force in the campaign. Mark Siegel, a Democratic Party executive committee member and known as an astute calculator of delegate strength, estimates that by the time the last primary vote is counted in California on June 7, Jackson will have 1,075 votes, compared to 1,300 for Dukakis, out of 2,081 needed for a convention majority.

Such a close finish would make it mathematically and psychologically difficult for the 645 so-called super delegates--party and elected officials officially uncommitted--to put Dukakis over the top by massing behind him as the leader in the delegate contest.

“What we need from Michael is a victory,” said Siegel, who is concerned about Jackson’s growing strength though he does not publicly support any candidate.

Urge Change in Message

Many Democrats, including some Dukakis supporters, think the governor could win more consistently by making his message more compelling. They want him to place less stress on his experience in Massachusetts and instead focus more on how he, as President, would deal with the concerns of blue-collar and middle-class voters.

But when Dukakis was asked if he thought a change in his approach was indicated as a result of his Illinois and Michigan setbacks, he said: “No, I’m going to continue to run my race and be the candidate who runs hard on the issue of the country’s economic future.”

Dukakis could take some satisfaction from the Michigan results in the weak third-place finish there by Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, who had once been regarded as Dukakis’ most formidable opponent. Gephardt aides had said before the vote that unless he made a strong showing in Michigan, he would find it hard to raise enough funds to continue an active candidacy. He is expected to announce his plans today.

With Gephardt apparently tottering on the brink of dropping out, and Simon still weak despite his victory in his native Illinois, Gore must be regarded as Dukakis’ chief adversary.

Gore’s advisers, who professed to be cheered by Dukakis’ defeat in Michigan--where Gore made only a nominal effort--say they are counting on a strong showing in Wisconsin to set the stage for a big breakthrough against Dukakis in the April 19 New York primary.

Intend to Finish First

Their objective, says Peter Kelly, is to finish first, or at least ahead of everyone but Jackson, who many now regard as the favorite in the state.

Wisconsin is considered a very liberal state. But Gore’s advisers point out that Dukakis, Jackson and Simon all will be competing for the liberal vote here. The preliminary Gore strategy appears to be to run to the right of Dukakis and the rest, and get the backing of Republicans and independents who are free to vote in the state’s open primary.

“About 50% of the people who vote in the primary consider themselves independents,” said Robert Friebert, Gore’s chairman here. Friebert led Jimmy Carter’s successful primary campaign here in 1980 against Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

DELEGATES’ PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES

Republicans

1,139 delegates needed to secure nomination

Bush: 788

Dole: 178

Uncommitted: 72

Robertson: 17

Others: 0

Democrats

2,081 delegates needed to secure nomination

Dukakis: 603.55

Jackson: 597.55

Gore: 362.8Uncommitted: 362.6Simon: 171.5Gephardt: 167Others: 0Source: Associated Press