THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Political Memo; A Modest Perot Bandwagon Could Upset Big Apple Carts

By ANDREW ROSENTHAL,

Published: Sunday, April 19, 1992

Ross Perot's flirtation with an independent bid for the White House has thrown a sudden wild card into the race that both President Bush and Gov. Bill Clinton regard as a danger. But neither side has yet figured out exactly how much damage the billionaire could do or precisely how to deal with him.

For now, the two campaigns have no real strategy beyond hoping that Mr. Perot will prove too thin-skinned for the pressure of public scrutiny and that his popularity will diminish without much effort from either of the opposing camps.

Mr. Perot threatens Mr. Bush's effort to overcome public doubts about his management skills and his attempts to escape the "throw the bums out" mood of the early primaries.

But Mr. Perot could also undermine Mr. Clinton's attempt to present himself as a credible alternative to Mr. Bush. If he withstands the inevitable dissection of his character and business dealings, Mr. Perot could end up helping Mr. Bush keep attention on questions about Mr. Clinton's trustworthiness. Hoping History Repeats

While strategists in both parties talk about how to counter a Perot drive, the campaigns are consumed with more immediate problems: Mr. Clinton with challenging Mr. Bush directly, and the President with pulling out of a nose dive and giving a meandering campaign some direction.

For now, they are contemplating the interloper warily, trying to avoid direct engagement and hoping that Mr. Perot will stay out. If he gets in, both sides hope for a repeat of history that shows independents, like George C. Wallace in 1968 and John B. Anderson in 1980, soar in the spring and crash in the fall.

"Our plan is to ignore him," a senior Bush strategist said as the President retreated to his family estate here for Easter weekend. "Our plan is to ignore everybody but ourselves, to focus on staying Presidential and laying out an agenda and not be distracted into exchanges with Clinton or Perot."

George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Clinton's deputy campaign manager, said Mr. Perot is "not even on the ballot yet." He added, "Why would we want to start fighting another shadow?"

Mr. Clinton told reporters on Thursday that Mr. Perot "has high national name recognition, and you all haven't had the chance to put him though the meat grinder yet." He added that Mr. Perot was enjoying the politician's ideal of being "known by everybody and criticized by no one."

Mr. Clinton is right that Mr. Perot is untested, but he may overestimate his standing. A New York Times/CBS News poll of registered voters, conducted March 26-29, showed that twice as many had a favorable opinion of Mr. Perot, 16 percent, as had an unfavorable opinion. But 66 percent said they had not heard enough about him to form an opinion. The telephone survey of 1,638 adults had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Polls now show Mr. Perot drawing about equally from Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton. "If I was sitting in either camp, I would be very concerned," said Edward C. Rollins, a Republican strategist, "but I would be most concerned if I were sitting in the President's camp, because this is a guy who is going to spend $100 million arguing against the status quo."

Assuming that Mr. Perot does run, politicians in both parties expect Mr. Perot's standing -- between the 16 percent in the New York Times poll and about 25 percent in others -- to deflate as the race becomes more traditionally partisan. Mr. Wallace and Mr. Anderson started with about 25 percent each. Mr. Wallace finished with 13.5 percent of the vote, Mr. Anderson with less than 7 percent. Tapping Into Resentment

But Howard H. Baker Jr., the former Republican Senator from Tennessee and White House Chief of Staff, said: "We've had all sorts of third-party and equivalent candidates in the past. But we've never had one where you combine such a tide of anti-incumbency and a man who has got two to three billion dollars. Put those together, and nobody knows what will happen."

Mr. Perot's political message strikes to the rage of those middle-class voters who never shared in the prosperity of the 1980's and their disgust with Washington, just as Mr. Wallace galvanized blue-collar resentment of the civil rights movement and desegregation in both the North and South.

"You see these outcroppings of anger and frustration about every decade," said Lance Tarrance, the Republican poll-taker. "This time, it's about economic management. But it all has to do with perceived weaknesses."

In the November vote, Mr. Tarrance and others said, Mr. Perot could only hope to be the deciding factor by drawing enough voters from one candidate, or to deadlock the election and throw it to the House of Representatives to decide. In that eventuality, which seems unlikely now, Mr. Clinton would stand to benefit, since the House is controlled by a strong Democratic majority. Looking Toward 1996?

More broadly, Mr. Perot could force the two parties to amend their policies and tactics. "George Wallace set the agenda for the Republican Party nationally for the next 20 years," said Jack Bass, co-author of the "The Transformation of Southern Politics," published by Basic Books in 1976. "Many of their targets were first identified by George Wallace attacking the Southern liberal establishment."

Mr. Perot could also put himself in a position to make another bid for the Presidency in 1996, when the Republican nomination will be wide open.

Mr. Bush's problems with Mr. Perot were evident in the New York Times/CBS News poll. Among those who said they would vote for Mr. Perot in a three-way race, only 9 percent said they approved of Mr. Bush's handling of the economy, while 88 percent said they disapproved.

Mr. Perot has already started reminding voters of the way he amassed his billions and took on the General Motors Corporation by forcing his way onto its board of directors. Both Will and Wallet

"When one considers President Bush's line that we've got the will but we don't have the wallet, well, Perot represents someone with both the will and the wallet -- and the record as a problem-solver," said Kirk O'Donnell, a Democratic lobbyist.

The Bush camp's response forecasts how it might attack Mr. Perot. "Perot's got a lot of contradictions, liberal on some things, conservative on others," a senior Bush aide said. "He's not an anti-Government figure. He's a guy who made most of his money off the Government. He's a guy who's used the system and the old-boy network."

Mr. Perot, who supports legalized abortion and gun control, could interfere with Mr. Clinton's plan to draw voters who are unhappy with Mr. Bush on social issues. In Texas, he has long been active in education policy, a subject that Mr. Clinton is hoping to dominate, and he is a true non-politician.

Mr. O'Donnell said the challenge for Mr. Clinton is to "focus on becoming the candidate of change and not allow Perot to capture that mantle."

"Clinton must come forward as someone who has specific answers to the significant problems the nation faces," he said. Challenge in the Rockies

The Bush campaign sees Mr. Perot as a challenge in the Rockies, where Mr. Bush has never been very strong, as another complication in an already muddled California race, and as a problem in Texas, a state Mr. Bush cannot afford to lose.

"We would have to address Texas early," a top Bush aide said. "But he's repeated the need for a state income tax in the last year, and that's anathema down there. Pro-gun control is not going to take any votes from us."

The Bush campaign does not see Mr. Perot as a threat in the South, but he would complicate the race for Ronald Reagan's middle-class voters.

"Perot won't pull old dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, but he'll get a lot of peole who voted for Democrats way back and would never vote for Dukakis, but probably voted for Jimmy Carter the first time and then Reagan the second time," said Wayne Greenhaw, author of "Elephants in the Cottonfields," an influential work on Southern Republicans.