L.A. Politic

22 April 2005 |permalink | email article

With apologies to Lewis Carroll and the twinlike characters he created in 1869, the May 17 showdown between incumbent Mayor Jim Hahn and challenger Antonio Villaraigosa has become a yawner between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Sad to say, as the two liberal Democrats enter the final phase of the campaign, there is hardly a dime’s worth of difference to distinguish them on many issues: affordable housing, more cops, traffic gridlock and, all of a sudden, education. What’s missing is a powerful articulation of a blueprint for civic leadership. Instead, more mindless campaign rhetoric. Neither seems capable of a compelling message to arouse the electorate. 

Hahn, who finished behind Villaraigosa in the 2001 primary, came from behind to win. He’s in the same position this time, only much further behind in the polls than the former assembly speaker. He claims credit for many successes on his watch. But, as The Los Angeles Daily News points out, “none of the bad.” The newspaper, which backed Bob Hertzberg in the primary, has not yet endorsed in the runoff, and is unlikely to remain neutral, Always a bland politician, Hahn seems to performs best as an underdog. Whether he will again be the “comeback kid” is questionable.

The charismatic Villaraigosa ran an upbeat campaign four years ago, refusing to criticize or attack Hahn or his tactics. This time he’s pointing out the mayor’s failings in running the city and aggressively defending himself from attacks that he is too liberal and soft on crime. The Los Angeles Times has endorsed him, as have a majority of political and civic leaders. But the paper has criticized his recent blandness in debates while urging him to both energize and inspire voters. Too often, Villaraigosa has seemed to rope-a-dope and coast on a big lead, generally believed to have shrunk in recent weeks. His challenge is to close the deal in a convincing way.

A static and uneven TV studio debate format this spring has not proven to be an ideal forum for either candidate to present an unfiltered message about where they would lead Los Angeles. A “town meeting” format, popularized by Bill Clinton, and a staple of the Bush and Kerry campaigns last year, would be an effective way for the unscripted candidates - alone or together - to face voters up close and answer tough questions. This type of venue would increase media interest. But don’t bet the ranch that either campaign will risk such exposure, although Villaraigosa has the most to gain if he can reach down deep and show some passion.

Beginning next week, expensive TV and direct mail by each side may start to bombard bored voters about crime, corruption and public trust. Everyone believes the negative hits will be far more shrill and misleading than in 2001 when Hahn had a clear edge in demonizing his opponent.

I believe the outcome of the race will depend on two variables:

1) Which side has the best GOTV effort. The primary turnout was just 28 percent. If that number falls below 25 percent, Hahn, who won by 40,000 votes last time, could upset the odds. Unlikely, but possible.

2) While Villaraigosa has raised the most campaign money, Hahn again this year has assumed a substantial early lead in independent spending on his behalf. As of yesterday, the mayor has benefited from $402,632, primarily from city unions - with much more on the way. Villaraigosa, in contrast, has received $121,865, less than a third as much. Huge, last minute independent expenditures for media buys last time made the difference in the underfunded Hahn’s win.

51241