Mayor Sam's Hotsheet for Thursday
Ron Kaye and I were both interviewed for a piece by T.A. Frank in The New Republic about Tuesday's elections. Frank keenly observes how screwed up our City is when he notes that the election "failed to make the front of The Los Angeles Times."
Calitics deftly wraps up why Tuesday's election was a dismal failure for the Mayor.
To top that off one of the Mayor's picks for school board has either narrowly won or perhaps narrowly lost a race that should have been a cakewalk for her.
Continuing on this theme, our friend Jill Stewart at the LA Weekly says "The anti-Villaragiosa blogosphere will now have bragging rights to say Villaraigosa's key opponent was his own record." I guess we just did.
And it appears, just like Dick Nixon, we may not have Walter Moore to kick around any more.
Another Mayoral candidate we probably won't hear from again anytime soon is Craig X. Rubin. Rubin held his "victory" party appropriately at "The Comedy Store" and told supporters "The party starts at 9 p.m. and is expected to last until Rubin and his supporters hear the words, 'And the winner is Rubin'" No word if the party is still going on at this time.
Following the election, LA's leaders are dealing with what could be a ominous budget situation. Rick Orlov reports that "Interim City Administrative Officer Ray Ciranna predicted the budget deficit - $430 million this year - will worsen as revenue declines in virtually all areas, including taxes on sales, hotel rooms and parking." Of course the Mayor and City Clowncil have been spending like drunken sailors for the last four years so they only have themselves to blame.
Speaking of City spending, LA Weekly readers are not too happy about our $300,000 a year Council members. One reader, Nick Antonicello of Venice Beach chimes in with the following question, "How does Bill Rosendahl, with his bombastic and clownlike approach to government service, earn more than a U.S. senator or member of Congress?"
Calitics deftly wraps up why Tuesday's election was a dismal failure for the Mayor.
He ended up with just 56% of the vote after running a dismissive non-campaign where he refused to debate and spent almost no time in the city. One of his top lieutenants, Jack Weiss, is now in a runoff for city attorney despite spending millions on his campaign. And Measure B, the solar power initiative which the mayor backed, is too close to call at this hour, as provisionals and late absentees are tabulated.
To top that off one of the Mayor's picks for school board has either narrowly won or perhaps narrowly lost a race that should have been a cakewalk for her.
Continuing on this theme, our friend Jill Stewart at the LA Weekly says "The anti-Villaragiosa blogosphere will now have bragging rights to say Villaraigosa's key opponent was his own record." I guess we just did.
And it appears, just like Dick Nixon, we may not have Walter Moore to kick around any more.
Another Mayoral candidate we probably won't hear from again anytime soon is Craig X. Rubin. Rubin held his "victory" party appropriately at "The Comedy Store" and told supporters "The party starts at 9 p.m. and is expected to last until Rubin and his supporters hear the words, 'And the winner is Rubin'" No word if the party is still going on at this time.
Following the election, LA's leaders are dealing with what could be a ominous budget situation. Rick Orlov reports that "Interim City Administrative Officer Ray Ciranna predicted the budget deficit - $430 million this year - will worsen as revenue declines in virtually all areas, including taxes on sales, hotel rooms and parking." Of course the Mayor and City Clowncil have been spending like drunken sailors for the last four years so they only have themselves to blame.
Speaking of City spending, LA Weekly readers are not too happy about our $300,000 a year Council members. One reader, Nick Antonicello of Venice Beach chimes in with the following question, "How does Bill Rosendahl, with his bombastic and clownlike approach to government service, earn more than a U.S. senator or member of Congress?"
Labels: bill rosendahl, city budget, craig x rubin, jill stewart, mayor antonio villaraigosa, t.a. frank, the new republic, walter moore
Posted by Michael Higby @ 3/05/2009 02:00:00 AM
21 Comments:
PROP 8!
http://www.calchannel.com/images/tcc_live.html
From today's Times editorial - "Many political consultants prefer that their electorates be disengaged and their turnouts low. That way they can concentrate on a select group of voters they consider reliable, and can manage an election and direct its outcome with carefully targeted campaign mailers and get-out-the-vote precinct walking. It's a cynical expression of distrust in democracy."
Parke Skelto's politcal strategy has never been so ably described. So much for that progressive notion of empowering the disenfranchised - when Skelton directs a campaign it is just politics as usual.
"spending like drunken sailors" link = TEH FAIL.
I wanted a picture of actual drunken sailors; you know, something along the lines of this EPIC DRUNKEN SAILOR PICTURE FOR THE WIN!
xoxo
LA Weekly. Great story by Daniel Heimpel and Jill Stewart
...Villaraigosa is considering a run for governor in 2010, and, as L.A. Weekly has previously reported, he has spent much of his time as mayor focused on appearances at photo ops and other press-oriented events. Statewide polls have shown him trailing Attorney General Jerry Brown and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in a mock gubernatorial election, and Villaraigosa still suffers high negatives following an affair that ruined his marriage.
Politics at this level is big business and all the candidates in this election with a few exceptions, treated it like a walk in the park.
Zuma Tard will run again, Hell, he'll run in every election until he drops, because he never ate so well in the three years he has been a bum, and never had so much money to spend on his coffee and gas.
So, for him, it is a cottage business, but still a business, in a weird sort of way.
Walter had to take time out from his real business, the one that puts bread on the table, so he is unlikely to do this again, I think.
Real candidates start early, get endorsements and introductions and build a wide base from which to receive not just votes, but contributions.
They hire professionals to organize this so that their time is spent well making calls and soliciting donations.
When the itme comes for the elction, they have a base, they have money to purchase TV time, mailers, slates, etc. Then they walk precincts to make sure people vote for them.
Clowning around in City Hall and other venues doesn't get you votes, it loses them. An occasional appearance on a rafio talk show is generally good, that is if they host doesn't diss you. That loses votes.
David Saltsburg is a lost soul. I feel real pity for him, because he honestly thought he had a chance. That was never true, it was just Higby jacking him up and using him to generate blogging points.
Higby, you owe Saltsburg an apology for stringing him along.
Shame on you.
Mayor V. has a history of moving on to the next job just about the time people figure out he isn't qualified for the one he currently holds. Hey for all the clamor, he was only the Assembly speaker for a handful of months.
This is how conmen operate. You sells them the band instruments and the uniform, promise to start up a boys band, and then you blow town once the checks clear.
If you don't believe that's how he always operates, just ask his constituents in CD14 when he briefly there as a councilmember. And, also check in with his
80 FAKE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCHES
He really is the king of the "one-night stands" as the much derided private mailer opined in 2002-03. L.A. City should just be grateful -- or maybe resentful that the timing of an open seat for governor forced him into running for a 1-1/2 night stand as mayor here.
(c. 2003: "OH, shame, how could ANYONE use such vulgar terms... 'one night stand' is a terrible affront to family man Tony V. and his beloved wife and mother of (some of) his children... I'm shocked, SHOCKED!"
And, blow that canned old response out Mirthala's arse, while you're at it.
Mayor Sam, you should be embarrassed at your P.T. Barnum treatment of Zuma Dogg.
He is like that character Beetlejuice on The Howard Stern Show. People at city hall riled him up about this issue, then that issue, and after enough people do this, he believes that he can become Mayor of the second largest city in the United States despite the fact that he is homeless and apparently not the economist he listed himself as.
I'm ashamed at evening typing this to describe what we've all witnessed. I am not saying this is 100% your fault; but you're certainly culpable.
Shame on you.
David, you are wonderful. But you will be better off going back home, wiser, but broke. Maybe you can be mayor of the town you came from. But don't let people like Mayor Sam whisper bad ideas to you. They are out to only help themselves by getting you to say the critical things that they are all afraid to utter in public.
Antonio's Field Poll numbers taken just yesterday and released today, show that he's tied with Gerry Brown should he run for Gov, they're WAY ahead of Newsom, and the others are way down the list from there. Only DiFi is higher but she's unlikely to run preferring to stay in DC for more power. So the local pundits are way off.
I think there was a skewed electorate, the people who wanted to vote down B, many in CD5 who want no development (including the small but very active group backing Vahedi) -- leaving CD5 with the two worst candidates, and those most pandering. Also those fueled by talk radio. (Both these 2 candidates pandered to them too.) The rest of the public just didn't show up or pay attention to what seemed a minor election to them unfortunately. In a general election results will be different.
The real story is how every incumbent with even a nominal opponent, like the ones challenging Rosendahl and Hahn with no money or name recognition, all got between 25-30% anyway.
"The real story is how every incumbent with even a nominal opponent, like the ones challenging Rosendahl and Hahn with no money or name recognition, all got between 25-30% anyway."
This is no mystery, this is Elections 101. It's also why people like Walter Moore pick up the first 10-15 percent of the votes cast for them. (And why Antonio did 4 years ago).
In EVERY American election, there are the "anti" people, the "throw the bums out" people, and the "if they're incumbents, they must be corrupt" voters.
There is an AUTOMATIC "anti" vote in every election (in L.A., for example, a large portion comes from registered Republicans who know that L.A. is a one-party Democrat town, and nearly every City official is NOT from their party). On "principal" alone, the always vote, and they always vote against the incumbent, in L.A.
So even if the incumbent actually did a good job, and on weekends, came over and mowed the lawns of every "anti" person in his district, the "other" guy... ANY other guy would still get at least 20 percent of the vote, 25-30 percent in less one-party areas of the city.
Hell, you could run a reincarnated Joseph Smith for mayor of Salt Lake City against a reincarnated Richard Nixon, and Nixon would still get at least 20 percent of the vote, without even campaigning, all from the "anti's".
"Beetle-Dogg"
I like that setup.
And we CERTAINLY had a "Whack Pack" of misfit challengers, didn't we, led by Wacko Walter, himself.
whack pack
now that's funny
led by the biggest whack, that Craig X dude.
talk about delusions.
he swore on KABC radio that he had such a big fan base and that he would definitely win.
lmfao boy.
1.5 percent.
that's actually for every 200 votes cast , he got 3 votes.
as I said.
lmfao
I had fun. I learned. And, I'll be back better than before.
The guy trying to explain the fresh Field poll is misunderstanding the findings, which were aimed at figuring out how Dianne Feinstein would do if she made a bid for the Democratic seat in the California governor's race. She'd win the nomination. The Field Poll shows that she would steal a huge number of votes away from Jerry Brown, who is liked by the same voters and would win the nomination if she stayed out. Deeper in the Field Poll you learn that Jerry Brown is still well ahead of Villaraigosa because voters immediately rush back to Jerry Brown if DiFi is not a choice. Only when DiFi is added to the poll -- an unlikelihood in real life -- do Brown and Villaraigosa appear to be tied. That tie is something of a mirage (or you might say nightmare). She is not likely to leave her powerful spot in the US Senate for a crappy job working with the world's crappiest legislature. One interesting bit is that Gavin Newsom does not look strong. But I don't think he just spent $3 million heavily promoting himself on TV and in mailers in a run for mayor, as Villaraigosa just did. Anyway, in the real-life scenario, Brown is out in front.
Could you imagine Jerry Brown in a debate with Villaraigosa? Brown would absolutely destroy Mr. "We Clean your Toilets"
9:16: Gerry Brown is only 4 pts ahead of Antonio IF DiFi opts out, and that's statistically insignifiant; otherwise they're tied, with Antonio higher south and Gerry north. Maybe Gerry's the more experienced debater and sharper mind as a lawyer, but he's also close to 70, has lots of negatives and may not score well with younger crowd. Antonio can skew younger than his age because he's "youthful looking" and his behavior, less serious and more flashy, plays well in a crowd.
Look at Arnold for a comparison. Ideally you could mix Antonio with Gerry Brown's policy wonkishness.
For better or worse, the "First Latino" factor over an old white guy who was already Gov is big.
Since they're both outspoken in favor against Prop 8 that leaves the conservative vote, but they don't seem to be statistically significant in California.
The Democratic primary election for Governor is a plurality vote; ther is no "run off", so the most votes win.
Based upon present knowledge, the following are potential candidates:
Jerry Brown, Gavin newsome, John Garamendi, Bill Lockyer, Steve Westley and Antonio Villaraigosa.
In that field, 32-35% wins the nomination.
All of the candidates are white, liberal, NOrtherners and share the same base, except for one.
The votes in California are mainly in the South, LA, Orange, San Diego and Riverside Counties. There is a strong Latino component.
Antonio, in that scenario, wins the nomination. If it just Gerry and Antonio, it is obviously different and much closer.
There are a million more Democrats in California than Republicans.
On the Republican side we have Meg Whitman, Varly Fiorina, Tom Campbell and Steve Poizner.
Can you say "GOVERNOR VILLARAIGOSA"?
On the Los Angeles Times Endorsement list, they did not even put that CD1 had a race. They should have put endorse no one but left the district off their list completely. The Daily News did the same.
I guess they didn't want anyone to even know there was a race in District 1.
And, Congratulations to Zuma Dogg. He got more votes than Ed Reyes did.
Ooh my god what a bunch of lame brains. Fact is there is a major movement in Los Angeles against this Mayor and the NO on Measure B crowd proved themselves a winner. National media will crucify him and report all the baggage the local media failed to. All his ties to Florida corrupt money is now coming out, his drug letter on behalf of Vignali will come out again and let's remember Jerry Brown has a HUGE LATINO BASE IN SOUTH CAL. Keep dreaming Ace Smith and Parke. Your guy is doomed because he can't list one accomplishment and LA is in the worst shape in its history thanks to this low life, corrupt Mayor.
ANY other guy would still get at least 20 percent of the vote, 25-30 percent in less one-party areas of the city.
We need to dump Wacko now. Eight is enough! And put up a candidate whose more than "ANY other guy". With any luck, he stays in France and lets us find a candidate that captures the hearts and minds of LA voters and who can WIN!
8:37
Wow, Crazy Susan from Cypress Park is even posting here anonymously.
Well, THAT rings a bell! (HA!!!)
You simply CAN'T compare the votes a candidate received in a city council election in ONE district with a mayoral race that the WHOLE CITY can vote in. PLEASE! Do you expect anyone to take your one-note droning against Reyes seriously where your THIS far off the mark rationally?
That's like saying that the Libertarian Party candidate for president last year (who came in 4th or 5th), got more votes than the guy who was actually ELECTED governor of New Hampshire. Different areas, different size pools of voters.
That apples and oranges, and just plain STOOPID arithmetic.
Take a night-school bonehead math class at the new high school there when it finally opens, Sue. Your posts are getting weirder every day.
WHERE IS YOUR MIND? "ZD" DIDN'T MESS UP THIS CITY IT'S GUYS LIKE TONY V., BRATTON, WEISS AND THAT CORRUPT COUNCIL THERE THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO WIPE THE FLOOR WITH YOUR PAYCHECK!!!! FOCUS ON THE REAL ENEMY!! THEY WARE SUITS IN CITY HALL!!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home