So LA folks,
Tell us about the recent reelection of Mayor Villaraigosa. Did you vote for him? Who was running against him? Were they viable? What were the issues?
An informed discussion about politics.
Hosted by a mathematician, a lawyer, and a political scientist.
Bell Curve | The Law Talking Guy | Raised by Republicans | U.S. West | ||||||||||
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son." |
So LA folks,
Posted by Raised By Republicans at 4:16 AM
6 comments:
It was a non-election. Nine nobodies were running against him in a basically uncontesed race.
Why was it uncontested? Is Villaraigosa so wildly popular that no one thought they could beat him?
To answer your question, RbR, no--Villaraigosa is reasonably popular but certainly not wildly popular. But he had a big war chest and apparently no up-and-comers felt there was any realistic chance he could be beaten. Unlike past races, no rich outsiders (e.g. Riordan) threw their own hats into the ring... Perhaps that's because, facing a billion dollar shortfall in the city budget (!) means the mayor is not going to make any friends over the next few years...
Lack of interest created an extremely low turnout and severely shortened his coattails. Measure B, a solar initiative that was strongly backed by the mayor was defeated by a slim margin. This probably owing to the LA Times recommendation to vote against the measure. I think this could have been overcome had there been more interest or the race not been viewed at a fait accompli.
Rolleroid
What rational person wants the job of being mayor now, anyway? All you get to do is cut jobs and budgets. No goodies to give out.
I think LTG has a point. If you want the mayoralty of LA to be a springboard to higher office, you need the job to be one where you make people happy. Cutting budgets won't make you the hero very easily.
Post a Comment