by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 7, 2001
All Rights Reserved.

nable to counterpunch, mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa lost his bid for mayor, failing to defend himself against mayor elect Jim Hahn’s effective negative publicity blitz. Taking it on the chin, Villaraigosa had no answer for Hahn’s TV attack ad or direct mail campaign highlighting his controversial voting record in the State Assembly. Painting the former Assembly Speaker as soft on crime, Hahn played a smart hand. Depicting Villaraigosa as too liberal for moderate and conservative suburbanites in the San Fernando Valley, Hahn won the lion’s share of Soboroff’s and Wach’s critical votes. Despite his liberal credentials, Hahn cleverly appeared as the ‘family values’ candidate, pushing, if nothing else, the perception that his opponent was too far on the left. Compared with Villaraigosa, Hahn looked like a conservative Republican. Even mayor Riordan’s key endorsement didn’t change too many minds.

       Demonstrating fierce independence, LA’s voters weren’t impressed by Villaraigosa’s extraordinary endorsements by the Los Angeles Times, Gov. Gray Davis, Mayor Richard Riordan, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, billionaires Ron Burkle and Eli Broad, the California Democratic Party, County Federation of Labor, and a host of other prestigious lobbying groups. By endorsements alone, Villaraigosa should have had a cake walk, but wound up falling 8% short. While some blame race, many factors sabotaged Villaraigosa’s bid for mayor—but none greater than himself. Sure, Hahn was a pre-sold item—the scion of one of LA’s best-known political families—but his bland personality left him vulnerable to a dynamic opponent. Out on the stump, Villaraigosa maintained an exciting aura, but once confronted with face-to-face debating, voters got a different picture of the otherwise well-packaged candidate. “I’m real and people like that,” remarked Hahn after winning the election, suggesting that his opponent was more sizzle than substance.

       Neither Hahn nor Villaraigosa tackled controversial issues confronting the nation’s second largest city. Playing it safe was a good strategy for Hahn who could fall back on his 24-year-old record of public service, but not for the former Assembly Speaker with a weak record in Los Angeles. Failing to take a strong stand on key issues, Villaraigosa didn’t give undecided voters enough reason to take a risk. Walking a tight rope, he believed that voters would opt for media buzz over the quiet banality of administrative experience. “I put everything I had into this race,” said Villaraigosa, expressing appropriate disappointment and exasperation after the election. But why didn’t Villaraigosa boldly lay out a program for LA’s future? Just outlining a simple plan for improving life in LA might have done the trick. Forced to choose between only charisma and name recognition, he was bound to come up short. As the debates wore on, it became abundantly clear that neither candidate had some dramatic plan to overhaul Los Angeles. Even without a strong LA resume, Villaraigosa still could have portrayed himself as an energetic reformer, whose mission was more than simply “bringing people together.”

       Saturation exposure during the 6 debates didn’t help Villaraigosa’s image. Especially the last one where he looked unnerved and overly confrontational, calling his opponent “Jimmy” while whining about attack ads. It also didn’t help that the LA Times ran several articles exposing his days as an “angry youth,” especially the last piece dredging up a barroom brawl in which he was arrested and tried for assault with a deadly weapon. This wasn’t the kind of publicity he needed to twist the arms of undecided voters. Six debates showed that Villaraigosa had no special plan to salvage a city filled with trash and disenfranchised souls. Reluctant to steal the thunder, he failed to tackle LA’s most disturbing problems, including the plague of homelessness and panhandling, dangerous neighborhood street gangs, intolerable police corruption, absence of NFL football and a state-of-the-art stadium, abysmal transportation and traffic congestion and a litany of other issues. Without rolling out a plan or selling a more utopian vision of LA, Villaraigosa missed a golden opportunity. It’s easy to blame defeat on race or failing to galvanize your own base, but undecided voters badly wanted to identify with the candidate who promised the best fix.

       Hahn drew moderate and conservative voters not because of race but precisely because they saw no better plan. Eight years of Riordan didn’t clean the lean-tos and trash out of skid row, nor did it return pro football to Los Angeles. LA still has a downtown corridor with great potential but lagging far behind other great metropolitan areas. Creating development zones, building affordable housing, and putting skid row residents to work cleaning trash off the streets would have been a step in the right direction. No, LA residents heard how Villaraigosa wanted to “bring people together,” but not about specific plans for tackling LA’s most pressing problems. Had conservative voters gleaned substance from his campaign, they would stepped out of the box and followed his lead. After all, why shouldn’t they? He had ‘the look,’ the energy, the right words, and certainly the endorsements. Without concrete direction, undecided moderates and conservatives simply fell back on what seemed like the safest bet: ‘It’s not the devil you know, it’s the devil you don’t know.’ Hahn became the safe play for voters wanting to make a change but not sold by Villaraigosa’s pitch.

       Jim Hahn had every right to attack Villaraigosa’s credibility, especially about the letter he denied writing on behalf of convicted cocaine smuggler Carlos Vignali. When Hahn’s ad ended with “LA can’t trust Antonio Villaraigosa,” Villarraigosa needed to forcefully challenge Hahn’s assertions. Complaining and crying foul didn’t undo the damage—instead it made him look defensive and inarticulate. Confronted in the final debate, Villaraigosa didn’t take the high road, he ducked the question and offered nothing to get him off the hook. Without counterpunching, he looked guilty as charged and hurt his credibility with undecided voters. Had Villaraigosa responded forcefully or offered an irresistible plan, Hahn’s attacks would have fallen on deaf ears. Judging by Tuesday’s outcome, swing voters weren’t too impressed with his proposals or answers to Hahn’s attacks. Blaming his misfortune on race—or any other extraneous factor—won’t help his chances next time around should he choose to get back into the ring. Ethnicity aside, voters still need to be sold a better bill of goods.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He’s director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in political consulting and strategic public relations. He’s the author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.