U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: WHO WILL YOU VOTE FOR LA MAYOR?
Antonio Villaraigosa 14 30.43%
Walter Moore 23 50.00%
Other 9 19.57%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-04-2009, 08:43 PM
 
Location: City of Angels
1,288 posts, read 4,582,043 times
Reputation: 661

Advertisements

A 26 percent showing for Moore actually isn't bad for a lackluster, underfunded campaign. He had minimal media exposure and was outspent by Villaraigosa 15-1.

Moore actually could have won if he had better organizational, fundraising, and networking skills. With such low voter turnout this would have been an opportune time to pull off a major upset or at least a runoff like Trutanich did for city attorney. But Moore chose a go-it-alone, anti-establishment, outsider campaign approach which doesn't work in a big media market, big money town like LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2009, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
1,636 posts, read 2,900,859 times
Reputation: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Phingerbyngur View Post
The reason CD skews support for Moore upward is that most supporters of ex-gangbanger, wife-cheating, four time bar exam flunky Tony Villar would rather do things other than discuss politics on an internet forum, such as watch television, listen to music, sit on their front porch and drink booze, etc.
Or vote?

Maybe the Moore suppporters or Villaraigosa haters were too busy discussing politics on internet forums rather than actually going out to vote..? Yeah, that had to be it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 10:19 PM
 
636 posts, read 2,369,547 times
Reputation: 252
Voting place was empty. I was the ONLY one voting. When they turned to the page with my name on it, there was no signatures on it... .and this was 7pm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 11:22 AM
 
Location: SoCal - Sherman Oaks & Woodland Hills
12,977 posts, read 28,838,551 times
Reputation: 10491
I kinda figured that there would be an "ignorant vote" - which is those who voted for Moore solely because they do not like Villaraigosa. Not because of Moore's record, or his stance on the issues, or even because they think he would be better for Los Angeles, (some) people voted for him simply because he is not Villaraigosa which is a shame really. You should not vote for one guy simply because you do not like the other guy.

Moore simply is not ready to be Mayor of Los Angeles. Maybe he should try some small city first to get some experience. He'd end up making Mayor Hahn (who was terrible) look like a genius.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:08 PM
 
Location: 90291
23 posts, read 33,114 times
Reputation: 18
Default Ignorant voter

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBeez View Post
I kinda figured that there would be an "ignorant vote" - which is those who voted for Moore solely because they do not like Villaraigosa. Not because of Moore's record, or his stance on the issues, or even because they think he would be better for Los Angeles, (some) people voted for him simply because he is not Villaraigosa which is a shame really. You should not vote for one guy simply because you do not like the other guy.

Moore simply is not ready to be Mayor of Los Angeles. Maybe he should try some small city first to get some experience. He'd end up making Mayor Hahn (who was terrible) look like a genius.
Ignorant vote? I stated why I voted for Moore. But I've yet to see why you are so supportive of Villaraigosa.

Moore's biggest sin is being a citizen who wanted to make a difference. He's not a career politician. Career politicians have sold this city out. The ignorant voter is the one who likes the guy who works at getting his face splattered all over the country, and who wanted to run for governor next. Yeah, $3million in the pot to win the vote, against Moore's pathetic $200,000. And where did that 3 mil come from, do ya think? Special interests like developers. Finally, it got him a puny 55% of the vote.

But Tony is not laughing so hard about his win. If you can read you might want to check out the L.A. Times today:

"Did Villaraigosa's margin of victory hurt gubernatorial ambitions?"

In the Daily News: "Voters reject City Hall's politics-as-usual"

In the San Francisco Chronicle: "Re-election showing raises questions for Villaraigosa"

Then tell us again about who the ignorant voters were.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:19 PM
 
Location: los angeles
5,031 posts, read 11,064,791 times
Reputation: 1477
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBeez View Post
I kinda figured that there would be an "ignorant vote" - which is those who voted for Moore solely because they do not like Villaraigosa. Not because of Moore's record, or his stance on the issues, or even because they think he would be better for Los Angeles, (some) people voted for him simply because he is not Villaraigosa which is a shame really. You should not vote for one guy simply because you do not like the other guy.

Moore simply is not ready to be Mayor of Los Angeles. Maybe he should try some small city first to get some experience. He'd end up making Mayor Hahn (who was terrible) look like a genius.
The practicality of a Republican mayor in Los Angeles is laughable. Moore would have no allies ex 1 supporter on 15-seat city council a fish totally out of water. Agree that Moore is basically OK but better suited to cities like Anaheim\ San Luis Obispo\ Modesto

This commentary in today's paper points out how difficult California has become for Republicans: Only one Republican [Bono-Palm Springs] voted for Obama's stimulus package yet all GOP congress people from CAL put "pork" into their districts.

As the GOP stands firm, California is changing direction - Los Angeles Times
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,449 posts, read 22,993,272 times
Reputation: 7246
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBeez View Post
I kinda figured that there would be an "ignorant vote" - which is those who voted for Moore solely because they do not like Villaraigosa. Not because of Moore's record, or his stance on the issues, or even because they think he would be better for Los Angeles, (some) people voted for him simply because he is not Villaraigosa which is a shame really. You should not vote for one guy simply because you do not like the other guy.

Moore simply is not ready to be Mayor of Los Angeles. Maybe he should try some small city first to get some experience. He'd end up making Mayor Hahn (who was terrible) look like a genius.
Some of Moore's stances which came across as anti-Latino would deeply limit the areas of L.A. County in which he could run. I have no evidence that Moore's personally prejudiced - I think he's more out to lunch than prejudiced per se- but certainly many of his diehard supporters are. He'd be limited to running in the "white bastions" like Malibu, Santa Monica, El Segundo, the South Bay Beach Cities, and Palos Verdes. (The other west side independent cities would be "too diverse" for him, even including Beverly Hills.) Considering the inept nature of Santa Monica's notorious "old boys' network" and popular discontent with it, he MIGHT have a chance there. The electorate in the South Bay cities seems rather content with their leadership and probably wouldn't want to choose an outsider.

And yes, he'd be a bigger disaster than Hahn as mayor. He might've done better running for a different office than Mayor - like perhaps City Attorney or the CA State Legislature.

As for those who voted for Moore because he wasn't Tony - did any of them realize that there were other choices to vote for, like Zuma Dogg (whose campaign seemed to be political pranksterdom like Jello Biafra's campaigns for SF mayor, or Francis Della Vecchia's campaign for LA mayor in 2001) or David Hernandez? In retrospect I stand by my view that Tony should have agreed to debates as that would've meant even less support for Moore.

In retrospect, I stand by my assessment that there should have been a debate between all the candidates
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,449 posts, read 22,993,272 times
Reputation: 7246
Quote:
Originally Posted by LALady View Post
Voting place was empty. I was the ONLY one voting. When they turned to the page with my name on it, there was no signatures on it... .and this was 7pm.
The Westside really decided the election. That's where most of the turnout was, due to the 5th District election. My mom's in Rosendahl's district, not the district Weiss vacated, but apparently the enthusiasm to go out and vote spread at least slightly west of the 405. And given Tony's close ties to LA's Jewish community and the weakness of his opponents, it's no surprise he won. Moore might've done better if there had been a contested city council election in the West Valley, but even L.A.'s most "conservative" region has enough Jews that Tony would've prevailed.

For Moore to have dethroned Tony, the Latino and Jewish populations of L.A. would have to decrease massively, and the population of heterosexual women in L.A. would have to also decrease even more than it has.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:37 PM
 
Location: los angeles
5,031 posts, read 11,064,791 times
Reputation: 1477
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinThyme View Post
Ignorant vote? I stated why I voted for Moore. But I've yet to see why you are so supportive of Villaraigosa.

Moore's biggest sin is being a citizen who wanted to make a difference. He's not a career politician. Career politicians have sold this city out. The ignorant voter is the one who likes the guy who works at getting his face splattered all over the country, and who wanted to run for governor next. Yeah, $3million in the pot to win the vote, against Moore's pathetic $200,000. And where did that 3 mil come from, do ya think? Special interests like developers. Finally, it got him a puny 55% of the vote.

But Tony is not laughing so hard about his win. If you can read you might want to check out the L.A. Times today:

"Did Villaraigosa's margin of victory hurt gubernatorial ambitions?"

In the Daily News: "Voters reject City Hall's politics-as-usual"

In the San Francisco Chronicle: "Re-election showing raises questions for Villaraigosa"

Then tell us again about who the ignorant voters were.
The issue is Republicans have no chance in LA unless the GOP funds a campaign. DaBeez's comment points out that Los Angeles is only 26% Republican & comparable to a handful of Leftist splitter parties. There aren't enough people willing to fund & vote Republican here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,449 posts, read 22,993,272 times
Reputation: 7246
Quote:
Originally Posted by happ View Post
The issue is Republicans have no chance in LA unless the GOP funds a campaign. DaBeez's comment points out that Los Angeles is only 26% Republican & comparable to a handful of Leftist splitter parties. There aren't enough people willing to fund & vote Republican here.
Also, any Republican who wins an election in L.A. has to be a socially liberal moderate like a Riordan or an Arnold. Also, Riordan before running for mayor was one of the wealthiest and most prominent attorneys in Los Angeles who had been involved as a political player for years. The entire legal community and business community in Los Angeles knew who he was , and he had been heavily active in philanthropy in addition to his prominence as a lawyer. Riordan also put together the same Latino/Jewish coalition that would later get behind Tony (and which would eventually result in Tony winning in every demographic in 2005, and presumably this year as well) and endorsed Tony in 2001 and 2005. (Not sure about this year - I think Riordan's pretty much withdrawn from active political participation.)

Riordan's views were mainstream in L.A. - Moore's views would be out of the mainstream virtually anywhere in California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top