On to the runoff

Yesterday's election here in town drew a 37% turnout of registered voters and put our current mayor into a runoff with the president pro-tem of the City Council. The mayor got 32% to the councillor's 23%, and he was quick to proclaim that the result was a validation of his administration.

Seems that a simple majority would be a much more telling validation, but you really have to put some spin on it to say it's good that 68% of the people who voted wanted anyone other than you. Your friends and supporters don't run against you, so it seems unlikely that a sufficient number of the voters who chose to support any of the other 17 candidates would suddenly swing back.

Another annoyance for the current mayor is that the second place finisher has managed to not only gain the endorsement of The Birmingham News, she has also raised substantially more money. Usually, one of the benefits of incumbency is that it leads to more money flowing it, and it is telling that in this year's contest, that one crucial advantage is missing.

The results of the race four years ago prove that money is not necessarily the thing that wins elections. In that race, the current mayor upset Richard Arrington's handpicked successor William Bell, who in addition to having a tremendous monetary advantage, was also given the benefit of several months of acting mayorship when Arrington stepped down months prior to the election. With Bell's defeat and the earlier defeats of initiatives to sell the Water Works and to pass a $700 million bond referendum to finance a domed stadium, the machine known as the Jefferson County Citizen's Coalition was brought to its knees as an effective political force.

The grassroots effort that led to the ouster of the past administration over frustration about shady deals and personal enrichment and unresponsiveness is like any other group of otherwise disparate people that comes together for a single purpose (such as the one that turned out Gray Davis in California), but for such groups to continue to be a viable force, they must be maintained and nurtured, which has not happened in this election. The wicked witch was killed four years ago, and now the same voters who did it are trying to figure out if anything else worthwhile has been done since then.

One thing that might swing things toward the sitting mayor are the voters who did not turn out yesterday. The 37% turnout is about 20% less than the highest turnout of registered voters the really interesting races get, and if they were all just sitting back to see what happens, they might decide to maintain the status quo.

Unlikely, though.

Opinion polls before the vote yesterday suggested only about a 29-30% preference for the current administration, which is just about the same percentage as he got int the election, so it doesn't seem likely at this time that the ones who didn't vote would be overwhelmingly for the current mayor.

The runoff election is in three weeks, which does leave some time for fundraising and politicking. Up to now, the campaign has been low-key all around, but given the history around here, it will turn dirty pretty quick now that the targets are clear. Right now, it looks like the city might be close to electing its first female mayor, but three weeks is a long time and a lot could change.

It'll probably be pretty interesting to watch.
posted by Terry at 8:51:00 AM