[img]1|left|Ari Noonan||no_popup[/img] Aside from the fact that Scott Malsin is the least noticed top votegetter in an election in years, last week’s races for two City Council seats were pure Culver City.
Risk averse.
Hometown Democrats, understandably, love to boast about the overwhelming domination of Democratic registration. But Culver City Democrats are not the usual brand. They are uncommonly conservative.
Sometimes when I sit in on Culver City Democratic Club meetings and listen to the oldtimers shmoozing, I suspect the revolution can’t be more than a week away.
Wrong. Just talk.
When these same Democrats step into a voting booth, they almost always mark the safer, or traditional, choice — which is how you must label incumbent Councilman Malsin and fresh-faced new Councilman Jeff Cooper.
As the three-month campaign wore on, Mr. Malsin was an obvious choice to be returned to office — because the longer the field was out there, the more emphatically he showed Culver City that he drowned his competition in understanding — and strenuously addressing — the city’s pragmatic issues.
Why He Knows So Much More
Part of the explanation is that Mr. Malsin is a wonk. The gap between him and them is permanent. If we revisit in 15 years, regardless of what happens in the interim, his lead will be at least as wide.
Back in January, however, you would have been challenged to separate second-time contender Mr. Cooper from first-time candidates Meghan Sahli-Wells and Robert Zirgulis, and from Mr. Malsin. They looked so raw and green.
All four of them resembled petrified amateurs at the first Candidates Forum at Temple Akiba in January. As articulate public speakers, they deadlocked for last place.
They actually read what they believe. That still jolts me. You have to know it, if only by rote.
The only votes they could have drawn that night were from relatives or indebted servants.
They were little better a few days later at the Culver City Democratic Club endorsement meeting. They spoke as if they were juggling marbles with their tongues, physically and philosophically.
Speaking in Public
Even if you are green or scared or hopelessly tongue-tangled, you should have memorized your convictions.
Only Mr. Malsin, who had the powerful advantage of incumbency, knew what he stood for and conveyed it, even a little convincingly, to Democrats that night.
In hometown elections, personality almost always trumps philosophy for voters, meaning the surest public speaker should be the winner.
Trouble was, no surefooted candidate ever truly emerged behind Mr. Malsin for the second Council seat.
In the beginning, I was surprised and disappointed at how poorly Mr. Malsin presented himself and his case for re-election. Hadn’t he been giving public speeches most Monday nights for four years?
Except for the stentorian Mr. Zirgulis, Mr. Malsin’s competition was tentative for most of the three months.
At the final Candidates Forum, in Blair Hills, several days before the election, I would have been pressed to tell you, based on that evening, what Mr. Cooper and Ms. Sahli-Wells believed and how they would produce as members of the Council. Both halves of that equation are equally crucial. I am not sure either did much mind-changing.
I found Ms. Sahli-Wells and Mr. Cooper equally congenial and sincere. I suggest Mr. Cooper held the edge at the end because he was better known and he espoused the more conservative convictions, meaning traditional and vague. Some of his advisers had wanted him to be more authoritative, more aggressive about his beliefs. Shrewdly or luckily — who cares which one? — he demurred.
As the most progressive candidate, Ms. Sahli-Wells, entered the race with a distinction that had two edges, one a plus, the other a negative.
She inherited the exceedingly loyal, deeply committed supporters of term-limited Councilman Gary Silbiger — the only enclave of its kind, a substantial advantage over any other candidate, regardless of his beliefs.
The dark side of the enclave has two dimensions — being progressive can be deemed too racy for Culver City (few have been elected), and it can send a message that you have all the support you need.
I believe Ms. Sahli-Wells may have erred in presenting herself as a female candidate, saying the all-male Council needs gender diversity. It doesn’t play here. The only woman I have seen elected in recent times, Carol Gross, ran as one of the boys. I never heard her mention gender.
Culver City is old-fashioned. It has vanilla tastes at the polls. All candidates had dents. But only two of them represented safe choices. I thought Mr. Zirgulis ran a fine campaign, especially the last month and a half. But the radical image that was conveyed in the opening weeks stuck. The other reason he lost was that he promised, or threatened, to create many more waves than either winner. Change is fine, voters often reason, but don’t try to turn City Hall upside down.
