One week after finishing sixth in a seven-way race for three City Council seats, Marcus Tiggs is sorting through the rubble, unsure exactly what went wrong.
He is about to assemble his campaign team.
Poring over sheets and ideas, they will analyze what should be changed if there is a next time, and what may have been beyond their control this time.
“I am not going to be presumptuous and say we couldn’t have done something different,” said Mr. Tiggs. “Maybe we could have emphasized Fox Hills more.
“Quite honestly, though, we ran a very, very good campaign.”
Here is a change Mr. Tiggs may make for the 2018 race when Councilmen Jeff Cooper and Jim Clarke will be term-limited.
He took a primary page from the playbook of progressives who captured two of the three seats, and didn’t miss a sweep by much.
“Unless one is aligned with some sort of core group that can amass its members to vote a certain way,” said Mr. Tiggs, “one is at a very big disadvantage.”
The Wilshire Boulevard bankruptcy attorney is not certain where to begin.
Mr. Tiggs prefaced his remarks with a qualifier:
“If I am going to run in two years, I have to figure this thing out.
“I don’t want to say ‘this is what troubles me’ but rather ‘this is what I find so interesting,’” said Mr. Tiggs.
“In the past, the electorate looked at your C.V., they looked at how long you have been in the city, they looked at what you have done, how long you have been active in the community.”
A perplexed expression raced across Mr. Tiggs’s face.
“I don’t think they look at those factors anymore,” he said. “I don’t think that’s a condition precedent. I don’t know what it is, what voters consider.”
Following a widely established tradition in small communities, at every outing Mr. Tiggs – and his rivals – underlined for audiences how long they have been Culver City residents, and for how long they have not just been soldiers for the community but authentic leaders.
But Mr. Tiggs’s impressive accomplishments, buffeted by a lengthy military career, did not persuade voters.
(To be continued)
I think Mr. Tiggs can be a strong candidate next time. I was impressed with his credentials – particularly his strong record of community service in Culver City. I did feel his campaign statements were vague, and would like to see more concrete specifics in future. What does “keeping Culver City’s ‘essence’ mean, specifically, in terms of traffic mitigation, affordable housing vs. density, mansionization remediation, transit-oriented development, etc.? I wanted to see more specifics on the stand he would take on these and other key issues. He seems like a knowledgeable and committed community member who needs to clearly delineate what he is for, what he is against, and what he proposes.
Let me say that Mr. Tiggs is a good, honorable man with great credentials. But he lost his election bid for the following reasons: His only message to the voters is being a self proclaimed expert in the city budget. Sorry to say it, but this does not resonate with the voters. If you listen to Marcus and read his literature, you will notice that he is loaded with negativity. In the article, for example, he stated, “I am not going to be…” …we couldn’t have…” “…a very big disadvantage…””I don’t think they…”want””I don’t think that””I don’t know what..” Did Marcus have a non-trite vision of Culver City? Did he ever respond to voter’s emails?