[Editor’s Note: Political consultant Steve Barkan of SG&A Campaigns has just completed his analysis of the race for the single opening on the County Board of Supervisors.]
State Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-Culver City) completed his year-long, come-from-behind victory by
blowing out Bernard Parks 62 percent-38 percent in the Nov. 4 race for the seat on the County Board of Supervisors vacated by the retirement of 76-year-old Yvonne Brathwaite Burke.
One year ago, most polls had Mr. Ridley-Thomas 20 points behind Mr. Parks.
Mr. Ridley-Thomas’ support grew as Mr. Parks hit his ceiling
But after finishing the primary election with a 45 percent-39 percent lead, Mr. Ridley-Thomas grew his support rate by 17 percent while Mr. Parks’ rate support dropped one point in the November election.
Victory in the Backyard
Even though Mr. Ridley-Thomas has not been the 8th District Council representative for six years –
and even though Mr. Parks has represented the district for those six years since — the Senator beat the
Councilmember by a 59 percent-41 percent rate in Mr. Parks’ own 8th Council District. He beat him in the southern end of the district, the City of Carson, 60 percent-40 percent. He beat him on the Westside and the north end of the district, with margins of 64 percent-36 percent in L.A. Council District 11 (Bill Rosendahl), 65 percent-35 percent in
L.A. Council District 5 (Jack Weiss Weiss), and 65 percent-35 percent in Culver City (which the Senator won in the June primary 56 to 31 percent).
And Mr. Ridley-Thomas dominated in
Latino areas of the district as well, with margins of 72 percent-28 percent in Lynwood, and 68 percent-32 percent in L.A. Council District 1 (Ed Reyes).
Targeting New Voters
Entering the runoff election, polling in August revealed that Mr. Ridley-Thomas led Mr. Parks by 13 percent
among the most likely voters. However, among those who were likely to vote in the
November election, Mr. Parks and Mr. Ridley-Thomas were in a near dead heat.
That’s why the Ridley-Thomas campaign focused on voters who did not vote in the primary, but
who were likely to vote in November. This was no small task because the general election attracted three times as many voters in this race as the June primary.
So there were hundreds of
thousands of voters to persuade. More than 39,000 2nd District voters registered between Oct.
1 and the 15-day new registration cutoff before the election. Mr. Parks started out being significantly better known among these voters.
So why did these voters break so heavily for Mr. Ridley-Thomas? While he held his own among
older and middle-aged voters, Mr. Ridley-Thomas dominated Mr. Parks among the younger voters and
new voters who came out to vote for change. These voters were a disproportionately large part of
the voters who turned out for the November election but not the June or even February elections.
Change vs. the Status Quo
All polling reflected that voters of all ages saw Mr. Ridley-Thomas as the candidate who would bring
change, and as part of the next generation of leaders. While Mr. Parks had what used to be the
dominant endorsements in the African-American community – including U.S. Rep.
Maxine Waters and the incumbent Burke – voters instead wanted a change in representation.
They were not swayed by Mr. Parks’ endorsers. Mr. Parks – with the support of a majority of the Board of Supervisors – clearly represented the status quo to voters. This is not the right year to be positioned that way, especially with the failure and closure of King-Harbor Hospital
on their watch.
Mr. Parks worsened his problems by defending the status quo at King-Harbor at a time when it was delivering inadequate care to the community, in contrast to Mr. Ridley-Thomas who has been at the forefront in the fight for change at the hospital for some time.
What Was Appealing
The voters found Mr. Ridley-Thomas’ background as a grassroots community organizer who works
for change and delivers results to be much more relevant and important.
The fact that Mr. Ridley-Thomas is a legislator who approaches his job as an organizer was a very appealing feature for all voters, but especially new voters.
Mr. Parks’ tactic of running a 100 percent negative campaign also backfired. His attacks (and the
Independent Expenditure attacks) on Mr. Ridley-Thomas on economic development were just not
credible in contrast to Mr. Ridley-Thomas’ well-publicized accomplishments.
And Mr. Parks focused a
great deal of his resources attacking Ridley-Thomas’ supporters, especially union workers. This also proved to be a grave mistake for two reasons:
1) This district includes thousands and
thousands of union and other blue-collar workers; and
2) Even non-union and white collar
workers, retirees and homemakers think highly of working families and unions.
In the end, polling revealed that voters realized that Mr. Parks is not who they thought he was. They had a much better alternative by voting for a candidate who fights for change and
delivers results, and a candidate who represents the next generation of leadership.
